Free Speech or NOT?  Free speech in Academia- Not So Much Anymore

Academic Freedom & Free Speech

Introduction:

After I wrote the following blog, I asked myself if this was not too much of a rant against the Republican Party.  I had to face the fact that it has been the Republican Party which has been waging the war against public education in this country.  However, I did not want this to be a rant against Republicans. I truly believe that Democrats and Republicans can offer a useful counterbalance to each other’s traditional positions IF they are so inclined to discuss and try to reach a compromise on positions and policies.  I am afraid that what I would like and what is possible today given the demonization of each party by the other side is no longer an option.

Some friends suggested that I simply avoid using the word Republican.  I thought about this, but the idea crossed my mind that if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck and looks like a duck, then it is most likely a duck.  Republicans are at the forefront of an anti-intellectual agenda taking place across America today.  There can be no hiding or denying this fact.  If you identify as a Republican and are for free speech in schools, then you should speak out against these anti-public education policies or else vote as an independent.  If you continue to be silent or vote for Republican candidates simply based on party affiliation, then you are as guilty as those who would banish free speech in schools.

speech under attack

Freedom to Speak

Once upon a time, the freedom to speak the unspeakable was protected in Academia by a system unique to the hallowed Ivory Halls known as “Academic Tenure.”  Academic Tenure was thought of as an almost ironclad guarantee that would allow the professorial class the ability to speak their minds on any subject without fear of reprisals.  Wikipedia defines the system, and its purpose as follows:

“Tenure is a category of academic appointment existing in some countries.  A tenured post is an indefinite academic appointment that can be terminated only for cause or under extraordinary circumstances, such as financial exigency or program discontinuation.  Tenure is a means of defending the principle of academic freedom, which holds that it is beneficial for society in the long run if scholars are free to hold and examine a variety of views.” Wikipedia

Now the purpose of education is mainly to create people who think for themselves.  Over the years, schools have had only minor success at accomplishing this goal.  There once was at least some correlation between the amount of education people had and their ability to think independently of political or economic ties.  As education for jobs, what I call Technocratic Education, has gradually replaced the idea of Liberal Education, this correlation has diminished.  Under the goals of the old Liberal Education, the correlation between education and independent thinking was stronger albeit, it still left a lot to be desired.

Today, we live in an age of Technocratic Education.  Students are now more interested in IT, Computer Science, Law, Medicine, and Engineering than English, History, Philosophy, and the Liberal Arts.  People go to school to get training in job skills and less in creative thinking skills.  We have doctors, lawyers, engineers, computer programmers, and many other graduates who while they may be experts in a certain field often have no idea of what happens beyond their chosen discipline.  This fact of specialization could make a strong case for the old Liberal Education.  Sadly, we cannot bring back the past.  Students pay ridiculous amounts of tuition in hopes of finding a job.  It is not easy to pay bills today.  The cost of living keeps skyrocketing.  That will not change.

Years ago, the Republican Party recognized that American Universities were saturated with professors who tended towards a liberal political perspective.  A large majority of professors were Democrats and some even very left wing.  A small minority were Conservatives.  The Republican Party schemed how they could change this.  Liberal Education and Democrats went together.  This would not do for the Republicans.  They came up with three ideas.

  1. Destroy and or neuter public education.
  2. Destroy tenure in institutions of public education
  3. Create conservative think tanks which would skew information and research to the right.

They were aided in their efforts to destroy public education by the prevailing zeitgeist which saw a decrease in the number of students interested in a Liberal Arts Education.  Technocratic Education had become the new standard.  Teacher Education was also declining as a preferred career field under an assault by school boards and Republicans to control curriculums and what teachers could say and teach.  In Gov. Ron DeSantis’ “Free State of Florida,” a charter school principal was forced to resign after sixth-grade students were shown images of Michelangelo’s notably nude sculpture, “David.”  Apparently, DeSantis never visited downtown Louisville where a 30-foot-high gold painted statue of David is in the middle of a major street.  David is complete with his genitalia.

david

The lack of funding for teachers, lack of prestige in the profession and war on ideas and free speech may kill public schools simply because of a shortage of teachers willing to deal with this denigration.  The Republican assault on tenure has been very successful.  It has led to a decrease in the number of schools with Academic Tenure.

Tenure Under Attack Nationwide:  Continued political pressures threaten to erode tenure on public campuses and compromise academic freedom. — Mark J. Drozdowski, Ed.D., Dec 8, 2021

“In January, legislators in South Carolina will consider a bill to eliminate tenure at the state’s public colleges and universities. While this may seem like an extraordinary move, it actually aligns with current and recent plans in several other states nationwide.”

Several other state legislatures have moved to abolish tenure in public schools.  News sources like Fox News continually portray educators as flaming Liberals and Radicals who want to brainwash our young people into believing in Socialism or Communism.  Here is a recent story on Fox News:

“Former teacher warns new Minnesota educator licensing standards includes every ‘buzzword’ from the far-left.”  — America Reports, January 30, 2023

The usual formula by Fox is to find some story with a “real teacher” who supports their conservative perspective and who is “blowing the whistle” on yet another dastardly plot by Liberals to brainwash students.  Conservatives hate “WOKE” ideas and liberal ideas that might be promoted to help protect the rights of minorities such as Blacks, LGBTQ, and Immigrants.  They also hate unions because they try to protect the rights of teachers.  This former elementary school teacher has made a second career out of railing against such liberal policies and support for unions.   The following video by another teacher is more emblematic of what teachers are thinking and doing today.  Please take a minute to listen to this teacher.

Gross Pointe Teacher Roasts School Board and Resigns 

A tribute to Republican propaganda is that the term Conservative has not become a dirty word in politics.  However, few Liberal politicians will define themselves as Liberals.  Hardly a day goes by when I do not read of some Republican Legislature bringing out new laws to muzzle teachers and ensure that they do not say anything which would lead to a questioning of authority.  We now have a “Parents Rights bill” sponsored by “you know who.”  This is a party that is all in for “Rights” but seem to forgot that as my Principal Sister Giovanni always liked to say “For every right, there is a responsibility.”  I would love to see a “Parent’s Responsibility Bill.”

socrates

I find it ironic, that 2600 years ago, Socrates, the smartest man in the world was tried, found guilty and executed for daring to teach young people to think for themselves.  He was executed in another place famous for its claim to democratic principles. Socrates believed that the foundation of education was based on questioning everything.  Republicans believe that the foundation is based on discipline, following instructions, and doing what you are told to do by your leaders.  One philosophy leads to pluralism, while the other leads to fascism.  The results of the Republican strategy can be clearly seen by the attack on the US Congress by a mob of Trump supporters and the resulting silence by the majority of the Republican leadership.  As tenure and unions decline, more and more educators find themselves threatened with jail and/or fines for teaching ideas and theories that are anathema to Conservatives, Evangelicals, and Republicans.

“In Indiana under a proposed bill (Senate Bill 12), if a prosecutor charged a teacher or school librarian with disseminating material that is harmful to minors, the school teacher or librarian would not be able to argue that the material had educational value as a defense.”Feb, 28, 2023, Indiana Senate passes bill to ban ‘bad’ books, ease prosecution of teachers, librarians.

The final plank in the Republican platform to destroy education was to establish several think tanks and political action groups that would sponsor bills and laws to support their agenda.  If this seems somewhat absurd, allow me to explain further.  The current Republican Party is the most anti-intellectual and anti-science party that has ever existed in the USA.  There has always been a strong strain of anti-intellectualism in America   (Read Hofstadter’s book “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life).  The Republican Party has carried this strain to new heights.  Two examples as evidence of my statement:

  1. Their denial of climate change.
  2. Their anti-mask and anti-covid vaccine stance during the epidemic.

climate-environment-opinions-partisan-divide-promo-1582162903159-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600-v3

nyl0jcoeskqpn9g-h68dcg

It can be argued that not all Republicans supported these positions but enough have done so to stymie efforts at reducing oil and gas emissions that directly contribute to climate change.  In terms of the Covid Epidemic, their opposition to masks and vaccines probably led to thousands of needless deaths.

The idea of “think tanks” and political action groups was sheer genius.  The Republicans realized that truth was ephemeral and that those who controlled the press or so-called research could write their own narratives.  Groups like AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH and the CATO INSTITUTE are nothing but shills for the Republican Party.  They exist to put a pseudo intellectual veneer on Republican efforts to destroy honest science and scandalize public policies that they are opposed to.

“The Trump team may not have been prepared to staff the government, but the Heritage Foundation was.  In the summer of 2014, a year before Trump even declared his candidacy, the right-wing think tank had started assembling a 3,000-name searchable database of trusted movement conservatives from around the country who were eager to serve in a post-Obama government.  The initiative was called the Project to Restore America, a dog-whistle appeal to the so-called silent majority that foreshadowed Trump’s own campaign slogan.”  — How One Conservative Think Tank is Stocking Trump’s Government, — By Jonathan Mahler, NY Times Magazine, June 20, 2018

There is nothing wrong with vigorously supporting your ideas and policies.  However, when fake science is done with people paid off by bribes or when research is perverted to support a political agenda rather than the public good, there is a great deal wrong.  The Republican Party has shown repeatedly that they will stoop to any low to win votes and to control American policies.  Their agenda ignores the art of compromise or finding the middle ground.  One early study into the purpose or goals of conservative think tanks noted the following in its summary:

The study revealed that these conservative think tanks are substantially different from more traditional policy institutions in their open advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and in the relative weakness of the scholarly credentials and policy experience of their personnel, compared to more established policy organizations.  

Their positions on higher education issues focused on a perceived decline in the teaching of Western culture, opposition to affirmative action and multicultural studies, and calls for decreases in funding for higher education.   — Conservative Think Tanks and Higher Education Policy: by Susan Marie Wilis, Bowling Green University, A Dissertation, 1991

Think-Tank-Spectrum

Conclusions:

I have little doubt that much of my information in this blog is not news to many of my readers.  I fear that I am preaching to the choir.  My hope is that some of you who support my positions and ideas will either repost my blog or send it to someone else who you think might benefit from reading it.  Many people have already argued my case and most of those arguing have been more erudite and scholarly than I have been.  I have added my voice to the chorus of people who can see what is happening to education in America for a simple reason.  I hope that my simplistic depiction of  those who want to destroy public education and open discourse in our schools will find a place alongside the more extensive treatises that have been written.

PS:  Here is one example in today’s news:  Talk about stifling discussions!

The “Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act,” SB 83, “Affirm(s) and guarantee(s) that faculty and staff shall allow and encourage students to reach their own conclusions about all controversial matters and shall not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view.”  

Further, “Controversial belief or policy means any belief or policy that is the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate change, electoral politics.”

Officials have tried repeatedly to control how issues they find controversial are taught — or not — in Ohio.  Two decades ago, after the state Board of Education eliminated creationism from its model curriculum, creationism board supporters proposed a policy of neutrality on topics it deemed “controversial”. Those included evolution, climate change, and human reproductive technologies.

Higher ed bill might as well be called ‘Make College Courses Boring Act.’”, Steve Rissing, Special to The Columbus Dispatch, March 26, 2023

Want to guess who sponsored this act?

Jerry Cirino is a Republican member of the Ohio Senate representing the 18th district.  He was elected in 2020, defeating Democrat Betsy Rader with 60% of the vote. 

 

 

 

Free Speech or NOT? Free speech on both the political right and the political left

woman-taped-mouth-thoughts-freedom-of-speech-expressionThis past Thursday I attended a meeting for a new Veterans group that had recently formed in our town.  There were three people at a table in front of the group (two men and a woman) and about 20 or so people in chairs facing the table.  The two men whom I assumed were leaders mentioned that the key-note speakers, someone from the Arizona Posse and someone from the Pinal Country Sheriffs department may or may not make the meeting.  Apparently there had been a few recent killings in area and both groups were lending support to the Casa Grande Police department.  The woman in front was the spouse of one of the men leading the group.  She was also the club secretary.

One of the leaders outlined the various apparel that was for sale to raise funds for the group as well as sell some tickets for a fifty-fifty raffle.  Eventually, we all stood for the Pledge of Allegiance and then an invocation from one of the two male leaders who was apparently a pastor at a local church.

napoleon

After this the group leader on the right started a spiel about how “THEY” were not allowing history to be taught anymore in the schools.  He had brought a bunch of old books that looked like they came from an antique store, and he went on about how these books had the “real” history in them.  But THEY had removed the true history from current textbooks so that THEY could hide the truth from us about what had really happened.  He ended with two pleas.

  1. Those of us who wanted the truth most not be afraid to stand up and speak out.
  2. We must heal the divide in the country and reduce partisanship.

I could not agree more with his first plea but the second one struck me as strongly hypocritical since all of his speech was a right-wing polemic against what he perceived as a liberal bias in schools and the media.

Now I have to tell you, it was all I could do not to walk out of this meeting.  Retired Arizona veterans are not known for their liberal orientation.  I looked around to see if anyone was as disgusted with the speech just given as I was but no one seemed overly concerned.  I kept my mouth shut and decided to see what the next speaker, the leader who was also a pastor had to say.

download 222

He was even more right-wing than the first speaker.  He went on and on about Political Correctness ruining America and again the ambiguous “THEY” who are out to destroy freedom and democracy.  I was getting more and more annoyed.  I looked around to see if I would have any support in the group if things escalated and decided that I would not.  I thought about speaking out.  Fear governed my emotions.  I kept reminding myself that “The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority and the test of courage comes when we are in the minority.”  I was no doubt in the minority.  Would I be a craven coward?

download 1

The pastor started to quote Nietzsche with “Those who forget the past will continue to make mistakes.”  I lost it right there.  Wrong person and butchered quote.  Courage did not play a role in what happened next.  I stood up and said “You are wrong.  Nietzsche did not say this.  George Santayana said it and it should go “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  Other people have of course said a similar thought, but I do not remember Nietzsche having said this.  Furthermore, my bias against Nietzsche raised my ire even higher than with the first speaker.

I then gave the following diatribe to the assembled group.  I said “First of all there are two things wrong with your speeches.  The first is your belief that some absolute truth to history exists and that all schools must do is teach this truth.”  The one guy waving the Bible earlier led me to think that he must believe that all truth came from the Bible.

Silence reigned in the room, and I plowed on.  “History is full of perspectives and some facts.  Think of the five blind men trying to describe an elephant.  Well history is a thousand times more complicated than an elephant and there are not just five perspectives on history but millions.  If you tried to put all these perspectives and a few facts in one large history book, it would probably weigh a million tons.”

“The second thing wrong is your idea about eliminating partisanship.  That idea itself would be a good thing, but you do not eliminate it by insisting that your view of reality is the only view or the right view.  You are causing partisanship when like one of the blind men insisting that he is right, you insist that your perspective is right and others who have a different perspective are stupid, wrong and unpatriotic.  You eliminate partisanship by respecting the perspectives of all people.”  Thus ended my rant.

I sat down to thunderous applause and a standing ovation.

I wished.

The room was dead silent.  I felt like a fish out of water and soon to be gutted and fried.  I sat down and the meeting went on.  We discussed other ideas for the group to support to have a more social group for veterans.  The meeting ended with the group secretary calling out the winners for the fifty-fifty tickets and a few winners for some free tickets that we had all been given. The meeting lasted for about 1 hour and fifteen minutes and then people dispersed.

right wing extremistsNow in America today, we have five political perspectives arranged along a continuum.  On the extreme right, we have the “extreme conservatives” as they may think of themselves.  However, they are fascists and anti-democratic in symbols, outlook and beliefs.  On the extreme left we have a smaller group who might think of themselves as progressives or socialists but in the minds of many on the right they are “card carrying communists.”  Indeed, some of the extreme left-wing do fit this perspective.  Slightly to the right of center we have the true conservatives and slightly to the left of center the true liberals.  In the middle we have people who support some social programs but are fiscally conservative.  We also have people in the middle who support some government but are against too much government.

left wing extremistsOne characteristic of both the extreme right and the extreme left is the inability to see perspectives different than their own.   To the extremists, the world is black and white.  Good and bad.  Each extreme entirely rejects the perspectives of the other extreme.  Each extreme feels that they are not allowed to speak but that the other extreme is.  Newspapers and zealots take sides with the extremists and promote narratives designed to appeal to the extreme views exposed by each side.  The ability to condone or support multiple perspectives becomes more and more difficult as a greater and greater polarization ensues.   People bemoan the death of compromise but each side ladens itself with oaths and pledges guaranteed to insure that they will not try to see the world from the other side.

liberals against free speech

imagesThe result is a form of warfare between each side.  The middle groups become more and more polarized as they find that they must take sides to survive.  Liberals talk about the importance of listening to understand what the other side says and thinks as though this will solve the problem.  It will not.  Unless someone listens with an OPEN MIND, no amount of listening will make a difference.  I was once approached by an employee who asked me to speak to his boss on his behalf.  I asked him why he did not do it himself.  I pointed out that his boss had “an open door policy.”  The employee looked at me and replied: “Open door but closed mind.”

liberal intoleranceOur schools have failed us because they teach right answers and not right questions.  They teach closed minds and not open minds.  We have a generation who are now increasingly anti-education.  We have a war against our schools by people who do not believe that schools exist to teach right thinking but only right answers.  Liberal schools are boycotting right-wing fanatics and not allowing them to speak.  Fox News prints daily rants against schools portraying the worst aspects of what once was a liberal education.  The right wing increasingly wants a technocratic education which will result in a job that pays well.  Any focus on mindfulness, morality, ethics, and integrity plays little or no role in the education system desired by the right.  Those on the left believe that public education should be for the masses but ignore the needs of many rural and poor people to get a job that pays a living wage.

download

Meanwhile the rich liberals go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other Ivy League colleges.  Colleges that people like me could never have afforded and that would never have let pass their shiny doors.  Many people have asked me why I did not go to college after high school.  This always brings a laugh to my throat.  Two months out of high school, I went to the only “college” that I could afford.  I joined the US Military from 1964 to 1968 as a E-1.  I left four years later as an E-4 and an Aircraft Control and Warning Radar technician.  I also earned a certificate for an Honorable Discharge.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
― George Orwell

Notes from a Trump Hater and That Includes Trump Supporters.

free-speech-churchillOnce upon a time I had more friends on Facebook.  I had both Democratic friends, Republican Friends and friends who cared not one whit about politics.  Many of all political persuasions were friends who simply wanted to ignore politics.  During the run-up to Trump’s election, I discussed, debated, argued, reasoned and fought with many friends who wanted to support Trump.  The results were not pretty.  Zero changed their minds.  I was angry and frustrated.

I unfriended many Republican friends.  Many unfriended me.  There seemed to be no middle ground.  It was like the Civil War.  You had to choose a side and the outcome was hatred and disdain for people I formerly called friends.  The loss of many former friends (Or were they simply just acquaintances?) has caused a great deal of soul searching on my part.  I realize that I am not alone in this.

I doubt if anyone wants to be labeled as narrow minded and unwilling to listen to the other side of things.  For years, I accepted Republican politics as a counterbalance to some of the extremism of the Democratic party, particularly when it came to social spending.

Of course, the same extravagant spending by the Republicans was always accepted by my Republican friends since it generally went to building a “strong” military.  A military that it was taken for granted would protect us from the evil doers out there that hate democracy.  It was a party that would create a huge monster that was a glutton for military spending and ever more wars to be fought in the name of democracy and free enterprise.

Dietrich

I believe that choosing sides is not just a matter of politics but a matter of integrity.  It is easier when someone is only a “friend”, but it becomes much more difficult when it is your mother, sister or brother.  I realize that many people think I speak out too much.  I am too opinioned.  I voice my ideas and ideology too much, etc., etc.

“We must take sides.  Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.  Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” –  Elie Wiesel

Furthermore, there is a certain hypocrisy coming from those who condemn people like me.  It goes like this.

Republican Friend to Me: 

“Why do you have to revile, criticize and make such pejorative remarks about Trump?  About Republican politics etc.  Why do you have to have such a negative attitude?  Do you realize that I am a life long Republican and you ‘hurt’ my feelings?”

Republican Hidden Message: 

Keep your mouth shut and do not speak out.  However, it is okay for people in my party to be racists, bigots, xenophobes, greedy and against policies to help the poor and needy.  We are very polite about this, while you are very obnoxious and impolite.  Hatred is ok if it is polite.

Republican Friend to Me:

“I don’t see why you are so negative.  All you do is complain about the way things are in this country.”

Republican Hidden Message:

I don’t see any problems.  All I see are needs.  We need more prisons.  We need more police.  We need a stronger military.  We need more guns.  We need more walls.  We need more free enterprise.  We need less government.  We need less taxes.

Republican Friend to Me:

“Why can’t you be ‘for’ something rather than against everything.  No one likes anyone who is continually criticizing and complaining about things.”

Republican Hidden Message:

It is okay to screw people, to take things away from people, to make life harder for people, to create a bigger gap between the rich and the poor if you do it without “complaining.”

The way many people speak out against anyone who is willing to stand up for their beliefs reminds me of the song in the play 1776.  In the play, John Adams is continually haranguing his colleagues to get them to agree to rebel against the British.  His efforts are often met with disdain by his erstwhile colleagues.

ADAMS –  Vote yes!

CONGRESS – Oh, for God’s sake, John, sit down!

ADAMS – Good God! Consider yourself fortunate that you have John Adams to abuse, for no sane man would tolerate it!

CONGRESS – John, you’re a bore; we’ve heard this before, now for God’s sake, John, sit down!

ADAMS – I say vote yes!

political language

If one is polite about it and not too obnoxious, then racism, sexism and bigotry are tolerable.  Those who protest, those who march and those who speak up are labeled by our polite quiet society as trouble makers, hippies and know nothings.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”  – Martin Luther King

There is a challenge implicit here in being a human.  It is a challenge I offer to all my “Friends” to speak out.  Do not ask why I insult and use derogatory remarks against racists and bigots.  We condone evil with our silence and inaction.   Ask why you are not speaking out against the racists and bigot groups that sow hate and discord in our nation.  When have you spoke out against the KKK?  When have you spoken out against the Neo-Nazi groups?  When have you spoken out against those so greedy that they begrudge a dime spent to help the poor and sick?  Do not come to me and tell me to be quiet and to tone down my rhetoric.

the free press

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

Jesus had this to say about his beliefs:

“Then his mother and his brothers came but were unable to join him because of the crowd.  He was told, ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, and they wish to see you.’ He said to them in reply, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it.” — Luke 8:19-21.

Maybe, Jesus was trying to tell us that right actions and right thoughts are more important than relationships.

Time for Questions:

Who would be the man/woman with enough courage to give up a friend who was a racist, sexist or bigot?

Life is just beginning.

  1. “The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”
  2. “Every human must decide whether they will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”
  3. “If a person has not discovered something that they will die for, they are not fit to live.”
  4. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
  5. “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?'”
  6. “The ultimate measure of a human is not where he/she stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he/she stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
  7. “An individual has not started living until they can rise above the narrow confines of his/her individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.”
  8. “Anyone who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as those who help to perpetrate it. Those who accept evil without protesting against it is are really cooperating with it.”
  9. “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Above quotes are all from the speeches or writings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

 

Freedom of Expression

I was walking down the street the other day and I saw three White guys beating the heck out of a Black guy.  The Black guy was down on the ground and the three White guys were taking turns pummeling him.  I rushed up and yelled “Stop, what the heck do you guys think you are doing.”  One of the White guys answered “what does it look like, we are beating the shit out of a Black guy.”  “What did he do”, I asked.   “What do you mean what did he do?  “He was being Black” came back the reply.

“Are you guy’s crazy?  You can’t just beat someone up for being Black.”   I retorted.

i-dont-give-a-fuck

The three guys huddled for a minute and finally one of the three (A guy with bright red hair and lots of tattoos) came out of the huddle and took me by the shoulder.  “Look he said, you look like a fairly intelligent guy.”  Two of my friends over there never went to college.  I went for a few years so they nominated me to talk to you. “

“What is there to talk about?  You have no right no beat up on this poor man”, I answered.

“Aahh, that is where you are wrong” said Tattoo Guy.  “We have every right.  In fact, we have a constitutional right to beat him up.”

“Are you serious or trying to kid me, I ask.”

“No I am not kidding” said Tattoo Guy, “I am very serious. It is our constitutional right.”

“OK,” I say, “I will bite, what is the right you think you have?”

“Well” says Tattoo Guy, “have you ever heard of ‘Freedom of Expression.’  The constitution struthays every American citizen has Freedom of Expression.  Thus, we are just expressing our free rights as American citizens to beat up on people we don’t like.”

“I am not sure that is what the Founding Fathers meant by Freedom of Expression”, I answer.

“Well, frankly we don’t give a fuck what you think.  Furthermore, if you keep interfering we might just sue you for violating our constitutional rights.”

“Hold on now.  I thought we were having a friendly conversation here.  Now you are threatening to sue me.  On what grounds?” I ask.

I could see Tattoo Guy thinking about my question for a while and then he answered “Well, since you are being so polite about it, we won’t sue you, at least not for now.”

“Wow, thanks” said I.

trump-and-pc“Look, said Tattoo Guy, we voted for Donald Trump and he respects our Freedom of Expression rights.  We are sick and tired of the PC shit you pussies and commies have been spreading in this country for years.  We are tired of watching what we say and do because we might be called rednecks or bigots or even racists.  It’s a new day for America.  We are going to make our country great again.”

“With Donald Trump as president, I can call anyone I want a nigger, kike, frog, wop, dago, spook, wetback, cunt, fag, pussy, greaser, Jap, slope.  It’s my Freedom of Expression” says Tattoo Guy.

“So basically you were sick and tired of having your Freedom of Expression curtailed by anti-hate laws and people who are sick of being insulted because of their color or sex” I asked?

freedom-of-expression“You are more or less on the right track” says Tattoo Guy.  “Used to be you could tell some nigger jokes, put up pinups of nude girls, even grab a few pussies once in a while and no one bothered you.  Then, all this PC stuff started and before you knew it, you had to watch what you said and did.  A White person’s Freedom of Expression went down the drain.  Well, no more PC now.  So can we please get back to beating the shit out of this nigger?”

“What about this man’s Freedom of Expression” I ask.  “Don’t you think he also has some rights?”

“Sure” says Tattoo Guy, “He can say whatever he thinks.  We don’t care.  Just as long as he doesn’t call us rednecks or bigots or racists.”

“That sounds like a double standard” I answer.

“I don’t think so.  You intellectuals think too much.  You need to do more and think less” says Tattoo Guy.

einstein“Well, what if I told you that I had a Glock Model 40 10mm in my pocket and that if you hit this man one more time, I will take it and blow your fucking brains out.  What would you think of that” I replied indignantly.

“That changes the entire nature of our issue here” says Tattoo Guy.  “We respect your Second Amendment rights to own and bear arms and use them in defense of your country and family.  May I ask if this Black Guy is part of your family?”

“Haven’t you ever heard of John Donne” I asks?  “Donne says”:

No man is an island entire of itself; every man

is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;

if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe

is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as

well as any manner of thy friends or of thine

own were; any man’s death diminishes me,

because I am involved in mankind.

And therefore never send to know for whom

the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

“So you are sort of saying that this Black guy here is part of your extended family?” asks Tattoo Guy.

“Exactly,” I reply.

freedom-of-thought

“Well, that’s a horse of a different color then.  If you are related to us because you are White and we are White and he is related to you, even if he is Black, then he is also related to us, which means he is part of our family too.  That’s great, now we have a new brother.  How about if we all go get a beer together?” says Tattoo Guy.

“Sounds like a better idea than beating each other up or my blowing your brains out.  Do you know any good brew pubs?  First round on me” I reply.

Time for Questions:

 Do you think all such stories as mine have a “happy” ending?  What rights do people have not to be insulted or harassed because of their color or sex?  Do you think some rights might supersede other rights?  Why or why not?

Life is just beginning.

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

  • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[Shouting] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
  • To make or distribute obscene materials.
    Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
  • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
    United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
  • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. 
    Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
  • Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
    Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
  • Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
    Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Freedom of speech does includes the right:

  • Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
    West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
  • Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
    Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
  • To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
  • To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
  • To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
    Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
  • To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
    Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: