The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees, among other things, our right as citizens to free speech. That guarantee has been taken up by some as a barrier behind which they can cower from rightly deserved criticism.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring its citizens. In no way, shape or form does it act to censure the responses of others when someone decides to speak in an offensive or otherwise inappropriate way. This is because a response does not censure the original speaker, it merely suggests acknowledgement of what was said and allows for either approval or disapproval.

Every time someone opens his mouth or puts his words on paper, he is putting his views into the public realm. That public realm is open to everyone else too, so if the public finds fault with what you say or how you go about saying it, it has the right to tell you so.

That interplay of different people’s rights can understandably create some friction. What seems to some to be a completely normal or innocent belief can be taken by others as extremely offensive, potentially resulting in a back-and-forth of heated responses — all of which are protected by the Constitution.

There are examples of all kinds that illustrate this, but one of the most controversial may be the issue of same-sex marriage. While those who criticize such pairings might feel that they are simply voicing an opinion about what they think, what is often heard is much different.

Same-sex couples have been historically shut out of programs and benefits we consider completely appropriate for spouses, such as qualifying for adoption or having power of attorney in medical emergencies. They are not going to react well when told that they should not get to marry because your religion tells you it is wrong.

In this example, as in others, there is a double standard created. There is undoubtedly a growing consensus in this country that it is OK to support some specific causes and that it is not OK to support others.

This inherent double standard is not necessarily an evil though. The different ways of reacting to others’ views do not arise through an arbitrary distinction. There can be very good reasons for disdaining a particular opinion.

One of the most notorious examples of this is Westboro Baptist Church. This group has made a rather infamous name for itself across the country by protesting funerals and holding signs thanking God for dead soldiers and telling homosexuals that they will burn in hell.

Despite the almost universal outrage at what Westboro Baptist Church stands for, there are no laws prohibiting their demonstrations, and the organization itself has not been ordered by law to disband.

This is because our legal system is a place where we get to express our ideas freely. There are certain protections guaranteed by our Constitution, which guards against laws that would let the majority tyrannize the minority, no matter how disliked the minority may be.

It is certainly the right of any individual to express what he or she thinks, which might itself be offensive, in an even more offensive way. That does not mean that everyone is going to accept such words with open arms, and it does not mean that everyone should, despite the protected status of those words.

Ultimately, there are certain views that receive a lot of flack simply by being stated out loud. But does that mean that we should police ourselves against such reactions?

Absolutely not.

We should ridicule some beliefs. We should try to make some people ashamed to speak their mind. We should call out individuals who utter offensive views. This is not because everyone should think the same way on every issue — it is because there are some beliefs that really are shameful to have.

Double standards definitely exist in the realm of public speech, and they do say a lot about our society. They say we will not be tolerant of intolerance; they say we are tired of oppressive opinions being voiced in public.

Most importantly, they say that while we respect the legal protection others are given to say what they wish, we will not allow bigoted or hateful speech to go completely unpunished.