Freedom of Speech Doesn't Mean Freedom From Repercussions, But People Should Still Be Allowed to Speak
It's a tad surreal to be involved in comedy during this time in our history. Comedians have, throughout history, consistently tried pushing the envelope as far as appropriateness goes. In yesteryear, if a joke went too far, they'd remove it from their routine, try something else, and the earth would continue to move. That was before the advent of the Internet and social media, however. As times has progressed, so too has the call for increased sensitivities to all demographics. Nowadays, if a joke goes too far, social media sites like Twitter attempt to temporarily stop the world as they try and put the comedian out of business. There's always been a fine line for comedians to walk down, but that line has progressively become longer and narrower, making it ever more difficult to keep one's balance.
So where do we draw the line? This isn't just limited to comedians. Is there a similar balancing act politically-correct free speech supporters can walk to help preserve our First Amendment rights while also standing up to bigotry? This juggling act appears to be one of the big challenges in the era of social media. While it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, to consistently stand up to hate, having a one-size-fits-all mentality when it comes to offensive content and attempting to silence those you don't agree with may do more harm than good in the end. Isn't that one big reason Donald Trump got elected president? Millions felt silenced; he, for whatever reason, gave them a voice; and the walking, talking disaster known as Drumpf is now in the Oval Office as a result. Attempting to silence haters tends to only exacerbate their hatred, to the point where we have a sexual predator white supremacist in the White House. What is the right answer? I personally don't know, but we've tried the silence-them route before and look where that got us. Perhaps we need to try a different strategy. We can't change hearts and minds if we refuse to acknowledge and listen to them. While hatred should never be tolerated, it can't be ignored, for admission, not ignorance, of a problem is the first step to solving it. We can't solve a problem if we pretend it doesn't exist.
So where do we draw the line? This isn't just limited to comedians. Is there a similar balancing act politically-correct free speech supporters can walk to help preserve our First Amendment rights while also standing up to bigotry? This juggling act appears to be one of the big challenges in the era of social media. While it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, to consistently stand up to hate, having a one-size-fits-all mentality when it comes to offensive content and attempting to silence those you don't agree with may do more harm than good in the end. Isn't that one big reason Donald Trump got elected president? Millions felt silenced; he, for whatever reason, gave them a voice; and the walking, talking disaster known as Drumpf is now in the Oval Office as a result. Attempting to silence haters tends to only exacerbate their hatred, to the point where we have a sexual predator white supremacist in the White House. What is the right answer? I personally don't know, but we've tried the silence-them route before and look where that got us. Perhaps we need to try a different strategy. We can't change hearts and minds if we refuse to acknowledge and listen to them. While hatred should never be tolerated, it can't be ignored, for admission, not ignorance, of a problem is the first step to solving it. We can't solve a problem if we pretend it doesn't exist.
Comments
Post a Comment