On Being Offended
Published December 29, 2003
When asked if we will ever have fascism in the United States, Huey Long replied, “Yes, but we will call it anti-fascism.” Political correctness, Long’s “fascist anti-fascism,” as it applies to restrictions of free speech has been stopped. Many have complained about political correctness going too far. For example, see “The Great Tattling Scare on Campuses.” We have overcomplicated and restricted the world of discourse. Adding race to the issue complicates things even further, and I wonder if the recent free speech rulings will have an impact on the definition of hate crimes and racially abusive language. Nevertheless, I am glad to see political correctness stopped or at least slowed down, but I worry about some possibilities.
After the ruling in Betsy Hansen’s case, there were several letters to the editor in the Ann Arbor News that raised some good points. For example, several writers wondered if this ruling meant that the KKK would have to be allowed to speak at Martin Luther King, Jr. presentations if they so requested. Others wondered why Betsy Hansen has the right to air her views in the Gay/Straight Alliance when she could have formed her own discussion group. Presumably, people attending the Gay/Straight Alliance discussion would not want to hear about homosexuality being a sin: the discussion goal was to bring about acceptance—not rejection. If they wanted to hear about homosexuality being a sin, then they could have gone to a discussion about that specific topic. Is giving people a choice of what they want to hear and not want to hear a restriction of free speech in this case? Should any speaker have a right to share any view in any public forum (keep in mind that public schools are a special scenario—the audience is captive)? If you consider that people can experience the same kind of pain that they get from physical injuries when they hear offensive comments and ideas, then clearly a school could not force students to hear Betsy’s ideas. But then again, they couldn’t force Betsy to hear the Gay/Straight Alliance’s ideas either. Extend this to all kinds of other topics, and this could lead to huge dilemmas for teachers and others who present information in one form or another to groups of people.
Some recent research supposedly shows that insults register in the brain the same way that physical injuries register. See “Why Hurt Feelings Really Do Hurt.” So much for sticks and stones. I’m not sure that I buy the leap of conclusions that reporters are making from the study. As with most of what we read—it needs more research. In “Scolding Harms Children,” a Denmark study is summarized as indicating that verbal abuse is just as psychologically harmful as physical abuse: “The findings. . . found that children who were shouted at saw little difference between that and parental smacking.” I also found on the website for law firm Moriarity and Dean (is that Professor Moriarity? I knew I would hear from my evil nemesis again) that “The National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse just added verbal abuse as an official category of child abuse within the past two years. Only 20 states include it as a category of abuse. California estimates that emotional abuse accounts for only 4 percent of the state's reported abuse cases.” As with any topic, definitions become a point of contention and difficulty.
- On Being Offended
- Published: December 29, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Dirtgrain
- Dirtgrain's BC Writer page
- Dirtgrain's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Well-written and thoughtful, but way too long. This needs to broken up into more than one entry.
I don't think there is really any question that continual abuse harms people. The rates of hypertension, depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are extremely high in minority communities. The constant battling against a hostile society definitely takes it toll. I doubt any person of color ever goes a full week without at least one clear episode of discrimination. We pay for it many ways, including shortened lives.
However, I don't see freedom of speech, which attaches only to government action, as much of a bulwark against the daily abuse fest that is living in America much of the time.
Uhh, the separation of church and state is a myth that doesn't work. Then the only people who could hold government office would be atheists because any theist might have their religion influence their decisions. Then you would totally screw up society and exclude all Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus from the entire government in the name of separating church and state. As long as our government is run by the people, and some people go to church, you can't separate church and government. Anyway, doesn't everyone ascribe to some view in the same way religious people ascribe to church? Doesn't everyone have their own "church," their place where they go to meet with others who share their beliefs? Separate church and state? You might as well kill us all.
The point is that people in government can't have beliefs, it is that they not misuse them. Largely, people comply with that or we would be living in a theocracy by now.
Man, the way I'm going on these message boards I feel like the "anti-Mac Diva." I know the point is that the people in the government shouldn't misuse their beliefs. My question to you is, what would misusing a belief entail? I can't really understand your comment until you clarify this. Please, I am all for intelligent discussion even though I am aware we have conflicting views.
Mis-using a belief would be George W. Bush saying that he is making it his mission to protect the sanctity of marriage. Sanctity is a religious word and by Bush writing it into his job description to protect the "sanctity" of anything is wrong. That is a violation of the separation of church and state in my eyes.
Here's a comment for you:
AARRR RRRRRRRRRRGGGG GGGHHHHHH H!!!!!!!!!!
I AM YOUR FATHER!!!!!!
Fred Phelps reads the Bible very selectively. I don't claim to be a theology expert, but "Love thy neighbour" is a verse I don't think he's read.
Fred's been out lately protesting the funerals of US soldiers killed in Iraq, on grounds that they were defending a "fag country."
He reminds me more and more of Col Fitts, the violently closeted gay dad in American Beauty.
Don't ask me how, but somehow I ran across these blogs/posts. I couldn't believe there was a site called Godhatesfags. I went there and to my surprise they are going to be in Ann Arbor to picket the Laramie project on Sat. Nov 19. I just recently got involved with supporting the Glbt community when I heard the the executive director of Triangle Foundation speak of his formation of the Triangle Foundation at a small benefit party in a home. I guess it isn't really a surprise, more like a nightmare. I actually felt like I was in a real nightmare when I got to the WBC chronicles pages on the Laramie project and phelps addressing Judy Shepard as the "mother from hell", especially since I just went last month to see Judy in person when she spoke at Oakland University on her journey with and without Matt.
I am determined to go to the Laramie Project in support of the Laramie Project. Hopefully it's not sold out,
because I sure don't want to be standing outside with that crazy freak.
I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.
As I've been trying to get this message across to my friends and family for the past year or so and starting to feel like a Jehovah witness without being one, I've found aomething in Dirtgrain's posts that really brings out this point.
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
You're post are informative and awesome, Dirtgrain and so is this site!
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/11290)
Excellent post DG - when people don't comment on a post of mine - as is often the case - I choose to believe it was because there was nothing to complain about.
I too am for free expression - let the ideas contend in the intellectual marketplace. I am a staunch believer in the separation of church and state however: if we are going to say it, then we need to actually do it.