Burgers and French Men

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire sends shivers down my spine. An 18th century author and satirist, he fought against censorship in France and died shortly after the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1778.
On the eve of the 228th anniversary of the Constitution, another battle for civil liberties has just been won. Two Georgia Tech students have recently forced a change in residence hall policies concerning intolerant speech, claiming the policies were too broadly defined and “draconian.” While specific forms of hate speech are still outlawed (such as swastikas, cross-burning, etc.), the students have succeeded in considerably narrowing the scope of what is defined by the school to be intolerant speech. For example, a passage of the policies before the lawsuit prohibited the following: “Any attempt that is reasonably certain to threaten, intimidate, harass, or otherwise injure a person because of race, religious belief, color, sexual/affectional orientation, national origin, disability, age, or gender.” After the case was heard, however, it was revised to prohibit only physical harm and harassment. Intimidating speech is fair play. It’s open season on faggots, dykes and wetbacks at Georgia Tech.

Well, you’re probably right—that last sentence was completely unnecessary. It was vulgar and distasteful. So why then, is it worth defending? I find that you have to draw a line somewhere, and it’s easier to define right and wrong if the line is drawn at an extreme. It’s the same logic as when I forget to leave the mustard off my Wendy’s Jr. Cheeseburger Deluxe. I hate mustard. I find it completely inappropriate. But I’d rather put up with it than throw out my entire burger. If the line is drawn at anywhere but an extreme, it becomes blurry. Before we know it, we’re on that clichéd slippery slope. We’ve attacked our burger with the napkin of censorship. We may have soaked up all the mustard, but you’ve also knocked off the onions and ketchup and lost your pickle. It’s a mess.

Speech is a means, not an end. My opinion is printed here in black and white but you don’t have to agree with it. The final effect of speech is subjective, and takes more than policies and guidelines to control. Intolerance is in the mindset of the American. You are supposed to quote if you could not say it better yourself, and thus I repeat the words of Ralph Sockman, an American religious leader and mustard-lover: “The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.”

Free Speech

Assignment Due Monday, Aug. 21
Research the Georgia Tech policy change regarding intolerant speech. What is your opinion? Do you think there should be limits on free speech? What should those limits be and should they include the banning of intolerant speech? Use your research to support your opinions.

Welcome

Welcome to your blog! You and your classmates will use this blog to post your opinions, but only after you've thorougly researched the topics I've assigned. Refer to your syllabus for deadlines.