I. The Founding Trauma
In the Meadow, everyone agreed on one thing: voices were dangerous.
It hadn’t always been so. Long ago, animals spoke plainly. Some spoke well, some
poorly, some too much. Sometimes feelings were hurt. Arguments flared. Once, a goose
said something cruel to a lamb, and the lamb cried for three days. That
incident—repeated endlessly, embellished annually—became the Meadow’s founding
trauma.
From it arose the Council of Care.
The Council was composed of the most thoughtful animals: an owl who spoke slowly, a
cow who spoke confidently, and one exceptionally calm salamander who never raised
his voice and therefore was believed to be wise. Their mandate was simple and noble:
No animal shall be harmed by the burden of its own voice.
The phrase sounded odd at first, but the Council assured everyone it would make sense
in time.
And it did—after a fashion.
II. Early Reforms
Voluntary Silence
The first reform was voluntary silence. Animals were encouraged to express their
thoughts orally to the Council (never in an affidavit or audio recording—recorded
expression could injure the witness and carried downstream consequences that animals
should not be required to manage). The Council declared that the research showed this
was safer. No research was shared. It was common knowledge, common sense, they
said.
The Council would then decide whether the thoughts were safe, helpful, and
developmentally appropriate for public release. Most animals complied. It was easier.
Public expression had always been risky anyway.
Protective Interpretation
The second reform was protective interpretation. If an animal insisted on speaking
directly, a Council Interpreter would stand beside him and explain what he meant to say,
in case the speaker became confused or emotionally overwhelmed by his own words.
Assistive Listening Devices
The third reform was the muzzle.
The muzzles were soft, padded, and came in cheerful colors. The Council was very
clear about this: these were not restraints. They were Assistive Listening Devices—tools
to ensure that no animal accidentally said something harmful, inaccurate, or “out of
alignment with the Meadow’s shared values.”
III. Early Resistance
Some animals objected.
The dogs were first. “We guard the Meadow,” they barked. “We’ve always spoken for
ourselves.”
The Council nodded sympathetically. The cow stood and read from a prepared
statement:
“Dogs are passionate creatures. Passion often leads to error. For their own protection,
dogs will now speak only through Approved Bark Summaries.”
The dogs were fitted with muzzles that translated their barks into carefully worded
statements like “I express concern” or “I seek clarity.” The dogs found that no matter
how urgently they barked, the translations always sounded mild and off-key.
IV. Vulnerability Determinations
Next were the sheep. No one expected resistance from them, which is why it was so
troubling when a ewe stepped forward and said, “I don’t like this.”
The Meadow fell silent. An unmediated statement. Unfiltered discomfort.
The Council acted quickly.
“Owl,” said the salamander gently, “what do we know about sheep?”
The owl consulted her notes. “Sheep are vulnerable. Sheep are suggestible. Sheep
often mistake fear for thought.”
The ewe was escorted away “for support.” When she returned, she no longer spoke.
Instead, a laminated card hung around her neck:
THIS SHEEP’S POSITION HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.
“What position?” the animals murmured under their breath. They had never heard it.
V. Children as a Protected Class
Children—calves, ducklings, tadpoles—were declared the Meadow’s highest priority.
This was repeated so often that it became law. Because children were the priority,
children were never allowed to speak publicly.
The Council warned that public speech exposed children to misunderstanding,
judgment, and the reactions of others. Even truthful words, they noted, could provoke
anger, conflict, or retaliation.
“Speech is heavy,” explained the Council. “It shapes identity. It creates records. For
children especially, being asked to speak can itself be a form of harm.”
The research showed, the Council declared, that children were safest when adults
spoke for them.
If a cub tried to speak, an adult would kneel beside her and say, “What you’re feeling is
very important. I’ll explain it for you.”
The explanations were calm, reasonable—and, as it turned out, never quite correct.
VI. The Logic of Protection
Over time, animals noticed a strange pattern: the more an animal was said to need
protection, the less it was allowed to speak. And the less it was allowed to speak, the
more protection it was said to need.
VII. A Supervised Exception
A fox named Larkspur noticed something else. The Council spoke constantly.
It spoke about protection.
It spoke about voices.
It spoke about empowerment.
It just never let anyone else speak about it.
Larkspur requested permission to speak directly.
The Council deliberated for three days.
Reluctantly, they allowed it—under supervision.
A platform was erected. Professional support staff stood ready. The Meadow gathered.
“I want to speak for myself,” Larkspur began.
Immediately, a bell rang.
The Interpreter stepped forward. “What Larkspur means to say,” the Interpreter
announced, “is that she feels unheard, which is common among foxes, who are known
for individualism.”
“That’s not what I—” Larkspur tried again.
Another bell.
“What she is really expressing,” continued the Interpreter, “is gratitude for the systems
that protect her from the dangers of unchecked, unfiltered speech.”
Larkspur looked around. “Is anyone hearing this?”
The Meadow was quiet. The animals shifted uncomfortably. Some nodded, as if the
Interpreter’s words made sense. Others looked down, unsure whether confusion itself
was allowed.
Larkspur removed her own muzzle.
Gasps.
“This is absurd,” Larkspur said. “You say you’re protecting us, but you never ask what
we want to say. You say we’re too fragile to speak, but strong enough to live with the
consequences of silence. You say this is for our good—but the costs are not yours.”
The Council rose as one.
“This,” said the salamander sadly, “is exactly why we must protect you.”
VIII. Classification
Larkspur was not punished. Punishment would imply agency.
Instead, she was classified.
A new category appeared on the Meadow’s notice board the next morning:
ANIMALS WHO SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO SPEAK
Larkspur’s name was first. Soon, many names followed.
IX. Best Practices in Action
One morning, a young badger mentioned that the east path was blocked by a fallen
branch. He walked around the tree and reported it to the Council’s community
ombudsman.
He spoke plainly, but in keeping with Council policy, no record was made. His concern
was received and duly processed.
The Meadow took danger seriously. Safety first. A problem was reported with the east
path. It was potentially dangerous. Effectively impassable.
A notice was issued before noon: “Immediate hazard identified. Access temporarily
restricted out of an abundance of caution.”
The path was sealed. Mothers were separated from offspring who had wandered
ahead. Several calves went hungry. Scared ducklings who couldn’t get to the pond cried
through the night. Some were injured or lost attempting to detour through unfamiliar
terrain.
The Council reconvened. The decision was reviewed.
It was concluded that the restriction had been appropriate given the information
available at the time.
The badger did not speak again.
The system, once more, had worked as intended.
X. The Safest Outcome
The research showed, it was said, that this approach was consistent with best practices.
The Meadow became peaceful. No arguments. No complaints. No raised voices. No
offense.
Only statements—issued, translated, summarized, approved.
And in the quiet, something else disappeared too: dissent, yes—but also dialogue,
discovery, and truth.
Eventually, the animals forgot the sound of their own voices.
And the muzzles, having proven effective, were no longer noticed.
Which was, of course, the safest outcome of all.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277