Free Speech On It's Way Out with the Bees
Forgive me for being brutally frank, but this is the Libertarian in me dying to be unleashed:
An African-American organization is having a funeral for the word "nigger."
Don Imus was fired for saying "nappy-headed ho's"
A couple of shock jocks were fired for doing an over-the-top asian accented comedy piece.
Larry Flynt won a supreme court decision which allowed him to print his pornography.
Neo-nazis and KKK members are routinely granted permits to march and spread their points-of-view.
Public outcry drowned out O.J. Simpson's right to speak his mind in his book "If I did It."
"Hate speech" in and of itself is in the process of being criminalized in parts of the country.
Some crimes already covered by existing laws (murder, assault, battery, harrassment) also take on harsher penalties if accompanied by "hate speech."
Dissident groups who peacefully and lawfully protest the war in Iraq are harrassed, abused and infiltrated by police.
Efforts are under way by liberal groups to silence conservative talk radio folks all over the country because they disagree with what's being said.
(VERY LONG SIGH)
I remember a very simple, yet very honest and insightful phrase from my youth, one I think our lawmakers--no, everyone--should try to remember and take to heart: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." A bit simplistic perhaps, but the sentiment is one we've forgotten or abandoned. Why is it we celebrate our diversity of culture, but these days we are being forced into conformity of ideas? I know some of the examples I used above fall on different sides of the issue, but my point is:
"CANT WE READ ANYMORE????"
TO WIT: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..." etc.
When did we become so willy-nilly that we could no longer stand up with our own voices to those we disagree with, and instead decided to do everything we can to SILENCE them. Sounds like HATE to me. Or at least intolerance.
Let every jerk out there you disagree with speak their minds (as we allow the KKK and neo-Nazi's to do). I urge you to ignore and suffer and counter-protest these fools til the cows come home, but do not muzzle them. Because if we remain on this track and follow the course of events I see being played out before me, eventually, YOU TOO will say something some group will hate intensely and you'll be the one who ends up getting muzzled.
To me, this all this sounds like the proverbial slippery slope, on which we've already started our way down.
P.S. I can't wait to see the comments on this post. Especially the ones that want to muzzle ME.
An African-American organization is having a funeral for the word "nigger."
Don Imus was fired for saying "nappy-headed ho's"
A couple of shock jocks were fired for doing an over-the-top asian accented comedy piece.
Larry Flynt won a supreme court decision which allowed him to print his pornography.
Neo-nazis and KKK members are routinely granted permits to march and spread their points-of-view.
Public outcry drowned out O.J. Simpson's right to speak his mind in his book "If I did It."
"Hate speech" in and of itself is in the process of being criminalized in parts of the country.
Some crimes already covered by existing laws (murder, assault, battery, harrassment) also take on harsher penalties if accompanied by "hate speech."
Dissident groups who peacefully and lawfully protest the war in Iraq are harrassed, abused and infiltrated by police.
Efforts are under way by liberal groups to silence conservative talk radio folks all over the country because they disagree with what's being said.
(VERY LONG SIGH)
I remember a very simple, yet very honest and insightful phrase from my youth, one I think our lawmakers--no, everyone--should try to remember and take to heart: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." A bit simplistic perhaps, but the sentiment is one we've forgotten or abandoned. Why is it we celebrate our diversity of culture, but these days we are being forced into conformity of ideas? I know some of the examples I used above fall on different sides of the issue, but my point is:
"CANT WE READ ANYMORE????"
TO WIT: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..." etc.
When did we become so willy-nilly that we could no longer stand up with our own voices to those we disagree with, and instead decided to do everything we can to SILENCE them. Sounds like HATE to me. Or at least intolerance.
Let every jerk out there you disagree with speak their minds (as we allow the KKK and neo-Nazi's to do). I urge you to ignore and suffer and counter-protest these fools til the cows come home, but do not muzzle them. Because if we remain on this track and follow the course of events I see being played out before me, eventually, YOU TOO will say something some group will hate intensely and you'll be the one who ends up getting muzzled.
To me, this all this sounds like the proverbial slippery slope, on which we've already started our way down.
P.S. I can't wait to see the comments on this post. Especially the ones that want to muzzle ME.
Labels: speech
9 Comments:
I think you are entertwining a legal right to speak with a market right to speak. Protesters getting beaten by police is a clear violation of the constitution, because it is forbidding someone's legal right to speak. "Free speech zones" created by the Bush cabal is unconstitutional, because all of America is supposed to be a free speech zone.
However, those are different than what I am calling a "market right" to speech. Imus was fired because what he said offended a great many people, and CBS decided based on simple profit motive that it was more profitable to fire him than keep him.
No one has the right to put their message in teh NY Times or on Fox news. But anyone has the right to create their own newspaper or TV station or blog or whatever to get their message out.
Now this is somewhat disingenous, since not everyone really can create their own TV station. As usual, those with money have the power, and their speech matters more because they can be heard by more people.
Nonetheless, freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't cry fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire). You can't tell a mob to lynch someone and be completely innocent of the crime. That's not new or unreasonable.
Since we are a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people" I think it's EVERYONE's (including corporations, individuals, special interest groups, etc.) responsibility to look out for, and protect the rights of free speech. If we allow these aforementioned groups to decide for us what we can and cannot say, then we are surrendering our rights to such speech (even if we detest it), instead of retaining them for ourselves and the coming generations. Again, the slippery slope.
It's dogs who get muzzled, people end up getting shot for speaking out. I guess the question could be; If dogs run free, why not we?
What Dan said.
The thing that seems naive about the response from people decrying "political correctness" is that "free speech" does not absolve you from responsibility. You have the right to say whatever you want, but you also have the responsibility to deal with the consequences.
I may have a legal right to tell my boss he's an incompetent ass, but I can't cry "free speech" when I lose my job because of it. Words, like actions, have consequences. It seems to me the people who are upset with situations like Don Imus don't really want free speech, they want speech without consequences. They want the right to use offensive speech without people getting offended.
It also seems to me that the people who decry "political correctness" as "anti-free speech" seem to be the most sensitive when it comes to their own speech. Whenever someone expresses disagreement with their position, they claim to be "muzzled."
Snark-
The difference between being "muzzled" and "disagreement" is clear.
Disagreement allows for dialogue (heated or otherwise) from BOTH sides.
Muzzled is one side just telling the other to shut up because he doesn't like what he's saying (i.e. Imus).
Jerry Falwell tried to muzzle Larry Flynt, and the Supreme Court told Falwell where to get off. So why shouldn't the same apply in the opposite direction? At least in principle. The folks who hired Imus (and those other shock jocks) did so BECAUSE they said crazy, offensive things. I believe they wouldn't have been fired AT ALL if the politically correct climate in this country weren't growing so terrible cold.
I have no problem with disagreements, it's the muzzling part (led by the political correctness cheerleaders) that gets me hot.
I served my country to preserve ALL our freedoms. I may detest what (some) people say, but I would have died to defend their right to say it, even when or if their words offend me...no wait...
*Especially* if they offend me.
Fingtree-
People don't get killed just for speaking out.
They get killed for speaking out the TRUTH.
You're still not getting it. The Supreme Court told Falwell to get off. That was a LEGAL matter.
Don Imus was FIRED for pissing off his sponsors. The law had NOTHING to do with it. Congress did not abridge anything. He still has the LEGAL right to say whatever he wants.
Why is this distinction so hard for you to grasp?
If you're "hot" with anyone, it's the market forces that drove Imus out, not the government. Does your vision of free speech require consumers to give money to people who offend them?
People get shot for lots of reason's. Virginia Tech shootings and Columbine, Colorado, among others show that some shootings have no justification at all. I was simply pitching a quote from a Bob Dylan song that I thought you would catch or hit and add to it. I guess it was a bad pitch, BALL ONE. In the swamp of time, I hear a symphony.~
Snark-
What I'm really decrying here is the political climate. Think about the phrase "political correctness" for a sec. On a day to day basis we think of it as a social symptom or fad or whatever, and in most aspects it is, but the "political" part is still a present and active part of this notion.
If the sponsors don't want to pay for his show, fine. But it is the height of hypocrisy to hire someone SPECIFICALLY to offend people, (and he's offended thousands over his career) but then fire him for doing what he's been doing the whole time anyway.
What changed? Answer: The POLITICAL climate. As long as the politics of what I or you or Imus can or cannot say comes under judgement, or is pressured by a nebulous amalgam of POLITICAL groups (remember, initially his comments went unnoticed and unrepremanded until the POLITICALly correct folks jumped on him, or rather his sponsors. It wasn't until then that he got suspended and later fired.)
So it wasn't purely a commercial decision. It had POLITICAL elements. The fact that I despised what he said as much as it did any one else is really irreleveant. Once again, my main concern is: We (the people) must not squelch speech. Especially speech we dislike. (If we want to keep our freedoms)
And THAT'S what disturbs me.
THAT'S the slippery slope I see.
THAT'S what I seem to grasp and you don't seem to.
Respectfully
Post a Comment
<< Home