A man walks down the street wearing a tee shirt that has a picture of a priest standing over a kneeling child, with his hand on the child's head. The caption says 'Jesus says Cum onto the Children'. What would your first reaction be in seeing this shirt? Would you cause physical and mental abuse to this person? Would you laugh? Either way, do you believe this person has the right to wear this shirt?
I guess the above would create a point that our country expresses the right to free speech but at the same time we react offensively to it. In doing so does it stop people from expressing their voice because if it is going to cause them pain, why do it?
Now I would never stop anyone from expressing their opinion, whether in person or in some other form. There is nothing anyone can say that will offend me and I would never ask anyone to apologize for their opinion. I have no issues with groups and individuals protesting or being offended, that is what makes the battle fun. Where I have issues is when that offensiveness starts to infringe on other's rights to express themselves or enjoy the output of that expression.
Social Networking is becoming more and more important in the battle of free speech. This outlet has allowed us to have a voice and bring that voice to people around the world. It gives us a chance to freely discuss our lives, no matter how boring it may be. At the same time it also brings the same narrow mindedness and arrogance that we have to deal with everyday.
A football player for the Steelers had to apologize for comments on Twitter about Bin Laden's death. He said that it was sad that we celebrated the killing of another human being. So even though others thought the same thing, this person was asked to apologize. Was this because he was a professional athlete and therefore had no right to express his opinion or was this about the fact that he spoke against the hypocrisy of the country?
One of the great things about free speech is the ability to bring about discussion on several topics. To me there is nothing greater than people with different views getting together and having a heated debate. Then afterwards everyone leaves still having their beliefs or maybe even changed their mind. So why don't we have more of this? Could it be because people do not want the abuse?
In 2004, there was an incident at the University of NC, where a teacher was trying to get a discussion going about 'why heterosexual males were threatened by homosexual males'. So a Christian person gave his religious opinion and because others did not agree with, he was accused of creating 'hate speech' and a 'hostile environment'.
Why does it seem that voices of protest are louder than voices of reason when it comes to being offended? Is it because the voices of reason are afraid to talk? Why can't people just turn their back, walk away or get over what they think is offensive?
South Park has had several episodes of the show that have been kept from re airing because of religious groups, television executives and Tom Cruise. Were the fans of South Park asked if they wanted to see the episodes? What right did these groups have to speak for everyone when it came to whether these episodes got aired?
GLAAD is a group that fights diligently for others but they also seem to think they have the right to decide what is or is not defamation of the 'gay' community.
GLAAD 'fined' Kevin Smith because they did not like one of his films that had some 'gay' overtones. They protest movies where they think 'gay' people are always portrayed as serial killers. Does GLAAD think we are all so brain dead that just by watching a movie with a bi sexual killer that we think all 'gay' people are killers? What does that tell us as citizen's about what GLAAD thinks of us? By the way, just a point, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Gein and Aileen Wuornos, all serial killers and all gay/bi sexual.
There are tons of examples where the battle for free speech continues in both directions. This is a subject that we must all fight in our own way because it is driven by our own beliefs. The fact should be that both people who speak and the people who are offended should drive freedom of speech because having both can only make it stronger. The question is can they co exist and be beneficial to us as a country? I guess we should think about that when you see me walking down the street with a tee shirt that says 'Jesus Smokes Pole',
No comments:
Post a Comment