Some thoughts I had regarding a controversy here at UNL. Basically a bill was on the floor calling for all Student Senators at UNL to not use any discriminatory language. A Senator protested by saying racial slurs, asserting that it is limiting his free speech, and many people are calling for his impeachment because of that. Limiting freedom of speech, yes, but is it really limiting the essence of free speech? By that I mean having the liberty to say something that has positive value, one that improves lives, protects human dignity and promote respect for human rights--something I assume our Founding Fathers intended to preserve. This line from the Student Senator who made the racial remarks caught me The language I chose to use was for maximum impact to say, ‘hey, you might be offended, but I have the right to offend you as well. On a moral basis, does anyone have the freedom of speech to devalue or undermine the humanity of someone else? Is that free speech? In my opinion, free speech is there to protect the expression of views and to promote open dialogue when there is conflict in views (which happens all the time)--debates such as health care, marriage equality, gun rights...I think that is where the freedom of speech come in. But in this case, I do not think it is really limiting free speech. However, the implication is whether there is/should be this moral basis within free speech, or is free speech simply free speech? Can society benefit from such a dimension? Or will this dimension set precedent for future limits to free speech? A more closer question would be whether the college community will benefit from this limitation? PS. It is not Thien who made the comments (pictured standing)
Posted on: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:29:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015