In light of the recent barrage of college protests regarding discrimination, multiple columnists, both left- and right-of-center, have made it known that they believe far left-wing liberals are going too far with their alleged politically-correct sensitivities.
Yesterday, I commented on an article from the right-leaning Peter Scheer, where he seemed to believe the Black Lives Matter movement and college protesters fighting discrimination are thin-skinned, will be rudely awakened once they enter the workforce, and need to stop whining.
My response to him was, certain demographics have sat quietly on the sidelines long enough while they attempted to wait for authority figures to actually grant them the equalities supposedly afforded to us all courtesy of the U.S. Constitution. So this reported "whining" can be defined as the before-mentioned demographics finally standing up against discrimination and fighting for equal rights and respect in the eyes of the law and their superiors. Scheer also seemed to be one to believe that "free speech" is absolute and can never be limited. Even the most naive of us have to know in our gut that isn't true, though. As is the case with all freedoms, there are limitations to the concept of free speech. If you don't believe me, feel free to utter some offensive and profanity-laced comments you've bottled up for a number of weeks and let them all come out at once toward your boss and see how that goes...
Like there are many nuances to free speech, there are nuances to censorship as well, and that was showcased in an article written by Jeff Schweitzer today, entitled, "Intolerance Masked As Tolerance Is Still Intolerance."
Schweitzer's article had less to deal with groups fighting for equality and against discrimination and more to do with college protesters attempting to silence guest speakers at their schools, namely ones with a far-right political slant (but also, to be fair, Bill Maher). While I had a difficult time understanding Peter Scheer's complaints regarding minorities protesting against discrimination and for equality, Schweitzer's complaints are much trickier on which to fully conclude one way or the other. Should right- and left-leaning media personalities be able to utter their opinions without fear of being canned (with certain flexibility on said comments of course)? Sure. However, if one of these personalities gets invited to speak at a university and the majority of students are none too pleased about it, should they then have the right to protest the speaker? Again, yes. So where do we draw the line? Are these protesters, by exercising their free speech, limiting another's free speech? Does that do more to illustrate the true power of free speech or the limitations of it? The trickiest position in all of this are the heads of universities. Inviting the guests, knowing there will likely be some backlash to face because of it, and once the protests go public, with the social media world being what it is, they're then stuck with asking themselves, "Do we stick this thing out, in spite of all the backlash, and hope it doesn't do much to damage our image and reputation long-term, or do we fold and cancel the speaker's scheduled appearance?"
While I think the far left-wing goes too far at times when it comes to trying to dispose of right-wing talk radio show hosts and the like, I also think the recent barrage of anti-college protester and anti-political correctness columns are missing two key points: 1) Progressive voices have been largely drowned out of talk radio (and even cable news to a certain extent) and 2) This kind of thing goes both ways.
Let's face it, no matter how much Republicans like to complain about the mainstream news media being liberally-biased (which is nonsense), conservatives rule the airwaves. Fox News, the right-leaning cable news network, has dominated its competition (CNN and MSNBC) since its inception. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, among other far-right conservatives, have dominated the radio. When liberals tried to compete with a radio station of their own, it didn't last long. So what are progressives left with? Rachel Maddow? This is why many progressives resort to the Internet and sites like Slate.com, Salon.com, and ThinkProgress.com, because where else are they going to find media personalities with whom they tend to agree, besides Comedy Central? So while many progressives have felt they've been drowned out of portions of the media, liberal college protesters have tried doing similarly at times by drowning out conservative speakers at their universities. Does that make their actions right? No, not necessarily; but it is understandable. Many progressives feel like they have little to no voice in the media, so when the time comes where they can have a voice, it's all too tempting to make it heard for a change.
Also, let's not pretend like this is a one-sided affair. While these college protesters do tend to be liberal and protest against conservative speakers, the tables have been turned on a number of occasions. When I attended a Marilyn Manson concert in 1997, who were the ones trying to cancel the show through protests? Conservatives. When I saw President Obama speak for the first time in Omaha, Nebraska, who were the ones trying to cancel the event due to his pro-choice record and beliefs? Conservatives. Who have protested just about each and every Michael Moore film, even going so far as to pressure theaters to not show the film? Conservatives. So, again, does this make the before-mentioned liberal college protesters right in their actions? No, not necessarily, but let's not mistake the forest for the trees.
Free speech is one of, if not the most cherished right in this country. However, like with all freedoms, there are nuances and limitations to it. Protests are a direct result of this and have been seemingly ubiquitous throughout our country's history. While we shouldn't use protests to completely drown out opinions we may disagree with, it's perfectly understandable to protest these voices when they're on our home turf. After all, what's wrong with telling an uninvited guest to get off one's property? Also, while everyone should "tolerate" differing opinions, if another makes a racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic remark, they also have to tolerate the inevitable backlash they're going to receive as a result. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/intolerance-masked-as-tol_b_8592142.html
Yesterday, I commented on an article from the right-leaning Peter Scheer, where he seemed to believe the Black Lives Matter movement and college protesters fighting discrimination are thin-skinned, will be rudely awakened once they enter the workforce, and need to stop whining.
My response to him was, certain demographics have sat quietly on the sidelines long enough while they attempted to wait for authority figures to actually grant them the equalities supposedly afforded to us all courtesy of the U.S. Constitution. So this reported "whining" can be defined as the before-mentioned demographics finally standing up against discrimination and fighting for equal rights and respect in the eyes of the law and their superiors. Scheer also seemed to be one to believe that "free speech" is absolute and can never be limited. Even the most naive of us have to know in our gut that isn't true, though. As is the case with all freedoms, there are limitations to the concept of free speech. If you don't believe me, feel free to utter some offensive and profanity-laced comments you've bottled up for a number of weeks and let them all come out at once toward your boss and see how that goes...
Like there are many nuances to free speech, there are nuances to censorship as well, and that was showcased in an article written by Jeff Schweitzer today, entitled, "Intolerance Masked As Tolerance Is Still Intolerance."
Schweitzer's article had less to deal with groups fighting for equality and against discrimination and more to do with college protesters attempting to silence guest speakers at their schools, namely ones with a far-right political slant (but also, to be fair, Bill Maher). While I had a difficult time understanding Peter Scheer's complaints regarding minorities protesting against discrimination and for equality, Schweitzer's complaints are much trickier on which to fully conclude one way or the other. Should right- and left-leaning media personalities be able to utter their opinions without fear of being canned (with certain flexibility on said comments of course)? Sure. However, if one of these personalities gets invited to speak at a university and the majority of students are none too pleased about it, should they then have the right to protest the speaker? Again, yes. So where do we draw the line? Are these protesters, by exercising their free speech, limiting another's free speech? Does that do more to illustrate the true power of free speech or the limitations of it? The trickiest position in all of this are the heads of universities. Inviting the guests, knowing there will likely be some backlash to face because of it, and once the protests go public, with the social media world being what it is, they're then stuck with asking themselves, "Do we stick this thing out, in spite of all the backlash, and hope it doesn't do much to damage our image and reputation long-term, or do we fold and cancel the speaker's scheduled appearance?"
While I think the far left-wing goes too far at times when it comes to trying to dispose of right-wing talk radio show hosts and the like, I also think the recent barrage of anti-college protester and anti-political correctness columns are missing two key points: 1) Progressive voices have been largely drowned out of talk radio (and even cable news to a certain extent) and 2) This kind of thing goes both ways.
Let's face it, no matter how much Republicans like to complain about the mainstream news media being liberally-biased (which is nonsense), conservatives rule the airwaves. Fox News, the right-leaning cable news network, has dominated its competition (CNN and MSNBC) since its inception. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, among other far-right conservatives, have dominated the radio. When liberals tried to compete with a radio station of their own, it didn't last long. So what are progressives left with? Rachel Maddow? This is why many progressives resort to the Internet and sites like Slate.com, Salon.com, and ThinkProgress.com, because where else are they going to find media personalities with whom they tend to agree, besides Comedy Central? So while many progressives have felt they've been drowned out of portions of the media, liberal college protesters have tried doing similarly at times by drowning out conservative speakers at their universities. Does that make their actions right? No, not necessarily; but it is understandable. Many progressives feel like they have little to no voice in the media, so when the time comes where they can have a voice, it's all too tempting to make it heard for a change.
Also, let's not pretend like this is a one-sided affair. While these college protesters do tend to be liberal and protest against conservative speakers, the tables have been turned on a number of occasions. When I attended a Marilyn Manson concert in 1997, who were the ones trying to cancel the show through protests? Conservatives. When I saw President Obama speak for the first time in Omaha, Nebraska, who were the ones trying to cancel the event due to his pro-choice record and beliefs? Conservatives. Who have protested just about each and every Michael Moore film, even going so far as to pressure theaters to not show the film? Conservatives. So, again, does this make the before-mentioned liberal college protesters right in their actions? No, not necessarily, but let's not mistake the forest for the trees.
Free speech is one of, if not the most cherished right in this country. However, like with all freedoms, there are nuances and limitations to it. Protests are a direct result of this and have been seemingly ubiquitous throughout our country's history. While we shouldn't use protests to completely drown out opinions we may disagree with, it's perfectly understandable to protest these voices when they're on our home turf. After all, what's wrong with telling an uninvited guest to get off one's property? Also, while everyone should "tolerate" differing opinions, if another makes a racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic remark, they also have to tolerate the inevitable backlash they're going to receive as a result. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/intolerance-masked-as-tol_b_8592142.html
Comments
Post a Comment