As all of you know by now, I am a huge fan of the First Amendment to the Constitution-Freedom of Speech. I have the right to speak my mind and other people have the absolute right to disagree. I am not a fan of using "Hate Speech" laws or any other restrictions on the free flow of ideas. The only exception I will accept is direct threats toward an individual or group. The problem I have with the concept of "Hate Speech" is that it can be used to quiet anyone who disagrees with the status quo.Frankly, I feel that any disagreement I have with something one side feels would help their group could be considered "Hate Speech" by that group. That's unacceptable to me because it hinders free debate. If your on the side that's right, why fear debate? If I know I'm right, I feel I have an advantage and if I can't defend my beliefs, maybe I should change them. I would disagree with these restrictions if it were used by conservatives to stop atheists or evolutionists from having their point of view in my schools. And I am equally offended by the left's efforts to stop the creationists from having their view. I understand that science is science, but if it's taught as a philosophy or just as a theory, then I see no harm. The restriction of free debate is far more harmful than anything that someone I disagree with can say.Unfortunately, in this country today, being un-politically correct can get you far more than a good debate. It can get you fired, it can get you denied your goals, and it can get you ostracized by people who think that tolerance is a word for how you should treat them.
In Universities across America, free speech is hindered by the very people who pretend to defend it. University Presidents have been fired for suggesting that maybe women just aren't attracted to the idea of being Engineers. Philosophy professors are fired for suggesting that there may be a God. Criminologists are fired for suggesting that crime statistics of a group may not only be due to prejudice. All this happens while others are supported while exercising their rights to bad-mouth the U.S. ritualistically or trashing religious people and their faith.
At this point in history, no cow is more sacred than Gay Rights.
The very mention of your disagreement with Gay Marriage in the public arena will bring you instant scorn. That in and of itself is not the problem-that is debate. However, it has now gotten to the point where it's advocates are going out of their way to punish anyone, any way possible for simply disagreeing. I myself have been banned (read blacklisted) from any political discussion groups on Myspace for stating my view on Gay Marriage respectfully.
The most recent example of this new form of McCarthyism has demonstrated itself in the Miss USA Pagent. Miss California, Carrie Prejean was asked by gossip blogger Perez Hilton about her stance on same-sex marriage.Ms. Prejean responded, and I quote,"I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." Now, you have to admit, that's a respectful answer while still stating your position.
Soon after that came the barrage of misinformation designed to vilify Ms. Prejean for exercising her right to disagree. "In Entertainment" stated that she said gay people, "should not be allowed to marry." This same statement was carried on MSN and a host of other left-leaning media outlets. Clearly, that's a misrepresentation of what she said.
Here's the main question folks. Do organizations have the right to deny you a job, to fire you from your job, or to stop you from winning a contest based solely on your opinion on a controversial issue? I understand that some positions are representative of that organization, but are we taking it too far when we demand that all our employees think like we do? I once heard radio talk show host Laura Schlessinger tell a Christian woman that it was O.K. to fire a employee because she didn't share her Christian values. Is that right? Can I ban single mothers from working for my business because I don't share their morality? The entire entertainment industry has now shown itself to be unified on "blacklisting" someone if they don't swear allegiance to the Gay Movement. No matter your stand on the issue, you have to admit, Joseph McCarthy would be so proud of their methods. H.C.
6 comments:
I've maintained a thousand times before: free speech is one thing, the consequences associated with exercising that free speech is another. I hate to say it, but this is all the more reason why people should exhibit caution when declaring a position in an environment not welcoming of that position. I mean, as much as people claim to be "open-minded" and "tolerant" (especially liberals), the moment someone makes a declaration misaligned with the sentiments of that instituion, all hell breaks loose.
In the case of Carrie Prejean, libs heard "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman..." and conveniently discounted the "I believe..." part. Even if she would have said "I believe gay marriage is wrong, but to each his own..." she would've been equally villified. Even if by her own admission, she is not trying to impose her views on other people, she would quickly become associated with the bastards on Capitol Hill trying to legislate their personal opinions.
Such is the nature of the age old 'us versus them' schism.
Comedian Dave Chapelle once jokingly noted that white people never openly discuss politics and sensitive issues. Now I can see why. Doing so will get your assed fired, apparently.
Hey Dre,
"Now I can see why. Doing so will get your assed fired, apparently."
Absolutely, it will.
I don't have any problem with facing up to the consequences of my opinions. I mean, if you object to something I say, you have every right to express your view or counter-protest and I would support your right no matter how much I disagreed. The scary thing is when a person starts fearing for their job because of the way they view a controversial subject. Me and you disagree on a couple of things but I always respect your right to think differently than me. Imagine if I were well connected enough around here to get you fired because you support Gay Marriage. That's real close to what McCarthyism was. If you didn't share my ultra-patriotic, conservative view of American then you were a Communist and Communists shouldn't be in our government, or making our movies, or selling books. Now, it's if you don't share my view your homophobic or sexist or racist. That's O.K. to just say, after all, it's just an opinion, but when the consequences are being denied jobs, or advancement, or inclusion, or the freedom to pursue happiness, it's gone too far. Keep in mind, I'm in no way defending people who advocate violence, just those that advocate a different view. Thanks, as always, for your input.
I've seen carrie Prejean totally ridiculed for her expressing her opinion, however this is nothing new in the media. If she had said that she thinks marriage shouldn't be interatial, or that black men shouldn't marry white girls, the media circus would have been far worse. IF she had something that made women uncomfortable in her response, like "I don't think women are smart enought to respond to that kind of question." She would have been met with equal disapproval by the media. I only point out these other senarios because i want to show that this incident in not just about the gay movement. If a public figure says that "i believe black people aren't as smart as white people" That person can fully expect to be ridiculed in the media. Should everyone just respect a bigots right to free speech and let them keep ranting?
The real issue seems to be where do you draw the line? When should what you say and believe affect your career, or your opportunities? Clearly Mccarthyism is one side of the extreme, while allowing bigots to rant uninterupted and unchecked on the television is on the other side.
I'm really not sure i can claim a position on this topic. Free speech is very important to me, so i guess i need to think about this one before i form any strong opinions.
However i think the creationism evolution debate is a bit out of context here. Science does not discriminate. It is not a matter of oppression or mccarthyism that we don't allow the study of Alchemy in our classrooms.
Good post H.C.
Hey Rev.,
"Should everyone just respect a bigots right to free speech and let them keep ranting?"
YES! That's what free speech is all about. Of course,you have the right to use your freedom to disagree. The only time someone should be ostrasized is if they step over that line and call for violence against someone. Freedom of Speech isn't really woking unless you here something you don't want to hear.
"The real issue seems to be where do you draw the line?"
EXACTLY! Objecting is one thing. Banning people from pursuing their dreams is another. What separates your right to object from McCarthyism is when you take actions to keep someone from working, from competing, from advancing or from being in government.
"However i think the creationism evolution debate is a bit out of context here."
Well, since I pretty much know what side of that debate your on, I'll only say that your not really the one that would be offended by that censorship. I'll leave that debate for another time.
Thanks for your well thought out contribution Rev! Good comment as always.
Rev touched on an important point here. When it appears that a person is taking a stance against a social minority - no matter how unthreatening that opposition is - it quickly gets associated with oppressive bodies who make marginalization possible (i.e. politicians who make certain laws banning certain things). I think Prejean would have been better served had she simply said, "I'm against gay marriage, but to each his own..." By doing that, she would've indicated that gay marriage wasn't her thing, but if somebody else wanted to do it, that's on them. By outright decrying the practice, people were quick to put her in the same boat as right-wing assholes who would fight gay marriage tooth and nail.
Hey Dre,
I get your point, but keep in mind all she said was, "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman." She didn't rant on about how it was a sin or anything else. I don't think that counts as "outright decrying the practice" As far as the left putting her in with all the far right people-that happens every time Liberals hear something they disagree with. I can't tell you how many times I've been called a Bush-lover or a "far right asshole" in a politic talk forum. Just ask Nic "the southern plantation owner". I really don't believe that you can tell the left anything they don't want to hear and not be attacked. No matter how respectful you try to be. Trust me, I've tried, and tried, and tried.
Post a Comment