Free Speech is a dangerous thing. It is dangerous to those that want to dominate and control others, and that is exactly why the founders of our nation were SO set on allowing it. Free speech is a danger to a controlling government. It is a danger to those that want to do harm to others and remain unchallenged. It is a danger to those that want to use the force of law and society to oppress their detractors. Free speech is a danger for all of those reasons and numerous others.
Speech is dangerous and it is powerful. It can condemn, it can inflame, it can agree, it can soothe, it can change things, and it can convince. When I see people who want to use it for their causes, but limit it for the causes of others or for those that oppose them it bothers me, regardless of which side I agree with.
Two current stories sum up my concerns with the free speech debate in the US at the moment.
First you have the Dept Homeland Security issuing a memo about the danger of those who disagree with illegal immigration, want to keep their guns, disagree with gay marriage, and do not like big government. The Thomas More Foundation is suing arguing the civil liberties of such citizens are being infringed on by the memo. Sure some people with those views are extremist, but so are some people that desire to open the borders, outlaw guns, the legalization of gay marriage, and the globalization of all countries under one government.
A suit citing civil liberties violations is the same tact previous taken previously when other groups felt they were being profiled or targeted. We will see if this case is handled or viewed in the same manner as previous ones. I do know that dissent was called patriotic during the Bush administration,, we will see if it is still so now. Regardless of how this suit goes, free speech is good for America, even if I don’t agree with what some are saying.
Continuing to look at this same issue. To paint people with such a broad brush is wrong and to categorize them as extreme for merely holding some common beliefs has a chilling effect on many people. Most people don’t want to be labeled as extreme for simply holding a viewpoint contrary to others. For most, it is simpler then for them to remain silent when they feel their views will be labelled inflammatory solely at the discretion of an authority. Allowing the labeling of people as extreme solely for holding a opposing or dissenting view to those in charge is wrong, regardless of who is in charge. Such broad labels has a chilling effect and reduces speech as fewer and fewer people want to be branded.
To label everyone with a certain view has a extremist is wrong regardless of what the view is. Every Muslim is not a terrorist. Every handgun owner is not a murderer. Every conservative is not a bigot. Every liberal is not a eco-terrorist. Every person for more government programs is not a socialist. Every person for lower taxes is not a person that is going to lead a armed revolt against government. Why we think it is good to oppose the speech of those that disagree with us is beyond me. At some point it is likely that the tables will turn and those attempting to oppress now will be the ones feeling oppressed later.
The other big story showing the nature of free speech in America at this time is the current fervor over Miss Califorinia (Carrie Prejean) telling Perez Hilton that she did not agree with gay marriage, though she began by saying she was glad she lived in a country where you could choose. It is largely assumed she lost the crown of Miss America for this answer. After the show, Mr Hilton called her names, has ranted, and such, has called her stupid, says she should have ducked the question, etc.
Yet he does not seem to understand that the very right of speech and opinion he is using to attack her is the same one she used to share her views. She has the right to not agree with gay marriage. It is not his place to determine her views. I am sure he would not want someone else telling him his views or calling him stupid for sharing his opinions, yet he seems to believe it is his right to control her views / actions.
What would Perez Hilton do if a conservative minister ask him if gay marriage should be legalized? He would say it should be legal. That is his view, his opinion and his right. If the conservative minister then went online and said Mr Hilton was stupid for his opinion, that he should have ducked the question because his view was not the view of the person asking the question and that he was simple minded then he would be outraged, and rightfully so.
Miss Prejean has not backed down and has not recanted her views. Maybe that is what is so different about her. She has not changed her stance to quieten her detractors. I respect that. I respect that when someone I disagree with does that as well, but when you start telling people how they should think and act I have a problem. If one side does not want their actions and views controlled they should not expect to control the actions and views of those that differ with them.
At the end of the day, I am for free speech because I am for freedom and liberty even if some use those things in ways I personally do not like. I know a few things for sure. First, Jesus loves us all. Secondly, that God has a plan in all of this. Third, God corrects those He loves, and fourth, that He lets us speak freely about His love and His way for everyone to hear. That does not mean that everyone will listen or even like what they hear when they listen. That is what makes free speech so vital. It is not about finding people that say what you like, but allowing those that differ in their views from you to speak as well.
As I said above, God loves everyone, but He also corrects. That is tough to hear at times when emotions (like politics, sexuality, etc) are involved. People tend to get caught up in the emotion of issues far more then the facts and the reality of situations.
Personally, I am for lower taxes, smaller government, controlled spending, and lots of individual freedoms (i.e. liberty and responsiblity). That does not mean I think every that differs with me is a pea brained automoton sent from the central government to control my every action and thought, though there may be some out there like that. Because I disagree with someone or some thought does not mean I want that person banished or that thought squashed. Debate, disagreement, and determined action is what shapes the future of any great nation or movement.
Personally I am not for gay marriage, but I don’t hate gays. I disagree with their lifestyle, but that does not mean I hate them. I assume they probably disagree with mine as well, but I assume they don’t hate me for it. To disagree with someone or something is not to hate them. I disagree with my wife, my family, my friends regularly, but I hate none of them.
So, as you go about your day think about what you are seeing and hearing both from those that agree and disagree with you and then think about if those people are actively trying to limit those that disagree with them. If they are they are doing a far greater disservice to themselves and their movement then they may even realize.
