In the classic movie "The Princess Bride," the character Vizzini is quite fond of using the word "inconceivable."

The thought of a ship following is "inconceivable," that the ship is gaining on them is "inconceivable" and that the follower could climb the Cliffs of Insanity is especially "inconceivable." Finally, after hearing this word enough, Inigo Montoya says, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Politics today can be like the movies of yesterday. People bandy around words, using them as battle axes to cut their foes to size. In the end, though, they find themselves sounding like Vizzini, or worse.

"Free Speech" is an expression often used, often misunderstood. You've seen it brought up twice in the Collegian this week already, once in defense of Internet postings and once regarding political discussion. These discussions can get out of hand, however, if you don't consider the definition of free speech.

First, what is speech? Second, what about it is free?

Speech, as the Founders considered it, is political speech. This is why burning a U.S. flag is allowed but writing an opinion piece saying, "Jon Wefald regularly drank puppy smoothies during his presidency," will get you sued. One is protected political expression, while the other is simply libel.

Next, what are we free from? Did the Founders guarantee us freedom from want, freedom from need, freedom from inconvenience? No. Of course not. Then how can we imagine speech free of consequence?

The Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed to be from the same state as then-president George W. Bush and now they aren't played on many country stations. That wasn't a free speech issue. It was one of those consequences that came from a person's actions. They were allowed to say whatever they wanted and had to deal with the backlash. More recently, Kanye West received a great deal of criticism for his stunt at the MTV Video Music Awards earlier this year.

Music artists aren't the only ones to get in trouble for speaking "freely." Trent Lott of Mississippi was the Senate majority leader until he implicitly endorsed the racist 1948 platform of Strom Thurmond. Sen. George Allen, R-Va., went from being mentioned as a possible presidential candidate to losing his Senate seat after slurring a man at one of his rallies with the word "macaca."

Now if you look at each of these incidents, you will find free speech isn't the issue. The public outcry wasn't about whether the speaker had the right to say what he or she did, but what was said.

There are two lessons we can take from this, each important in its own right. Words aren't all they seem to be at first and there are consequences to everything you say or do.

People enjoy demagoging issues, reducing them to stark portraits of a group of people struggling against a dark, inhuman foe. But issues are never as clean as the tales in movies like "The Princess Bride." Both sides are human and fallible but striving for a better world.

You might hear that conservatives are against free speech because they are against such things as alcohol advertisements and pornography, but they are trying to clean up the world and make it safe for future generations. Similarly, you might have heard claims that liberals violate free speech when campaigning against huge donations for political campaigns, when they are trying to level the playing field to give others a shot at political office.

Another joy, it seems, is being the victim. "I was just giving my view, and I was crucified for it," people say, or "My right to free speech was taken away." No, the fact that those people were allowed to say those things shows their free speech was intact. However, the consequences of which, no one can escape.

Remember this: You might have free speech, but what comes out of your mouth can still be your bane.