Free speech isn't so free anymore is it? The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States states...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This often times over interrupted amendment in it's simplest form affords Americans, the right to "Free Speech." The focus of this amendment is the limitation of the government and fellow citizens from repressing opinions and thoughts of the people, especially POLITICAL THOUGHT.
The cost of thinking is becoming well... expensive. Critical thought and rhetoric (and no "rhetoric" is not "Bullshit" it is defined as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion") are a rare commodity these days are certainly not being paid for up front ... people are not spending the time needed to learn proper methods of either. That is one draw back to being entitled to a right and not having had to earn it. You end up not treating the right with the respect it deserves.
I find it interesting how the Left in America generally carry this flag before their troops. Expressing complete dedication to the ideology of Free Thought, Free Speech and Free Expression, and how they often proclaim to be the protectors of this intrinsic right. The ACLU is well noted for championing this cause. Even Wikipedia has to place the adjective "Liberal" before the word Democracy to illustrate that it is the possession of the progressive mind that enables free thought and expression.
Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
I find it strange when these champions try with great vigor to suppress the speech of those they do not agree, with violence and intolerance. A case in point... from Peggy Noonan...
At Columbia University, members of the Minutemen, the group that patrols the U.S. border with Mexico and reports illegal crossings, were asked to address a forum on immigration policy. As Jim Gilchrist, the founder, spoke, angry students stormed the stage, shouting and knocking over chairs and tables. "Having wreaked havoc," said the New York Sun, they unfurled a banner in Arabic and English that said, "No one is ever illegal." The auditorium was cleared, the Minutemen silenced. Afterward a student protester told the Columbia Spectator, "I don't feel we need to apologize or anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech. . . . The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration."
A paradox to be sure... The other day when I picked on the stereotype of my own political party with the statement "See, that's why you should vote Republican... You don't have to care about others!" My left-leaning friends had a great laugh at my expense. But, an eavesdropper to my conversation stopped what she was doing, turned around and said "Now you're just making me mad!"
Huh?... When I clarified what side of the political fence she was on, I was even more shocked. If she were a Republican and just happened in on my conversation I could have understood her ire... but she is a Democrat and heard the entire satirical conversation. She was offended at me, for being a Republican! And now Mad! Wow! What wasted emotion! For what? A difference of opinion? It concerns me that people can be that polarized in their perspective to possess that much despise for contrarian thought... What have we become?
I am a huge fan of debating ideas and opinions in a civil discourse, I do not like yelling matches, nor do I like arrogant pontifications on a subject where absolutism prevails.
In this political season, I become more and more depressed at the immature and unprofessional manor that we approach issues. Political advertisements are the worst expression of all things political. The name calling, the half truths, the outright lies of omission all in the effort of attaining power in our government is abhorrent! BOTH PARTIES!!!!! I sicken at the fact that we cannot as a society demand intellectual, factual discussion on the critical topics without falling into the web of hate mongering that is prevalent in today's ADD inflicted voting populace. Demand a higher standard of our citizens who seek our affirmation.
I've read a number of good and intriguing posts on the subject of discourse from Sandy Hamilton's Perspective on purposeful opposition to Brian Reischl's want for civility in our election process. But what has captured my appreciation and agreement beyond any are the words of Peggy Noonan in her column at the Wall Street Journal. She captures with great literary elegance the thoughts I've been struggling to express... Well worth the read.
It is not only about rage and resentment, and how some have come to see them as virtues, as an emblem of rightness. I feel so much, therefore my views are correct and must prevail. It is about something so obvious it is almost embarrassing to state. Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with. This--listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity--is the price we pay for living in a great democracy. And it is a really low price for such a great thing.
The Progressives of our Nation should be the most outraged at our apparent lack of civility and respect when it comes to discourse, but I do not hear their admonitions of disdain over behavior exemplified by the students at Columbia University mentioned earlier in this post. Too bad... illustrates Peggy's point!
This reminds me of my Poli Sci instructor at Ventura College. Mr. Singer's favorite saying on the 1st Amendment was " Freedom of Speech dosen't mean you have to listen"
He was a survivor of the Bataan Death March and years in a Japanese POW coal mine (across from Nagasaki). My favorite of his was, "The Constitution provides for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - it dosen't say you get to catch it."
Posted by: ken | October 24, 2006 at 01:49 PM