Opus 2016-151: Cornerstone Consideration: Better Slurs Than Censorship

One of the cherished liberties that we have enjoyed in this country is what we call the Freedom of Speech.  It is the second protection from an oppressive government that the Founders wanted to emphasize.  It came only after the freedom of religion. 

Second Amendment to the Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That freedom is under heavy attack by the elites of the country.  That would include anyone in power who could be made insecure by you saying what you think.  It could be the President of the United States.  It could be your child’s kindergarten teacher.  It takes many forms from attempts to regulate the internet to “safe zones” on university campuses. 

I read an interesting column in World Magazine on this issue.  It might be worth your time.  One point was to acknowledge the dangers involved in free speech.

"'Free speech' is a positive value with some negative effects. Censorship is a negative value with a negative effect."

Notice that even though free speech might hurt your feelings, censorship can take away your freedom to act and the knowledge to know when to act.  Freedom has a big up-side against a small down-side.  Control has nothing but negatives.

The conclusion the author come to is that we need less control, not more.

“In the long run, it’s better to allow bruising slurs than to ban them, for, when words go on the chopping block, the ax doesn’t know where to stop.”

If the only speech you are protecting is what you agree with then there is no freedom of speech just freedom to quote, and then you get into plagiarism. 

homo unius libri