Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Some Thoughts and Questions

Reply

Old 04-23-2015, 05:47 PM
  #1  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,829
Default Some Thoughts and Questions

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015
*
Some Thoughts and Questions
*
*********** What’s the true test of one’s commitment to free speech? It does not come when he permits people to be free to say or publish ideas with which he agrees. Not by a long shot. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when he permits others to say and publish ideas he deems offensive.
*********** In March, a video surfaced of a racist chant by Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity brothers at the University of Oklahoma, a public university. It has brought widespread condemnation and the fraternity’s suspension. Two fraternity students have been expelled. The University of Oklahoma’s president, David Boren, said, “To those who have misused their free speech in such a reprehensible way, I have a message for you: You are disgraceful.”
*********** The Western world was shocked and outraged by another speech issue that led to the murder of 12 people at the offices of French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Islamists were retaliating for what they considered the newspaper’s vulgar portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad, an insult to millions of Muslims.
*********** What’s the difference between the actions of the University of Oklahoma administrators and the actions of the Islamist murderers in Paris? Both found the speech in question offensive. Both took actions against the people involved in that speech. So what’s the difference? It’s a matter of degree, but not kind. Both were unwilling to tolerate speech they didn’t like. Of course, the difference in responses is by no means trivial -- one being expulsion and the other murder.
*********** The principle that applies to one’s commitment to free speech also applies to one’s commitment to freedom of association. The true test of one’s commitment to freedom of association does not come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems acceptable. The true test comes when he permits people to associate -- or not to associate -- in ways he deems offensive.
*********** An evangelical Christian baker in Colorado has been threatened with jailing for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony. In 2012, for the first time in its 79-year history, the exclusive Augusta National Golf Club was forced to admit female members. At one time, blacks could not use restaurants, bathrooms, water fountains, public parks, beaches or swimming pools on the same terms as whites. In theaters, they could only sit in the balcony or in other racially designated areas. They had to ride at the back of streetcars and buses.
*********** Permitting discriminatory practices in publicly owned facilities -- such as libraries, parks and beaches -- should not be permitted. That is because they are publicly financed by taxpayers and everyone should have a right to equal access. Denying freedom of association in private clubs, private businesses and private schools violates a human right.
*********** Christian Americans are being hounded for their refusal to cater same-sex weddings. For those who support such attacks, we might ask them whether they would seek prosecution of the owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide services for a neo-Nazi affair. Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress?
*********** Liberty requires bravery. To truly support free speech, one has to accept that some people will say and publish things he finds deeply offensive. Similarly, to be for freedom of association, one has to accept that some people will associate in ways that he finds deeply offensive, such as associating or not associating on the basis of race, sex or religion.
*********** I am all too afraid that too many of my fellow Americans are too hostile to the principle of liberty. Most people want liberty for themselves. I differ. I want liberty for me and liberty for my fellow man.
*********** Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2015, 11:48 PM
  #2  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PA
Posts: 1,778
Default

While I may not spout such rhetoric Free Speech is just that.
Tundra10 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2015, 05:07 AM
  #3  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 11,797
Default

Free speech is just a memory, America has forgotten what it means. Today there is a major push to wipe out anything some feel is offensive, it is a liberal method of shutting up those who are vocal in disagreement with them. Today if you strongly disagree with the way people act or live or what they do, it is labled hate speech and you are labled a hater and it is intended to shut you up. What people are being punished for today is a far cry from shouting fire in a crowded theater. Walter Williams is correct, as usual, Freedom of speesh has died. Now we have freedom to agree!
Oldtimr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2015, 09:39 AM
  #4  
Nontypical Buck
 
RobertSubnet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,675
Default

Now we have freedom to agree!
Correction: now we are obligated to agree with what our liberal masters say we are to agree with. Or so liberals would like to believe.

Christian Americans are being hounded for their refusal to cater same-sex weddings. For those who support such attacks, we might ask them whether they would seek prosecution of the owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide services for a neo-Nazi affair. Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress?
This is the natural extension of gays targeting Christian businesses. Honestly I am surprised the above scenario has not started to happen. If gays will not tolerate others who disagree with their *choices* then there is no reason why anyone else should tolerate gays.

I wonder how a gay baker would feel if they were compelled to make a cake for the Westboro Baptist "Church" with the words: "God hates fags written on it?"

Last edited by RobertSubnet; 04-24-2015 at 09:43 AM.
RobertSubnet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2015, 01:58 PM
  #5  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,551
Default

As usual, Walter nailed it. He makes a persuasive and intelligent argument.
CalHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2015, 08:48 PM
  #6  
Nontypical Buck
 
d80hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,152
Default

That's right. If you discriminate against another how is that any different than giving a discriminating reaction. I doesn't work one way.

If we stuck with old school disciplines like "free speech" and "deal with it" then people could get over it and move on. Liberals are supporting the behavior that grown ups have grew out of to become adults. They can control immature people better.
d80hunter is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service