The fully referred-to version of this motherly advice would certainly seem appropriate in making the world a better and safer place.  It’s abbreviated form, in my humble opinion, should be no less universally heeded. Amidst the clamorous indignation, the huffing and puffing, the fist pounding and foot stomping in defense of free speech, it’s time for someone, (I guess I’m the one), to stand up for the freedom of listening.  Shouldn’t there be some balance between the veracity of content of the unceasing public blather and the rights of listeners?  Why do we so vigorously champion any stranger’s inappropriate cell phone conversation, over-amped music, video game bleeping and blooping or publicly aired private debate, while offering as the only defense, covering one’s ears and making that blah-da, blah-da, blah-da sound?  Has communication always been thus? Were we humans always so enamored by the sounds of our own voices that content and context were inconsequential compared to the onomatopoeia of pig snorts, wolf howls and an endless variety of farts? Has text-speak so thoroughly infiltrated our thought processes that the formulation of coherent, comprehensive language has become as obsolete as Latin?  For instance, I watched and listened to most of Thursday’s Republican debate, (I dozed off sometime during the fifth or sixth hour), and, although I knew most of the words being spoken by the moderators and the candidates, I was unable to grasp the “meaning”, (I don’t know if quotes are grammatically correct here, but I found myself doing the air thingy with my fingers, so I thought I’d throw them in), postulated by any of the questioners or answerers when those words were mashed up into what would classically be called, “sentences”, (sorry).  It’s all so noisy.  How about if the free speech amendment got properly vetted by the Supreme Court to the point that it only applies if you have something important to say and that other than that, you should just shut the fuck up…like Clarence Thomas?