Carly has a great post over at “Ellipsis…Suddenly Carly” about the difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression.

Her post references a news article from “AOL News” about a Tampa woman who is the wife of a soldier serving in Iraq. He sent her a cardboard sign that reads, “Support Our Troops” and she put it on display in her front yard. That, in and of itself, doesn’t sound like a punishable offense.

Unfortunately, her homeowner’s association forbids signs of any kind in that neighborhood and it has threatened her with fines. She says she couldn’t believe that they would fine her for it, but she added that she was ready to pay.

A compromised was reached allowing her to keep the sign up and face a much lower fine while it is up, but the association stands behind its policy, which is designed to keep the neighborhood free of clutter.

According to the attached poll, 81% of people who read the article and took a poll feel that the homeowner’s association was wrong to fine her over the sign. (Count me in the other 19%.) What if a neighbor across the street puts up a sign about how wrong the war is? Is that equally okay, particularly when both parties agreed in advance to obey the rule about signs to begin with? If everyone in the neighborhood gets to put up their own sign about their feelings on the war, do they still have a clutter-free neighborhood?

It’s not about whether the message on her sign was pro-war or anti-war; I do still believe that it’s possible to support our troops without necessarily being a supporter of the action in which they’re required to participate. It seems to me that if you don’t support the war and you don’t support the troops, you would be happy every time you hear a news report about our troops suffering more losses. No matter how you feel about the war, I would think that most people would be hopeful that our troops will be able to accomplish good things for Iraq’s citizens and leave things in a far better condition than they found them. (A little idealistic, yes, but isn’t that what supporting troops in an unpopular action is all about?)

But the woman in Tampa adds this:

“If they’re gonna try to give us more than a thousand-dollar fine, there’s enough people out there that are willing to help me out.”

Carly asks if it’s okay to break the rules if you can find the right group of people to say it’s okay and then pay the way. I don’t think it is at all.

If someone wants to break a rule she agreed not to break because she feels strongly enough about a particular issue, whatever it is, she shouldn’t expect others to step in and pay for her actions. If she’s not willing to put her money where her sign is, why should she expect others to do so? As soon as she starts putting a dollar value on her free speech, she’s cheapening its value. Why not take down the sign and become an activist in her community, organizing drives to build care packages for the troops, for example? She could show her support for the troops in plenty of other ways without breaking someone else’s rule, and expecting others to pay for her mistakes.

Celebrities in the past who have spoken out against the war or against the president have faced repercussions. The Dixie Chicks, in particular, found out that speaking out against the president hit them in their pocketbooks, because radio stations across the country caved in amid demands from listeners that their music be pulled from the airwaves. The performers had every right to speak out with whatever political message they wanted to deliver. But their fans had every right to stop listening if they were so offended by that message. Is it unfair? Not at all, because those who oppose the war — and surveys show that this position is in the majority — have the same right not to patronize celebrities that openly support it. That doesn’t mean that those in the public eye have to remain silent, but they should be prepared to deal with angry fans if they take an unpopular position. (And if their position is so important to them, I should think that angering fans who disagree would be of little concern, anyway.)

Cindy Sheehan and the wife of a Republican lawmaker were recently escorted out of the Congress gallery for wearing t-shirts with opposing points of view about the war. It turned out that there was no rule preventing either woman from doing so, even if decorum might have suggested that they dress a little more formally. They paid consequences they shouldn’t have had to pay because they broke no rules.

George Clooney has, in previous interviews, suggested that Democrats are partly to blame for the war in Iraq because they failed to exercise their right of free speech sooner out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic. What’s better? To speak out loudly enough against the war to change people’s minds before things escalate and be labeled unpatriotic, or say too little, allow the war to go on, and then face the current dilemma of a costly war with no end in sight? The Republicans will always claim that Democrats are unpatriotic, so what would have been new there? What would they have really had to lose, considering how much they might have gained? There were still no real rules broken if lawmakers who opposed the war didn’t make their case loudly enough, but perhaps it could be argued that there was more of a moral duty for them to have done so. Hindsight, of course, is always perfect.

The question is, who’s more patriotic? The person who blindly follows whatever the administration says, or the person who is at least willing to question what he hears when something doesn’t make sense? By now, surely we all know the answer to that!

Living in a country that emphasizes freedom to the extent that ours does sometimes gives people the false sense of security when it comes to skewering their fellow citizens while operating under the assumption that there are no consequences for saying whatever you want: as long as you’re speaking your mind, there will never be fallout.

That’s not realistic at all.

Sometimes, like those celebrities who have seen their careers temporarily stymied over speaking out, the results of exercising your right to free speech are obvious. Sometimes, it’s more subtle, like those cases in which people feel that they’re running off friends because they speak their mind. No matter how severe the consequences seem to be, if you’re willing to run the risk, if you think speaking out in whatever manner you have previously chosen to is really worth what it keeps costing you, then why complain about those consequences?

On my dad’s side of the family, there was a tendency to speak politely and exchange endless pleasantries in the parlor, then move on to the dining room where loud, agressive arguments would always accompany dinner. It didn’t matter what the subject of the argument was; it was as if the most important thing was that there was an argument about something while we were trying to eat. That kind of behavior doesn’t encourage that many return visits to their table, but as the number of returning dinner guests dwindled, those “spirited discussions” always continued. If they ever put two and two together, they didn’t seem to care. But they never complained about people never accepting invites.

Don’t whine about how many sales or how many subscribers or how much money or how many friends speaking out your way costs you when history has shown you again and again what it will cost. Either your position and your method of presenting it is right or they’re not: either pay the price or rethink your strategy. That should be common sense!

Don’t play the victim to me over the fact that people have turned on you because of what you do or don’t believe. If I disagree with you, it’s because I think you’re wrong, not because I’m trying to make sure you lose some kind of non-existent popularity contest. On the other hand, if I agree with you on your position, then telling me what you’ve had to suffer because of those who don’t agree doesn’t accomplish anything, either, because I can no more control their reactions than you can. You’re wasting everyone’s time, most of all you’re own.

Only those who are blind to the fact that they might be wrong or that there might be a more diplomatic way to get their point across effectively will behave however they wish, constantly complain about the effects of that behavior or expect others to rush to their defense, and never bother to examine whether their own actions might have caused the whole mess to begin with.

When you speak your mind however you wish and everyone seems to turn on you…sometimes the problem is you, not them!