There is no ‘right’ to not be offended
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Maggie Lawrence
Published: November 11, 2008
Like Jeanne Grimes, I, too, dislike Mr. Sharman’s column and rarely find myself in agreement with him (“Sharman’s column has no place in the Star-Exponent,” Nov. 2).
Unlike her, however, I see no issue with the Star-Exponent’s giving him space, provided that the same forum is available to those who hold opposing views.
Grimes’ concluding comment, “There is no place for hate politics in your newspaper,” illustrates the frightening damage that “hate crime” legislation has done to rational thought.
As offensive as some opinions might be, there is no “right” to not be offended, and the free exchange of ideas of all kinds is the hallmark of a free society.
Calling someone’s view “hate” politics is just another way of saying “you don’t have a right to publicly express your opinion because I disagree with it.”
“Free speech” means just that, and it is protected by a constitutional amendment because it is understood that people will say things with which other people disagree.
Ideas that we agree with don’t need protection.
The further danger comes in the next step: when the political party in power takes “hate crime” and “hate speech” to the amended definition of “anything critical of the ruling power.” The minds that conceived “hate speech” are surely capable of this.
In a democratic republic, the saying “sunlight is the best disinfectant” is still true.
If you disagree, you are free to say so.
Maggie Lawrence
Culpeper
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( julesss ) on November 19, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I am fully aware of the “Fairness Doctrine” and am completely against it. It’s anything but FAIR.
Something I wanted to point out - I see a lot of people using the term “conservative”, “republican” and “right wing” interchangeably. They have each evolved into different directions and definitely do not mean the same thing. I am a conservative (small govt) which is quite the opposite of what republicans represent and a lot of right wingers.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Geriberi ) on November 18, 2008 at 8:11 am
This was an excellent letter, with points that were worth making. If there is anyone out there unaware of the “Fairness Doctrine,“ you should look it up. It will be the beginning of the end of Freedom of Speech. Political correctness will kill all airing of conservative views - anything that is “offensive” to liberals. Scary, scary times we’re living in. If you don’t like what you’re reading, quit reading it, but don’t demand that everything in print or being broadcast is something you agree with. That’s not freedom - that’s something very, very dangerous, and we’re getting closer and closer to the edge.
They try to dress up the “Fairness” Doctrine as something to make the airwaves “fair,“ but you need to read between the lines and see that it will only require “fairness” of those on the right, who actually state their opinions AS opinions. The leftist mainstream media will not have to go through the same ridiculous “fairness” because they don’t state that their “journalism” is actually hugely “opinion.“ Do you really want to live in a country that is more like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia than the USA? That’s where we’re headed, folks, if this stupid political correctness doesn’t stop NOW. Enough, already. Grow up and accept the fact that not everyone has to state opinions that mirror yours. If you’re offended, stop reading, or look at yourself to find out why it bothers you so bad - is it possibly, at times, because the truth is not what we want?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( julesss ) on November 17, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Ms Lawrence - I agree with your letter and knowing there are still some people who realize no one has the right to not be offended gives me hope.
Ordinary Woman - honestly, your long winded replies are getting quite boring. You explain the same thing over and over and we all know you’re Sharman’s biggest fan (and probably his wife… or his other “personality”). You’re not impressing anyone but yourself. You were a bit entertaining to read (as was Sharman) at the beginning, now you’re barely worth the time to make a comment to. It’s almost sad to see someone like you - at least Sharman has a column here. You just get to post lengthy replies that people just scroll right over…
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( OrdinaryWoman ) on November 13, 2008 at 9:56 am
An offense is something one has to choose to take up. One can take the bait, pick it up, make a cause out of it, garner support, and keep it going as long as the feelings are there. So why pick up the offense, if what someone is saying in way of their opinion or beliefs are not proven factually wrong?
I usually look at the point of origin, and then based on my belief system, decide if there’s something that needs to be said or done. Most of the time, I just leave it for the individuals involved to solve on their own.
But when it takes up a larger social or governmental issue, I will speak up for what I believe in.
If that makes someone like you Hippie, judge me as a hateful or prejudice person in guise of religious rhetoric, then I must turn your own feelings back on to yourself. It is you that is prejudice by thinking that I don’t have the right to speak up for what I believe in, and it is your hateful language directed towards someone like me for speaking up that shows you are what you say others are. Why can’t you just disagree without using language like that? It does not apply, and by saying it, doesn’t make it so.
What I’ve learned in watching and listening to those like you who disagree, is that you can’t just disagree and explain why…you have to say keywords that imply a meaning to others that “you better not listen to them cause they are prejudice and hate”. And you have to say this, cause you really have nothing else to say, which I find sad, cause you’d come across more worthy of discussion if you just had something substantial to say besides your hate and your own personal prejudices.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( BuenaVista ) on November 12, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Sadly, Ms. Lawrence, many people cannot comprehend your common-sense take on this matter. Thank you for writing this.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( El Debibble ) on November 12, 2008 at 11:38 am
Do you mean “Joe the Plumber” who was actually on welfare, not registered to vote, nowhere near ready to buy a business and who would have actually benefited more from Obama’s plan than McCains?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Hippie ) on November 12, 2008 at 11:36 am
The problem with Mike’s columns are he prepetuates hate and prejudice in guise of religious rhetoric. He’s allowed his interpretation of the Bible. But put it in the Religious section of the paper on Thursday. His slanted sermons every week aren’t “thought provoking”, they try to divide and prejudice people - His “opinions” of condemnation of every one that’s not a white, straight, married, “Christian”, & that has his extreme beliefs is tiring and offensive.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Brian ) on November 12, 2008 at 10:34 am
You are absolutely right rjma. The CSE can choose to print or not print what they wish to include what we post online. That does not violate free speech. As you stated there would have to be government involvement.
Anything coming from you I take very lightly Sandalwood. You are a discriminating individual correct? Did you not say that we should go to Wal Mart and profile individuals that must be illegal just because they are Hispanic and are shopping? You sure did. At least we are constantly reminded that racism still exists in our community and nation. I follow many of your posts and they ring with pure prejudice. How sad.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Sandalwood ) on November 12, 2008 at 7:51 am
Personally I think Sharman is right on the money. He should be able to write anything he wants and have it published as an “opinion”. I guess he better enjoy his freedom of speech while he can. Once King Obama takes office there will be very few opposing views allowed to be voiced. Look what Obama’s henchmen did to Joe the Plumber.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( rjma ) on November 12, 2008 at 7:25 am
I think there is a misconception about what free speech is. The first amendment only refers to govt. forbidding free speech. Mr. Sharmin, or any other columnist does not have the “right” to say whatever they want in their column. If the CSE decides they don’t want to continue his columns, his free speech “rights” will not have been violated. If however, the government moved to shut down the CSE because they didn’t like what was printed in the CSE, that would be a violation of the CSE’s publisher’s 1st amendment rights of free speech. The govt. has to be involved somehow for free speech rights to be violated.
Report Inappropriate Comment