Freedom of speech is a really tough thing. It requires us to provide enough bandwidth for those that we not only disagree with, but also those on the fringe who are outright offensive. However, public morality and conscience tell us that this freedom, like other freedoms, is not completely unfettered. There are contexts in which “freedom of speech” may not apply or at least not fully — especially when it touches on morality, privacy, or security. You can’t yell “fire” in a theater. You can’t hold a public protest on private property without permission. You can’t solicit people who wish not to be solicited. You can’t threaten someone. You can’t invade privacy. You can’t libel or slander. And you can’t be morally repugnant, at least not publicly. In the last category, that doesn’t mean that you have no right to say or express what you want, but it does limit the contexts in which you have that right.

Russia, Flynn, Comey, Mueller…just a few of the names in the latest string of political concerns for the President and for our country. Even before the recent media onslaught over whether classified information was shared with Russia, there has been contempt and indignation over the elections, appointments, interactions, and policy decisions not only of Donald Trump but other political leaders. Certainly Trump and others have given the media and the public many reasons for that contempt and indignation. But I would also argue that part of the responses to many of these political figures is less about what they do and more about what they represent. Where political leaders fall on the political spectrum affects how certain segments receive their actions or inactions. And, as politics has become increasingly polarized and divisive, political perspectives have brought politicians, the media, and the public to logger heads.