In light of certain problems people have been having with Natalee Holloway and boy scouts from Utah and being blacklisted, I'd like to address what I believe is a bigger problem that underlies the superficial things that most of us have been arguing about: The difference between having the right to say something and actually saying it.
We live in a place where, thankfully, we reserve the right to say and write whatever we damn well please. Unfortunately, this creates a sense of entitlement in certain situations, and people sometimes start to believe that "having the right" can be equated with "being justified in..." This is not so.
As we have seen in recent articles, there has been an undue amount of criticism given to Natalee Holloway and the lost boy scout from Utah in an attempt to argue for personal responsibility. Now, let me just say that I am all for personal responsibility. I have ended countless articles with the phrase "Somewhere, personal responsibility sits crying in a corner." I believe very strongly in taking responsibility for one's actions. However, I cannot agree with the way that these articles have gone about arguing for what is, in all honesty, a very worthy position.
There is nothing good that can come of using tragedy, and berating those involved in tragedy, to advance the case for personal responsibility. In fact, using these sorts of techniques has the opposite effect. They weaken the position of personal responsibility because its advocate immediately speaks from a position of hostility, and thus demands a defensive and unreceptive audience.
To come back to my original point, all of the aforementioned problems stem from the perception that having the right to say what you wish justifies you saying what you wish. This is not so. No matter what one person has the right to do, no matter how many rights the Constitution gives you, there is nothing on paper that can dictate tact. That is up to each and every individual person, and it is that which defines whether or not one can make a successful point.
Of course you can say stuff about Natalee Holloway, but why would you? Her family and friends are in agony. Their lives are ruined. More than likely, hers has been ended. Why talk about her?
Of course you can say stuff about the boy scout from Utah, but why would you? Both he and his family have been traumatized, and gone through an ordeal that no one should have to face. Why not let them move on?
These aren't the only examples there are, either. I'm all for the second amendment. I will vote down with a vengeance any attempt to take away people's guns. But why did Charlton Heston have to hold NRA rallies shortly after school shootings, in the cities that those shootings happened in? The communities were scarred and in mourning. Was that the best time to come in shouting about how you love guns? No.
The case for personal responsibility is strong enough without bringing specific tragedies, and the victims of those tragedies, into an argument. There are millions of things you could use along with Natalee Holloway, but you don't. You could say it was Emmett Till's fault for not intimately knowing the social strata of the South. But you don't. You could say it was the Freedom Summer volunteer's fault for going where they weren't wanted. But you don't. You don't because you know it's not right to take their losses and use them to your argument's advantage.
Of course you have the right to say it. But you also have the right to not. And your better judgment would encourage you to do that.