The Problem With Free Speech

Abraham Lincoln supposedly once said, "It is better to remain silent an be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

The line of duty death of Ed Stringer and Corey Ankum has triggered much discussion.  The central question has come back to "should they have been in that building?"  I've spoken my mind already in my post, "We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident".   The issue though has raised a host of opinions. 

The blog-o-sphere has been alive with heated rhetoric and some foolish statements.  I am sure that ten years from now when I go back and read some of what I wrote at the start of this new year I will find foolish errors.  That's okay.  The joy of this country is that we get to make fools of ourselves... it's one of our inalienable rights.  I had some problems with my host site this morning and I lost about 7 posts, including the one I posted last night.  A good friend emailed me the blog and I re-read it as I was putting it back in.  I was just as guilty of over reacting as some of the folks I was inditing for their words.  Hello Kettle....

I do think there are some points I want to pull out of that post though.

On Christmas Day John Murphy posted "Another Abandoned Building Takes More Firefighter Lives" on Fire Engineering's Forums.  He compared homeless people to rats, "Here is a fact –homeless scatter like rats when the buildings start on fire meeting their own primal need of survival."  Robert Avsec posted a blog on Fire Chief magazine's forums some days later in which he said that the Chicago Fire Department had behaved wrongly in entering the building on East 75th Street.  I can't quote the man because after getting dozens of livid comments (including one from me) Fire Chief pulled the posting from their site.

Today though I see that Janet Wilmoth, Editor of Fire Chief, posted a commentary on the 6th of January regarding the editorial decision to pull Mr. Avsec's piece because, "It's Too Soon For Hard Questions In Chicago." In her Editorial comment Ms. Wilmoth says, "...who hears about fires in an abandoned building and doesn’t wonder about the rest of the story? We all do, but who decides whether vagrants are worth looking for in a burning building?"

I jumped on Ms. Wilmoth's comment as a statement that she was implying that vagrants, that the homeless, might not be worth searching for.  As I read the comment again I don't think I am too far off.  If that wasn't Ms. Wilmoth's intent it was a poorly written sentence.  I seriously doubt that Ms. Wilmoth would have had  questioned if we should be searching for people because of their race, gender, religion, or because of a handicap. 

That's the trouble with words.  There are so many inferences that can be drawn from a vague or imprecise statement.  I called out the vagaries in the 16 Life Safety Initiatives here. We must strive to give precision to our words, strive to be explicit in our meanings, and strive to be clear in our meanings.  I've put my foot in my mouth before, and I expect that the day will come when I have the taste of shoe leather on my palate again.  Until then, thanks for all the comments, emails, and visits.