Accepting free speech means listening to ideas that offend
backseatLover12
Posts: 2,312
Excellent article….
Accepting free speech means listening to ideas that offend
Twenty-five years ago, British writer Salman Rushdie, whose novel, "The Satanic Verses," was viewed as blasphemous by many Muslims, became the target of a fatwa -- a death decree -- by then-Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Rushdie spent 10 years in hiding; several violent attacks, some fatal, were linked to the book the first five years after its publication.
Fortunately, backlash against speech deemed to be offensive rarely turns homicidal. But less drastic attempts to silence undesirable expression are very much with us -- and they don't just come from authoritarian theocratic regimes, but from people who think they have a right not to be offended.
Historically, censorship has been based on perceived offense to God or government. Now, it's based on hurt feelings. Of course, authoritarian governments can easily manipulate such backlash to their advantage. In Russia, the cable channel Dozhd -- the country's remaining independent news station and a thorn in the Kremlin's side -- is being dropped by numerous providers after running a poll deemed offensive to World War II veterans. The popular backlash is doing the government's dirty work.
But that's Russia. In America, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 62 percent of colleges and universities have policies that restrict constitutionally protected speech that may be "offensive" or "unwelcome" on the basis of race, gender, religion and other characteristics. The foundation, a nonprofit championing free speech on campus, has defended students and professors punished for everything from satirizing Islamic Awareness Week to criticizing affirmative action to speaking against the military.
The attitude toward unwelcome expression at many schools is evident in a recent story from Pennsylvania's Swarthmore College, which hosted a discussion between left-wing scholar Cornel West and conservative philosopher Robert George on communicating across differences in values. Many students were angered because George opposes abortion and same-sex marriage -- views that some said should not be tolerated. One student told the campus newspaper, "What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion."
At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the college newspaper, The Badger Herald, was criticized last fall for publishing a student's letter that pointed out that some rape accusations are false and that next-day regrets about drunken sex should not be confused with rape. The editor explained that she ran the letter to raise awareness about the existence of such "hateful" views on campus.
Efforts to stamp out insensitive speech are not limited to college campuses. A recent story in The New Republic described a campaign in Atlanta to kill a small independent music magazine, Stomp and Stammer -- known for its irreverent style -- after it ran a short item calling a popular restaurant owner's funeral "the most overdone memorial" and suggested the deceased woman was undeservedly elevated to local icon because she was a lesbian. Despite an apology from the editor, the magazine's advertisers were targeted for a boycott, causing a third of them to withdraw.
Conservatives who deplore such intolerance on the left often show little more tolerance toward expression that offends patriotic or religious sensibilities. Remember the boycott against the Dixie Chicks after they criticized President George W. Bush at the start of the war in Iraq? Or the protests to shut a 1998 Manhattan production of Terence McNally's play "Corpus Christi," which depicts a gay Jesus?
It seems that, when it comes to speech we dislike, we have met the ayatollah, and he is us.
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/young-accepting-free-speech-means-listening-to-ideas-that-offend-1.7110501
Accepting free speech means listening to ideas that offend
Twenty-five years ago, British writer Salman Rushdie, whose novel, "The Satanic Verses," was viewed as blasphemous by many Muslims, became the target of a fatwa -- a death decree -- by then-Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Rushdie spent 10 years in hiding; several violent attacks, some fatal, were linked to the book the first five years after its publication.
Fortunately, backlash against speech deemed to be offensive rarely turns homicidal. But less drastic attempts to silence undesirable expression are very much with us -- and they don't just come from authoritarian theocratic regimes, but from people who think they have a right not to be offended.
Historically, censorship has been based on perceived offense to God or government. Now, it's based on hurt feelings. Of course, authoritarian governments can easily manipulate such backlash to their advantage. In Russia, the cable channel Dozhd -- the country's remaining independent news station and a thorn in the Kremlin's side -- is being dropped by numerous providers after running a poll deemed offensive to World War II veterans. The popular backlash is doing the government's dirty work.
But that's Russia. In America, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 62 percent of colleges and universities have policies that restrict constitutionally protected speech that may be "offensive" or "unwelcome" on the basis of race, gender, religion and other characteristics. The foundation, a nonprofit championing free speech on campus, has defended students and professors punished for everything from satirizing Islamic Awareness Week to criticizing affirmative action to speaking against the military.
The attitude toward unwelcome expression at many schools is evident in a recent story from Pennsylvania's Swarthmore College, which hosted a discussion between left-wing scholar Cornel West and conservative philosopher Robert George on communicating across differences in values. Many students were angered because George opposes abortion and same-sex marriage -- views that some said should not be tolerated. One student told the campus newspaper, "What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion."
At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the college newspaper, The Badger Herald, was criticized last fall for publishing a student's letter that pointed out that some rape accusations are false and that next-day regrets about drunken sex should not be confused with rape. The editor explained that she ran the letter to raise awareness about the existence of such "hateful" views on campus.
Efforts to stamp out insensitive speech are not limited to college campuses. A recent story in The New Republic described a campaign in Atlanta to kill a small independent music magazine, Stomp and Stammer -- known for its irreverent style -- after it ran a short item calling a popular restaurant owner's funeral "the most overdone memorial" and suggested the deceased woman was undeservedly elevated to local icon because she was a lesbian. Despite an apology from the editor, the magazine's advertisers were targeted for a boycott, causing a third of them to withdraw.
Conservatives who deplore such intolerance on the left often show little more tolerance toward expression that offends patriotic or religious sensibilities. Remember the boycott against the Dixie Chicks after they criticized President George W. Bush at the start of the war in Iraq? Or the protests to shut a 1998 Manhattan production of Terence McNally's play "Corpus Christi," which depicts a gay Jesus?
It seems that, when it comes to speech we dislike, we have met the ayatollah, and he is us.
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/young-accepting-free-speech-means-listening-to-ideas-that-offend-1.7110501
Post edited by backseatLover12 on
0
Comments
Even the Westboro Baptist Church... to me, they carry a horrible message that I oppose on just about every front. But, I will defend their right to express their thoughts, beliefs and opinions from government censorship. The same way I would defend Nazi-speech, Klansman Rallies and Islamic Fundamentalist bullshit in the expression of their opinions and beliefs against government attacks on their First Amendment rights.
Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't like it either. I will argue with these people... which is my right.
Hail, Hail!!!
Looking into this a bit further, I came across the following article that confounds the hell out of me. If I'm reading this correctly, the author believes that a constitutional amendment proposed by democratic Sens. Jon Tester and Chris Murphy that would deny constitutional rights to corporations (which I assumes is the same as considering corporations to be the same as "people") is a form of denying freedom of speech. That just seems weird to me. The author asserts that the left wants to suppress freedom of speech. WTF?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-does-the-left-want-to-suppress-free-speech/article/2532270
Why does the left want to suppress free speech?
Many people on the political left don’t much like the First Amendment. That seems odd to someone of my generation. In past times people who suppressed what the Supreme Court ultimately ruled speech—student armbands, nude dancing, flag burning—were usually conservatives. But now it seems that it’s mostly liberals who want to shut down speech that offends them, and it’s usually political speech which many people think was the main concern of the Founders rather than the kinds of speech referenced above.
Anyway, here are some examples of liberals trying to shut down speech.
Democratic Sens. Jon Tester and Chris Murphy have proposed a constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which Barack Obama lamented in one of his State of the Union addresses, by denying constitutional rights to corporations. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh in his Volokh Conspiracy blog, that would pretty much wipe out freedom of the press and some other freedoms as well.
Sign Up for the Michael Barone newsletter!
“So goodbye, First Amendment protection for the New York Times, CNN, the ACLU, the NRA, and the Catholic Church. Goodbye, any right to just compensation when a corporation’s property is taken — whether the corporation is a large business or a small mom-and-pop company. Goodbye, any rights to due process when a corporation’s property is seized. Goodbye, any protection for corporations (again, even small family-run businesses) from unreasonable searches and seizures, or excessive fines. That’s what Senators Tester and Murphy’s amendment calls for.”
As Sen. Mitch McConnell has said, this is “an absurd proposal” that “won’t go anywhere.” But it’s still amazing that two Democratic senators want to gut the First Amendment and other amendments as well. Here’s a text of his speech Friday at the American Enterprise Institute, where I am a resident fellow, and here is the audio.
In his Best of the Web column the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto has criticized Sen. Clair McCaskill for putting a hold on the promotion of Air Force Gen. Susan Helms because Helms overturned the verdict of a court martial in a sexual harassment case. In response the Ms. Foundation for Women—well, I’ll let Taranto tell the story:
“Meanwhile, the Ms. Foundation for Women, in cooperation with an outfit called the Service Women’s Action Network, has started an online petition ‘calling for the disciplining of’ your humble columnist, whom they graciously describe as ‘prominent.’ They find no fault with our account of the facts; they complain only of our “framing the campaign as a ‘war on men’ ” and of a few phrases they find neuralgic.
“That is to say, they want a journalist to be punished for committing journalism–for accurately reporting the news and expressing an opinion contrary to feminist orthodoxy. It is a lovely example of the totalitarian mindset that is the core of contemporary feminism.”
In a Newsweek/Daily Beast article on how the Obama administration has been losing cases in the Supreme Court, Adam Winkler writes:
“On Thursday the administration lost another big case, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society. The administration was defending a federal law requiring certain recipients of federal international aid to have an explicit policy against sex trafficking. Garnering only two favorable votes, the administration saw the law held unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment.”
Then there’s the Justice Department and Education Department’s ukase, discussed here by the estimable Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (F.I.R.E.), that attempts to force colleges and universities to treat as sexual harassment any language that strikes someone as offensive (rather than requiring it to be offensive by an objective standard) and convicting students based on a preponderance of the evidence (rather than a tougher standard like beyond a reasonable doubt). So anyone on campus who wants to allege offense can decide what speech is allowed.
When I was young students going off to college left communities where speech was informally but fairly tightly regulated for a campus where free inquiry was allowed. Those days are gone.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
Oh, and corporations are NOT people. Big mistake there when that happened, big mistake.
Have a great week all.
For example, we really don't like seeing swastikas, right? It brings up certain, specific emotions based upon its historical significance. But, I do not want the government to make it illegal to wave or display this symbol. Reason being, there are people who could say that the Star Of David is offensive to them... should that symbol also be illegal? No, neither one should be illegal. However, if you choose to wave a swastika around, you should expect some negative reaction from the majority of citizens, expressing their opinions that they believe you are an asshole.
Free speech comes at a cost... you will hear opposition to your expressed views.
Hail, Hail!!!
Maybe a law that allows for a person to exercise one free slap per year? You'd have to submit your 'slap card' to the person you used it on and both parties could fill out a document detailing why the slap occurred.
If a person is found to have been slapped, say, more than 12 times per year for the same thing... then they would be required to attend 'moron classes' to try and avoid future slaps.
The concept of "free speech" only applies to the government. Private enterprises and independent companies have no requirement to permit free speech or the open exchange of competitive ideas. If you are not an elected official or a body of government- you can censor anything and anyone you want! This is precisely why "privatizing" our government and contracting with private companies to execute government functions is so dangerous. The citizens have no control over how they behave and no way to require them to observe our Bill of Rights. Every time we cede control of our rights to private enterprise we lose those rights.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
It depends on what is being privatized. For example, government contrats require you play by rules they set... such as bidding out a sub-contract if you are the prime contractor of a government program, such as building a new aircraft. Your bidding must follow government regulations regarding fairness, so you don't go out and sub-contract out to your brother and your friends who will receive tax payer dollars. If you are not getting paid by tax dollars... you can go ahead and sub-contract out to whomever you want.
...
The First Amendment protects us from government censorship of free speech. It was originally drafted because if you spoke badly towards the English Monarchy or the Church of England, you would be punished. The First Amendment allows us to voice our opinions against our government, without risking imprisonment.
The First Amendment does not protect you here, in this web forum. This is a moderated forum where we are allowed to express opinions based upon this web forums rules. None of us can cry 'Free Speech Violation' if we are censored in here. It also allows you to control the content of speech in your own home. No one can sue you if you kick them out of your house for whatever opinions they are expressing... it is your house, your rules.
Hail, Hail!!!
We get the government we deserve.
The PEOPLE are the ones who seat their Representatives. We all want to kick out everyone in office... except for the guy we voted for.. he's a good guy.
That type of attitude is what perpetuates the status quo.
...
And Term Limits are NOT the answer. That is the LAZY man's way of fixing the problem. We already HAVE TERM LIMITS... it is called a 'Ballot'. Use it wisely and quit voting the same people in because you voted for them the last 10 times.
Hail, Hail!!!
I think that the point of going too far is when the government is left to decide which speech will be protected and which will be banned.
Along those same lines, there were those church groups that wanted Nativity Scenes set up on public grounds and tried to cry that their Free Speech was being violated. But, those very same people would not allow a minora be displayed along side of it. They tried to apply Free Speech in the context of Freedom of Religion, in order to win their way.
People don't get to pick what free speech they want and reject what they disapprove of. If you want the government to express your personal belief, such as a Nativity Scene... you MUST allow ALL others to express their personal beliefs... which would include minoras and Festivus Poles and even Satan along side each other on those public grounds. And again, there are NO LAWS restricting a Nativity scene on private property, such as a Church or front yard. Just as it is perfectly legal to display Satan devouring the souls of the damned on your front yard... should you choose to do so.
Hail, Hail!!!