Home Pop Culture Freedom of Speech is Only Lip Service

Freedom of Speech is Only Lip Service

SHARE

mouth

(continued from page 2)

This brings me to the topic of the law: hate speech. Hate speech is when you say something that is seen as offensive in any way, shape, or form. But doesn’t this law then contradict our other law? Why make a new law that disregards the stance of the other one? Why not all together just make a new law called: you can speak your mind but only to a certain extent— make sure that it will not offend anyone in the entire world. So where can the line be drawn between freedom of speech and hate speech? Honestly, there cannot be a visible and obvious line, because anything anyone says can somehow be offensive to someone out there in the world, which makes that freedom of expression a hate speech. I can say, “I think dogs make better pets than cats,” and someone out there will protest that I am a cat-ist. Furthermore, aren’t gossip and tabloid magazines and any other form of media also offensive to some? So shouldn’t they be penalized for that? I don’t think we media-crazed citizens can survive without them, yet, why should we support it if it’s making someone feel bad? When magazines praise skinny celebrities while ridiculing fatter celebrities, isn’t that a hate speech? After all, they are using a degrading and intimidating speech that is prejudicial and biased. In that case, doesn’t Perez Hilton write offensive things about celebrities? Doesn’t that ironically make him an instigator of hate speech, thus making him a hypocrite and bigot?

Personally, I believe that any kind of speech should be free and openly made — whether it be a positive view or a negative view on something. You either have freedom of speech or you don’t have it all. There cannot be a nice middle part where freedom of speech and hate speech can unite and have a happy medium. That doesn’t mean that one should encourage people to go skipping down the streets chanting that they are racist— that’s just lack of common sense. Rather, allow people to say what they want to say, don’t belittle them and make them feel like they are absolutely wrong, because somewhere out in the world, someone will agree with them.

With thoughts that cannot be expressed verbally, who is to say that these ideas aren’t likely to skip over and be manifested violently? The censorship and limitation might drive people to the edge and make it more likely for them to act out. Remember the playground quote, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?

Writing this article is another form of my own freedom of speech. Yet, must I first clarify that I am not racist, sexist, or any other kind of “-ist.”  before you read it? Assuming you agreed to read this far. Get my point?


SHARE
 

4 COMMENTS

  1. Steven,

    I wish I could take credit for this piece, but it’s not mine. It belongs to Jennifer Song.

    I come from a place where freedom of speech is not part of the constitution – in fact we don’t actually have a constitution at all – so I find it all rather interesting. I haven’t decided yet whether I think it’s a good idea or not.

  2. Jenifer,

    After reading your article, one thing kept coming to mind. People need to be reminded of what freedom of speech actually entitles them to. People are not entitled to saying what they want, where they want, whenever. That is not how it works. You talk about inappropriate stuff at work, that is your right. It doesn’t mean you won’t be fired the next day. You exercise your freedom to talk about bombs at an airport? I guarantee you the next few hours of your life will be unpleasant.

    Freedom of speech really entitles you to only one thing (and even then it is iffy). It guarantees that you, after voicing whatever might be ping-ponging around in your brain, will not be jailed or murdered (by the government (supposedly)). This is all. This is the equivalent of saying that you have a right to eat three meals a day. It isn’t telling you that they will be delicious, or even life-sustaining. It only guarantees that the three meals (in whatever ways the freedom fighters interpret the word) will be present. Same with the First Amendment. You are not guaranteed pleasant treatment by society. If that was the case, whoa. Eavesdropping on the subway would be an even more disturbing experience.

    This freedom of speech everyone touts, if trampled upon, really (if we shed all illusions) only entitles you to spending an extremely long time in court, with a fifty-fifty chance of anything actually changing. This is our beloved First Amendment: be careful with her. She’s a fragile old bird.

  3. Kelly,

    You are so right [on some things] that we have the freedom of speech. I watched the example you used to great lengths. Carrie took her right and spoke from the heart. But so did Perez. Much of what you are talking about is the media frenzy around it. Either way, all had the freedome of speech. BUT – with that freedome comes criticism. Whether we are talking about verbally or perception…I think it is safe to assume there will always be criticism. All of us must take accountability for our actions; whether they are physical or verbal. Carrie appears to be a very smart person…I don’t think for minute that she did not think of her answer and the possible reaction it may bring. I support her for speaking her mind…but that doesn’t mean I agree with her heart. She was in the lime-light…she knew every step, word or action would be scrutinized…she will now need to raise her chin high and answer only to herself for her choices. I like that she has stood by her heart and her words…but again…if she can have the freedom of speech…then so should everyone else.

    Similar comments for Parez…no, i don’t think the word bitch was appropriate or some of his comments made on his site…BUT…he has the same freedom as Carrie. I am sure he lost some followers too by his actions…but he stands by them. As with Carrie..I stand by his conviction…but not all of his words.

    I am sorry…I just don’t see where Carrie’s freedom of speach was ever violated…she has had more face time out of this situation than anyone I know. NO ONE has silenced her. If she believes her continuous talks about this are good for her or her cause…then I applaud her…BUT she [as well as Perez] must accept every comment that is in disagreement too.

Comments are closed.