Liberty Lioness's Den

1st Amendment designed for unpopular speech

Published by LibertyLioness137 points  on 2014-09-14

In the Wall Street Journal Letters to the Editor we often find nuggets of brilliance from "people on the ground"..

On Sept. 12, 2014 they were responding to Greg Lukianoff's WSJ 9-9-14 op-ed article entitled "Free Speech at Berkeley - So Long as It's Civil".

Quotes from Responses to the article :

 Mark A. Klapperich of Dacusville, S.C. "...The First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech no matter how disagreeable it may be.  Popular speech needs no such protection; it's already endorsed by the majority, which, based on the message (consider Nazi Germany) can be more virulent than the feared speech."

Jeff Adams of Atlanta noted, "(UC Berkeley) Chancellor Nicholas Dirks cautioned that free expression of ideas can divide and undermine a community's foundation. (He) added that, 'we can only exercise our right to free speech insofar as we feel safe and respected in doing so.'...freedoms that are circumscribed by any adjectives (such as "civil")...are tenuous and subject to the whims of those who hold communal power..."Uncivil" on most campuses is code for not-progressive..."

Jon Oelrich of Pflugerville, Texas wrote: "Can we even imagine Tom Paine, Frederick Douglas, Susan B. Anthony, Cesar Chavez, or Martin Luther Kin Jr. believing that "we can only exercise our right to free speech insofar as we feel safe and respected in doing so?" Of course not - it's when we feel unsafe and disrespected that the exercise of free speech is most effective, and even obligatory.  Those who would only speak out when comfortable do not merit the privilege."

 Zoltan Trizna of Austin Texas contributes this:
"Mr. Lukianoff's article reminds me of a standard joke I grew up with under communism:  'We have free speech - we can say whatever is allowed.' "

And Bob Schafer of Lincolnshire, Ill. wrote, "(Many years ago)...the Cal administration was looking to keep coarse and vulgar language out of the debate to stimulate the issues, not the delivery.  They actually expected students to display their education, not their sense of shock value."

OK, so-five men. And the women who defend the 1st would be  - where? (besides on the cutting floor of the WSJ editor's office..) EVERYWHERE, that's where. These people just gave voice to what a HUGE majority of Americans feel- I sincerely hope.  Viva Political INCORRECTNESS*** (Note: I never advocate crass language or unfounded character assassination, which seem to be the main modus of many "interventionists" (don't like to call them "progressive", because that word obviously has positive connotations...)  Still, I totally advocate their freedom to (verbally) assassinate away- within public decency parameters (meaning obscenities).  Just like I advocate the right of intelligent people to deflect such barbs with sharp arrows of truth and even opinion, especially while being ridiculed and demonized for it. 



Content Rating/Stars Module [toggle]

Star Box

Join us and help contribute to Liberty!

Feel free to Sign Up and join our efforts!

This is a "toolbox" called "Star Box".
After joining in you will be able to manage your own personal archive of your favorite LibertyLion content and contribute with many more actions (depending on your user group).

You can resize (drag the handles), minimize (by clicking on the star) or re-open this box again any time.