Who am I?
Christian. Skeptic. Ponderer. Sold on Western Civilization. Background in engineering and software. Rational, but not rationalist.
I'm a Hugh-inspired, long-tail blogger.
I Value
Informs my values.
News
Blog Search
Posts On This Page:
Archives
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- February 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- October 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- July 2010
- February 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- February 2013
Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Speech Suppression
I was on campus at Depaul the other day, and saw posters proclaiming very noble campus ideals. The first said hate-speech has no place there. The second said they embraced diversity.
Wonderful. Except that those in charge can dispose of anything they really disagree with by casting it as hate speech.
George Will says it better than I could:
And it was predictable that speech suppression would become an instrument of cultural combat, used to settle ideological scores and advance political agendas by silencing adversaries.
Here's the "hate speech" he cites:
Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values.
With every bit of authority comes the ability--and willingness--to abuse it. Speech codes included.
Via Instapundit
Comments:
(Please keep in mind that each commenter's opinions are only his/her own.)
George Will was only quoting the italicized words in his article, not the entire sentence that you reproduced. Here is the language from the district court opinion.
The flyer was entitled “Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity” and stated, “Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values. If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford @ XXX-XXXX or Robin Christy @ XXX-XXXX.”
I bolded that last part because if one of my employees posted this to a workplace bulletin board when she knew she had gay coworkers, I would (1) take it down, and (2) consider firing the employee for showing no judgment. The bolded text transforms a more acceptable statement of belief into a call to purge the office of homosexuals.
The tag "hate speech" is often applied without reason, but you should read the opinions (or at least browse them, like I did) before taking Will's word for it in this case.
Good seeing you guys the other day.
Post a Comment
<< Home
