No speech, especially speech deemed offensive, should be silenced through coercion or intimidation. Its message must be allowed to succeed or fail based on its own merits. If that kind of speech legally can be silenced, then there is risk of a universal silence.
We open ourselves to the possibility that, in the name of inoffensiveness, an ever-increasing number of thoughts and ideas will be censored. If we replace “free speech” with only speech that qualifies as “inoffensive,” “tolerant” and “socially acceptable,” we destroy one of the roots of a truly free society.
The world’s attention was captured in weeks past simply by the idea that someone would burn a book. While this was a small action on the part of an individual expressing his own views, it became a worldwide atrocity.
So offensive was the possibility of this act, people of immense power were called upon to silence it. Half a world away, people died because of the anger generated by it.
This was not the first time a simple act of free speech caused worldwide violence. Cartoons published in Denmark caused riots in 2006 and 2008. Danish embassies were burned and Westerners were attacked.
In 2004, a Danish filmmaker was murdered for talking about the abuse women faced under religious rule. Much effort has been expended to ban pornography, great works of literature such as “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and, in contemporary media, video games such as “Six Days in Fallujah.” Attacks on free speech are not new, but the ideal has suffered many setbacks in the 21st Century.
It is a wonder that with so many attacks on free speech there has not been a greater outcry from media outlets. They depend so heavily on the ideals of free speech that they should be its champions.
Sadly, this is not the case. Often newspaper editorials side with those who claim the speech was offensive and thus should not have been said. It leaves readers with only a one-sided view of the issue, and the false assumption there is no disagreement on the issue.
Would burning a Quran be extremely offensive to billions of people and totally tasteless? Of course it is. But no one was harmed; no one’s rights were violated. Tastelessness is hardly a good enough reason to begin attacking one of the fundamental tenets of the American system.
Scott Kelber, Social relations and policy junior and President of MSU Young Americans for Liberty
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “Suppression of free speech strikes at America's roots ” on social media.
