Posted on 09/15/2012 4:34:34 PM PDT by ReformationFan
"The right to free speech and the unrealistic expectation to never be offended cannot coexist," rightly observed Philip Sharp. It seems, however, that the "unrealistic expectation" cited by the retired U.S. Army Ranger and author is being viewed increasingly as a right.
The belief that individuals have a "right" to not be offended seems to be gaining momentum in the United States. As this concept grows in popularity it is set to challenge one of America's first freedoms -- the freedom of speech. If the "right" against offense ever triumphs, if it is ever enshrined in law, free speech, of necessity, will cease to exist.
The Founding Fathers believed that man is ultimately accountable to God and not government. As a result, they were quick to add the Bill of Rights to their newly drafted Constitution. The very First Amendment they adopted stated in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ..."
Having chafed under an oppressive government that recognized only one official religion and oppressed political dissent, the Founders wanted individuals to be free to pursue the dictates of conscience in matters of faith and speech.
While they were not all were followers of Christ in the strictest sense of the word, there was a consensus among the Founders that biblical principles were acceptable, strong and necessary underpinnings for a solid society.
Make no mistake: the Founders were protecting the government form encroaching on any speech that might be deemed unpopular or offensive. They wanted to guarantee that dissent was allowed.
Fast forward to the past few decades and it appears there is growing dissatisfaction with the Founders' protection of speech. Though individuals, groups and sometimes those in the government have whined at
(Excerpt) Read more at bpnews.net ...
exactly
Muslims can boycott the video
Racist!
At my latest place of employment I had to sign a multi-page “ethics” statement. Part of it said that no jokes were allowed. I asked why and I was told by the HR manager that jokes might be offensive. The statement was more about not being offensive than it was about “ethics.”
HR manager?
I am old enough to remember when there were none. Managers did their own hiring. Until the law profession made it such a minefield that companies went CYA.
There’s a reason the First Amendment is listed first. If you don’t like it, move to Mecca.
For most of my career, the entertainment business was a Free Speech Zone. No more. Say the wrong thing to the wrong protected class of person, risk getting fired and slapped with a lawsuit. Sad.
They should just say no talking whatsoever at work. just use email for all communication. See how well that will work out.
And there is also no right requiring one to listen to another.
Muzzies may also not like hearing that conversion to a religion at threat of death will not be tolerated here either. And that people are free to leave religions without threat of death.
Screw them all. Religion of peace, my german-french-italian-russian ass.
From the piece:
“For instance, homosexual activists claim that much offense and harm comes from those who espouse opposition to their lifestyle. Some even accuse conservative churches of practicing “spiritual” violence and abuse. They even insist that those who call homosexuality a sin — as the Bible describes it — drive some to commit suicide.
California recently passed a law that makes it illegal for a licensed counselor to offer therapy to a minor to help the child deal with and overcome homosexual feelings. Even if a teenager and his or her parents desire what is known as reparative therapy, the Golden State will not allow it.
If some homosexual activists get their way, speaking out against homosexuality will one day be outlawed in the U.S. They are more than willing to stifle free speech in their desire to not be offended. “
_________________
There was a time, not so long ago - although it now seems another lifetime from this era - wherein there was the idea of “no offense intended.” and the reply was, “then none taken”. This of course was before the agents of PC had taken the helm.
Are we offended by public nudity? Public sex? Extreme vulgar language (obscenity?) With the Left armed with this argument of ours, what do we get? ... occupy Wall Street.
We need to get back to arguing on the basis of public morality, that which no one had a problem supporting a couple of generations ago. A tough row to hoe? You better believe it. But it's the only way back to societal sanity.
The problem with your position is that SOMEBODY would get to decide what is or isn’t offensive and what would be done
about it....that means that the person making the decision gets to impose their own personal beliefs and agendas on others. The ONLY fair, free and correct approach is the
fact that ALL speech is protected unless and until a person
can prove that what was said was false and that that someone suffered actual harm from the false speech...then the laws of libel and slander would apply. Otherwise free speech is either free or it is not...there can be no in between.
You fail to understand that SOMEBODY would get to decide what is or isn't "actual harm" in the final analysis. Do we really want virtually millions of tort lawsuits across the country to determine, on a case-by-case basis, if someone was really harmed by someone's speech or action?
SOMEBODY WILL be making decisions about these issues, usually shopped, biased judges. After all, look at how many Occuparasite protesters were exonerated of charges for what they claimed is "free speech" - urinating and defecating in public, trespassing, and the most egregious breaches of the peace imaginable.
It used to be common sense and practice to pass laws that front-loaded this process by making specified behaviors that the community deemed offensive enough to warrant not having to deal with it on an ongoing basis illegal - based on community standards. I, and most people where I live, don't want to hear the F-bomb dropped incessantly in public. We should have the right to not have it happen.
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.