If you’re easily offended, get out of the country

Thanks so much for writing www.DrAdams.org for assistance with your free speech problem. Sadly, you were the fourth college student to write yesterday with a claim that your university is attempting to nullify your speech because it made someone feel “uncomfortable.”

As I understand it, on Friday, September 23, you were asked by the Office of Residential Life to remove a poster you made and later displayed facing the quad at your school in Illinois. At a very liberal school, I know that you constantly have to put up with liberal views and very rarely get to hear a conservative argument in any classroom setting. I am sure you put up the poster expressing your discouragement with the conservative-bashing that you often have to face.

Initially, let me say two things about the poster you printed off your computer, which said “If You Hate America or its Leaders, then Get the Hell Out.”: 1) I would never display such a poster because I think it contributes to inaccurate stereotypes about campus conservatives, and 2) Because I disagree with the content of your speech, I am even more inclined to defend it.

I am also ready to assist you because of the specific reason given by the person who approached you from the Office of Residential Life. I believe they told you someone was “offended” by the poster.

Even though you indicated you are often offended by some of the signs and messages of certain organizations on campus, I am glad you have never asserted a perceived constitutional right to be “un-offended.” That means you have the moral high ground in this case, especially since the representative from the Office of Residence Life informed you that you could be expelled from college if you left the sign up.

Although I am certain the person who complained is simply trying to suppress your views, I am willing to bet that they are, in part, making an issue out of your use of the word “hell.” Of course, I have taken the time to investigate your school and have noticed that “The Vagina Monologues” has been performed on your campus. Furthermore, I found the following poem in a recent school-sponsored publication:

Sometimes silence is a dragon, festering, flecked with pox, manholes from which men, tipping their hats, emerge, spouting prophecies in one-word barks—

and with a smile smug they shrink below, swallowed safely by Earth’s bowels only to surface, when, spying another pair of nyloned legs, they fling their s**t and she has to soak her shoes again. Dragons rise to be slain, I think, so pass word on to the village: we must band and roar like the tempest.

Certainly, your school cannot promote a very bad poem using the v-word, the b-word, and the c-word and then with a straight face ban the use of the word “hell.” So, here’s what I want you to do, David. I want you to take your sign down and replace it with another one saying “If You Hate America or its Leaders, then Get the Heck Out.”

After you do this, your accuser will have to file a new complaint over the new sign. The new complaint will prove conclusively that he is really after the content of your speech, not its form. In other words, he does not care about the use of the word “hell.” After the second complaint is filed, I want you to comply again by taking down that second sign. Then, I want you to replace it with a third sign that reads as follows:

“If you are easily offended by free speech, get the hell out of the country.”

Having already established that “hell” is not offensive, we will then be able to see whether the complainant objects to the new idea reflected in the new poster. If he does, he will be in the awkward position of making the following argument: “I think that speech decrying censorship is offensive and should be censored.”

But if he does try to have this third sign removed, please comply once again. Then, I would like for you to replace the third sign with a fourth and final sign that reads as follows:

“This college is a bastion of censorship” (or perhaps “This college is run by intolerant and childish censors”).

If they allow you to leave this fourth sign up, you will have won and the administration will wish they had never picked a fight with you. If they ask you to take it down, you should refuse to do so and go immediately to the press and to the alumni association. This is a win-win situation for you. It is also going to be (pardon the language) a hell of a lot of fun.

Oh, and one more thing, David. You wrote that the College Republicans at your school may be “interested in scheduling (me) for a lecture and would like more information on how to do that.” That is no problem. Just contact the Young America’s Foundation at www.yaf.org. In fact, I am already working on the speech. Here’s how the first line will read:

If this controversy is not resoled immediately after this column is published, we will name names and, of course, print phone and fax numbers. This is America, David. We will defeat these tyrants. Whether we do it the easy way or the hard way remains to be seen.

Mike S. Adams (adams_mike@hotmail.com) will speak at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio on October 5th. The speech will begin at 8 p.m. It will be held in the 1804 Lounge Room in the Baker Center.

Tonk, I need help getting this out.

What follows is a post of mine on a USMC internet board that took place recently in a discussion of protesters calling our military babykillers. On this particular thread, a liberal grandmother who protested in the sixties said that was a protesters right under free speech (I disagreed). At the same time- on another thread - three parents on this board were reporting it happened to their sons. I have written to Elizabeth Dole for a statement on this subject.

"This is a discussion of supporting our troops, and it took a track to how to do that when hate speech slams head first at 90 mph into free speech. It blows my mind that the left are the first to jump on the bandwagon to hold racists accountable for their hate speech but will roll out the red carpet for war protesters to climb on the bandwagon to get a free ride to do it to the United States Armed Services. What really bites is to see it twisted and distorted in this particular forum of all places.

www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; States may still punish (but not prohibit) certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.
...........
Alternatively, it may be argued that some restrictions on freedom of speech may be compatible with democracy or necessary to protect it. For example, such arguments are used to justify restrictions on support of Nazi ideas in post-war Germany.
..................
Discovering truth
A classic argument for protecting freedom of speech as a fundamental right is that it is essential for the discovery of truth. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." Abrams v. United States Justice Holmes also invoked the powerful metaphor of the "marketplace of ideas."

This marketplace of ideas rationale for freedom of speech has been criticized by scholars on the grounds that it is wrong to assume all ideas will enter the marketplace of ideas, and even if they do, some ideas may drown out others merely because they enjoy dissemination through superior resources.

The marketplace is also criticized for its assumption that truth will necessarily triumph over falsehood. We can see throughout history that people may be swayed by emotion rather than reason, and even if truth ultimately prevails, enormous harm can occur in the interim. However, even if these weaknesses of the marketplace of ideas are acknowledged, supporters argue that the alternative of government determination of truth and censorship of falsehoods is worse.

For more discussion of the reasons behind ideas becoming accepted as truth see meme theory.
________________________
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat...ate_speech

Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.
.....................................

Legal aspects in the United States and elsewhere
In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can sanction the harmful effects of speech through laws against slander and libel.

Indeed, the term "hate speech" and its surrounding discussion (whether and to what extent speech should should be regulated) is something restricted to American legal discourse. For example, the German constitution is subtly more restrictive, guaranteeing 'freedom of voicing one's opinion' and elsewhere restricts its misuse against the public peace. The German Criminal Code specifically forbids inciting hatred against ethnic groups.

Since such laws often apply only to the victimization of specific individuals, some argue that hate speech must be regulated to protect members of groups. Others argue that hate speech limits the free development of political discourse and ought to be regulated, but by voluntaristic communities and not by the state. Still others claim that it is not possible to legislate a boundary between legitimate controversial speech and hate speech in such a way which is just to those with controversial political or social views.
......................

Speech codes
Various institutions in the United States and Europe began developing codes to limit or punish hate speech in the 1990s, on the grounds that such speech amounts to discrimination. Thus, such codes prohibit words or phrases deemed to express, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with reference to physical or mental health.

It may also in some contexts challenge the rights of individuals based on any or all of the above criteria.

In addition to legal prohibition in many jurisdictions, prohibition of the use of hate speech has been written into the bylaws of some governmental and non-governmental institutions such as public universities, trade unions and other organizations (see below). Its use is also frowned upon by many publishing houses, broadcasting organizations and newspaper groups.
___________________
Against Hate Speech
www.essaydepot.com/essaym.../index.php "

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.