The impetus that stirred me from my dormant state on writing about public affairs was the "raging" debate over free speech. Specifically, a proposal made on the floor of the New York Legislature by four state senators. These four argued for a "more refined" First Amendment, one that would make speech--defined in this case as any statement made relevant to public discourse and not the pointless nattering that tends to make up much of everyday conversation (say, for instance, most entries on Twitter feeds)--"a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated." In other words, freedom of speech ought to be a privilege granted and reclaimed by the state as it pleases, rather than a right.
The only thing that I find even remotely relieving is that this didn't come from the legislature of my own home state of California-and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if someone in Sacramento would propose this exact thing.
So, what is the problem here? It is that we are allowing our most fundamental right as free men and women-Freedom of Speech, along with Freedom of Religion and Freedom to Assemble and Petition, was elevated above all others in our Constitution for a reason. It is an inalienable right, given to us by God. The Founding Fathers understood quite clearly that, when drafting the foundational document for our government, that they needed to emplace the necessary protections against the government's encroaching on this. and yet, we allow governments in the West to whittle away at it day by day. What for? Two words: hate speech. Weasel words if ever there were any.
What is hate speech, exactly? To define it broadly, it would be any speech that could be perceived as inciting hatred or contempt towards a particular group of people. Some of it is rather blatant: in this country, we're familiar with a whole slew of words we use to refer to different groups of people-usually determined by ethnicity-in a derogatory fashion. With these particular words, we as a society have come to the understanding that these are bad and that anyone who uses them as they were meant to be used-it would seem obvious, but words do mean things-are often hateful people, just as people who use these words mindlessly-I can think of at least a handful of instances on Facebook that tend to occur on a weekly basis-often demonstrate a general sense of stupidity.
The problem arises when genuine criticism or satirical observations are made and people, number one, become insulted and, number two, feel it necessary to resort to censorship. Our society seems to have placed more importance on not hurting feelings than on telling the truth, often times because the people most likely to complain about being insulted when somebody says something they do not want to hear are liable to make a big noise and throw around a grossly exaggerated claim to an aggrieved status that politicians pay an acute amount of attention to. Perhaps the reason why we haven't been too serious about it is because we have this sense that it is part of our blood and that the complainers and perennially offended have thus far only resorted to lawsuits, unlike their counterparts in Europe, who, as several writers and commentators have been apt to point out, generally belong to one particular demographic, who have resorted to far more violent means of expression.
If most of us understand how important this threat to free speech is, and if most of us value our freedom of speech, we say to ourselves, then let's just vote the bastards out. I'm all for evicting clueless leftists from public office, but that won't be enough because it isn't the root of the problem. Like a sore throat or a horrid case of hives, it is merely the symptom of a greater disease. The problem, rather lies with stupid voters. Many are a product of a higher education system that is focused on indoctrinating young men and women with a worldview based on collectivist codswallop-of which censorship of the politically incorrect is a key component-and then extorting their families and taxpayers for doing so rather than giving them a proper education, much less a proper education on government and civic responsibility. The end result is that successive generations of the civically illiterate are more likely to reelect these fools and soft tyrants-who run under a leftist platform based heavily on the asinine concept of "positive" rights and will resort to such tactics as trying to "refine" speech laws in the name of protecting these "rights" and "protecting" the "interests" of their constituents. (The finer points and the necessity of an honest discussion on this are a different topic to which I will devote more detailed writing at a later time). So while we may vote the fools out, there are enough idiot voters-and their ranks grow each year-to vote them back in within the next couple of election cycles.
So, I propose a novel solution to this problem: how about we take a look at who is likely to vote for politicians such as these New York state senators (do I even need to mention at this point that all four were Democrats?), or have, in fact, voted for them, and strip them of their voting privileges on the basis that they are damaging the greater good of the community. They will not be reinstated until they have taken a basic course (40 to 80 hours should be fair) on civics and government, at which point they will be allowed to vote again on the assumption that their newfound understanding of proper governance, their rights, and their responsibilities will keep them from voting for fools and soft tyrants like the New York for ever again.
Before you choose to add your comments about how hypocritical it is of me to suggest we should protect one right by stripping another, I would remind you that, unlike free speech, there is no such thing as a right to vote. All the voting rights amendments in the Constitution simply say that the feds and the states cannot deny the privilege to vote based on things like ethnicity, gender, age, or even disabilities, physical and mental. The governments of the states have the power to take away your ability to vote for any reason they see fit (most don't, however, because voting, it goes without saying, is necessary in the electoral process; and yes, before you try to remind me, some states have a "right to vote" in their own constitutions). If there is but one reason to justify taking away the vote, then surely stupidity would be it.
Look, the solution here is remarkably simple: people need to take it upon themselves to be civically informed and, more importantly, to borrow a vulgar phrase I'm familiar with from military experience, they need to grow a pair. If someone says something that you think is insulting (which is different than being insulted), you should think about what they say and do one of three things: either you look at yourself and consider that maybe there is something to what was said and, perhaps, make a change; if you don't see anything wrong with what you are doing, then come up with an intelligent and thoughtful justification for yourself or your actions; or, if what is being said is really just not that complicated and is being said purely for insult (this is where those well-known slurs come back into play), then just brush it off (though a witty retort is more than acceptable as well). People can say some cruel things. But for God's sake, don't let your first reaction be to resort to censorship. All that does is make things worse and pisses off a lot of other people. And none of us want that. Do we?
No comments:
Post a Comment