Free speech and modern social sensitivity
Idon’t know what to say. It is not that I don’t have anything to say, it is I simply don’t know what to say that will pass the PC patrol test. It seems many things thought to be acceptable are no longer, but rather offensive to someone.
Free speech was guaranteed by Madison’s addition of the First Amendment to our Constitution. It has been opposed on a major scale through the years. It wasn’t until 1919 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled no form of censorship was legal.
University of California faculty members recently noted racist comments. Not being a racist, I was amazed that according to their list I have used a lot of taboos. Among statements on their list are these: “There is only one race, the human race.” Usage denies cultural and racial diversity. Non-PC are: “America is a melting pot.” Horrors no, we are diverse. “In America you can succeed if you work hard enough.”
This implies that unsuccessful people are lazy. “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” Now that is considered racist. “When I see you
I don’t see color.” Previously many mistakenly thought that was simply being objective and trying to relate.
Consider these two statements thought most offensive. Never ask, “Where were you born?” Or a companion comment, “Where are you from?” These are way out of bounds. I am guilty of both. By asking them I am just trying to find some common ground in order to better relate, but they are now thought to be discriminatory. A person using them is assumed by the PC police to be divisive.
Many people who profess they believe in free speech really don’t. They simply approve of it in defense of their point of view. Consider these two straw people having a conversation. “A” says, “I believe in free speech. You should be free to express your view.” “B” says, “You are mighty right I do. I have the right to say whatever I want wherever I want.” When “B” is told “A” has an opposing point of view “B” becomes dyslogistic and calls “A” a bigot, prejudiced, biased, sexist, intolerant, narrow-minded or even a person to be shouted down. That is a form of bullying. Rather than subject themselves to such castigation, some become mute. To “B,” free speech is not a two-way street. On a level playing field, quid pro quo is in the rule book. There was an old adage, “What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander.”
If well-intending people are considered to be offensive, they may be required to go though sensitivity training or be subject to some discipline. Laws are interpreted in such a way as to exclude God from the market place of ideas. Even the First Amendment, which in large part was enacted to assure His presence, is now interpreted to exclude Him. That is freedom of speech?
For “B,” everything is a double entendre, it has two meanings. Their game seems to be to find some way to be offended. Where in the Constitution does it entitle a person the right not ever to be offended? I wonder if it ever occurs to them their being hypersensitive is offensive to others.
These PC police have forgotten freedom is founded on the basis of human relations and requires respect for all others. Interpreting it as a personal freedom without consideration of it being a social freedom has gotten us in this mess.