I demand to speak!

No! You have no rights!

I do! I will not yield!

Lech Walzynski, the young and dashing dissident, glares at the agents. Lech's hand is clenched into a fist as he shakes it in the air saying, "Siberia itself will be forced to obey me!" Lech's voice rang out, The Liberator he was called, and his sole desire was for an entire continent to be free from the dark veil of an absolute monarchy.

"Drag him away!" the Queen scoffed, as the Liberator was thrown into the train for the gulag.

"Rights come from me, not from your silly books," the queen said as she tossed back a long strand of red hair.

Now, this scene is not actually in the formal copy of "The Insurrectionists," a novel I wrote, but it might as well be.

Walzynski, a character of mine, believed strongly in the Enlightenment philosophy that rights are inane within us and come from nature.

Leninska, the queen, believed that she was there by divine will and that rights came from her as the feet of God on earth.

Two totally different views, two views that people still believe today.

So this is the first part in a series on where rights come from- do they come naturally from within us? Or are they created by the government? Is there a yearning to be free that transcends all cultural barriers- or are rights something that the government and our society lead us to believe in?

Come along Citizen. You may think this sounds like a totally boring and scholarly topic but it's quite interesting. I hope that this article will be lighthearted enough to make even non-government majors enjoy and understand the concept of human rights. Where do rights begin? Where do rights end? Do I have the right to hurt an innocent person?

The first right we shall glance into today is freedom of speech.

So let me start off by saying yes you have a right to say anything- but no this does not spare you from the consequences of saying something rude or stupid.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful tool, but it can also expose us to some of the worst of humanity. As Charles Dickens would say, "the best of times and the worst of times" but in the long run it is amazing we have it because even if somebody is saying something awful, we know what those views are and why they are wrong.

Freedom of speech can be used very positively to criticize harmful governmental policies, express our religious and political beliefs, and to say how we feel.

Freedom of speech can also be used for harm. As with all rights, this is a very powerful one that we should handle with care. The government should not restrict it unless you are infringing on the rights of another human being to live. Life is the most valuable human right, and from which all other rights stem from. Freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech form the foundation of human rights. Freedom of speech is the outpouring of freedom of thought, but as we know we can't say everything we think! We need the wisdom to know the proper thing to say at the proper time. This is something that we learn from experience and virtue.

Now for harmful forms of freedom of speech.

Let's say Oszukać (literally means "deceive") decides he is going to start a fake news story about how the country of Italy is committing atrocious human rights violations and killing all baby boys! It is horrible and the story goes viral instantly.

Does this mean Oszukać has "freedom of speech" for intentionally spreading lies? (This isn't referring to satire, this is intentional deception and fake news).

Yes, he has the freedom to do it but that doesn't spare him from consequences. In this case, he could be fined for intentional lying and deceit with the intent to harm, "let's go to war with Italy!"

Let's say somebody is an actual Nazi and is saying that a certain group of people is not human. Believe me, I'm going to say that person is wrong. All humans are created equal and have rights granted to them by God. No group of people is "less human" or "less developed" than another. The Nazi will hopefully face consequences for saying such a terrible statement.

If a high school girl named Sarah purposely spreads a false rumor about a girl named Anna with an intent to harm Anna's reputation- that is liberal, and yes she should face a consequence.

That is something about freedom of speech that many do not understand; we have a right to say something but if we are saying something awful or purposely deceptive- we also have to deal with the consequences of it.

If so many people can misuse freedom of speech- why do we need it? Can't we just silent all the stupid and awful people who say terrible, atrocious things?

No Citizen, the government cannot do that. If somebody's speech is intentionally threatening to harm somebody, the government can step in because somebody is harming another person. But an example of not threatening would be if you are saying, "I think President John is terrible! His views will mess up America!" You have a right to say that. Freedom of speech also includes the freedom to criticize and the freedom to disagree. Without this freedom of expressing oneself, where would we be?

Don't I have the freedom to say I oppose President Trump's policies? Does the girl down the street have the freedom to say, "I'm a Muslim!" just as much as I have the freedom to say "I'm a Christian!"?

Yes, we all do! Use your freedom of speech, exercise it. Also, remember your freedom of speech can be used to tell others they are wrong. If you feel safe, tell the Nazi that his views conflict with human rights (but please be careful, many Nazis are dangerous people)! This is a free country and you have the right to tell people they are wrong.

But please know, freedom of speech does go both ways- if you threaten to harm somebody (like to ruin somebody's reputation or threaten genocide against a group of people) that is a terrible opinion and I have the right to say- do not do it!

Without freedom of speech, where would we be?

Let's say we are living under Joseph Stalin's regime.

Well, to start off there wouldn't be many films or books written. People would be too afraid to write and too afraid to say anything that might be interpreted as possibly criticizing the government.

There wouldn't be lively discussions in coffeehouses, and places of worship may disappear or go underground because people would be too afraid to say something criticizing the government and get arrested.

With no freedom of speech, I certainly would not be allowed to write any of these articles. I would quickly be branded as a dissident Republican pamphleteer who is criticizing the monarchy or something else outrageous.

In short, it would be going against the very grain of our human nature and the very strong motivation of our existence- the right to be free.

People are much happier across the world when they have a right to speak. In the former Soviet countries when the wall came down, people were elated to enjoy their newfound freedoms and democracy.

In France, the coffeehouses and meetings encouraged the people to get rid of their despotic king and form a republic.

In the US, many times open political discussion and ideas enabled us to make great changes, changes we never knew could happen.

Freedom of speech is a right we should protect, and to protect it we must exercise it. But please do keep in mind this doesn't exempt you from consequences if you say something bad or dangerous.

Under fascism, communism, and some monarchies- freedom of speech doesn't exist.

Yes, you have the freedom to say "let a strong communist dictator like Stalin rule my life!" However, please keep in mind that if you actually lived under Stalin's regime you would not be able to say anything in opposition to him. Please also keep in mind that people have the freedom of speech to criticize your idea, and bring to your mind that Stalin committed mass genocide and was a terrible tyrant.

No, they are not infringing on your freedom of speech. Your freedom of speech comes with a consequence, and many died in order for you to have that right recognized.

The right to speak comes from nature. Governments can try to take it away but by no means are they successful in destroying the human spirit. In Communist-era Poland, dissidents managed to write their messages and codes under the neon lights. In closed countries, people still gather underground to worship the way they want.

Freedom of speech isn't just an American value somewhere in the US Constitution, it is a right by God- and a wise government would give the people a right to speak. The citizens of the world must exercise this right carefully, and as the famous quote (which has been attributed to many people) says "your freedom ends where another's begins."

Like Lech Walzynski, we have within us a duty to guard this right. We have a duty to speak out against those who want to harm others and do evil to society. Unlike Walzynski, we are living in a society where we can use this right. However, please know there are those who want to take it away. If this right is completely unrestrained, anarchy will result. But if this right is crippled it would be harming the very foundation of humanity.

We are standing on a barricade- not a barricade like the ones in 1832, but a barricade made of ideals. These ideals are found in books we studied, and presuppositions we held. On this barricade, we raise our flag- the republic.

This barricade is for all of humanity, and these rights we hold safe beyond the barricade, may nobody take them from us.

Guard this right carefully citizen, it is yours. Use it with great discretion to do good for the republic, and make the world a better place!