Freedom not a "get out of jail free" card Being an ethicist in journalism today can be a strange and frustrating experience. I don't ask for sympathy. I have a good life, thank you. Rather, I mention this fact because it indicates how far journalism has evolved, or has failed to evolve. I recently participated in a lively and important forum on offensive speech at the University of King's College in Halifax. The conversation about legal issues went smoothly. Most people agreed there is a need to protect journalists from complaints addressed to human rights tribunals. But when the discussion moved to the ethics of offensive speech -- how journalists should use freedom responsibly -- the discussion stalled. Some people asked: What's with this "responsibility" talk anyway? Why assume journalism has ethical responsibilities? Why not just be free to shout from the rooftops, or across the Internet? To those puzzled by talk of ethics, I will be blunt: What planet have you been living on? Journalism ethics is so needed today, and the responsibilities of journalism are so evident, that this skepticism is either disingenuous or shows a woeful lack of reflection. Journalists have responsibilities because of their social role. Our society protects their freedom so that journalists can inform citizens in a responsible fashion. Every group that has significant influence on the public, like journalism, accrues certain duties. Power and impact entail social responsibilities, whether specific individuals accept them or not. Journalists have ethical responsibilities because they can do