(cnn)america used to be a place where we said, 'give me liberty or give me death' we live by a credo that 'freedom isn't free,' and that our constitution is worth dying for how inspirational it is to believe that this is the wind of thought that blows underneath the eagle's wings unfortunately, whenever that wind becomes just a little too gusty for comfort, we find out just how little relationship our poetic credo has to our collective guts the latest example:  nine seconds of video of a number of boys singing an offensive song immediately, the university of oklahoma expelled two of the boys for their speech forget whether you like the speech or not that is not relevant these boys got kicked out of a public school for singing a song, on their own time, in a privately rented bus, simply because the government didn't like the content of their song opinion: what's the right way to face racism? censors overstepping their bounds is no surprise what surprises me is how readily the public supported the expulsions, and how many supposedly intelligent people were willing to turn the first amendment on its head, because of nine seconds of video i don't like the song or its message either i can't imagine anyone reasonable who would but i want to live in a country where the government does not listen to my songs and then decide whether or not i should be punished, based on what words i used that is not freedom i understand that most of us hate racism we are on a mission to eradicate it from all corners but i am not willing to trade the first amendment for a society where we don't need to hear racist words in abrams v united states, justice oliver wendell holmes wrote a passage that ultimately became the cornerstone of a liberty based view toward free speech, and which became the dominant theory in first amendment jurisprudence in abrams, holmes gave us 'the marketplace of ideas' and what a brilliant theory it was holmes noted that if someone was completely confident in the belief that they were right, then it would seem logical that they would want to suppress dissenting views 'if you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition' those who wish to eradicate racism are certain that they are right i believe in a racism free world  i have marched in counterprotests against the ku klux klan i've stood up in places you don't want to be, against violent neo nazis and i would do it again but i feel no kinship with anyone who would harm the first amendment to fight racism some things are worse than racismlike a loss of the right to speak your mind and think your own thoughts unfortunately, that is a price that too many of us are willing to pay i am not as certain as i am that my views on race are correct, i cannot shake holmes' wisdom from my mind he wrote:  'but when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideasthat the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out that, at any rate, is the theory of our constitution' for that reason, i would gladly protest against the kkk, but i would never abide any government official denying the kkk its right to speak i understand those who would wish to do so they want to eradicate racism, and the end will justify the means however, we have slowly been descending into a place where we are trading this for freedoms that are far more precious than the freedom to avoid having our feelings hurt by offensive statements of course, some say that these were more than 'offensive' the song was a 'threat' after all, it did mention lynching black people but was that really a threat?  an idiotic ditty in an all white bus? to call it a threat is disingenuous what about the disruptive nature of the song? should other students have to go to school with people who clearly despise them, and who carry these offensive racist thoughts? yes they should be free to have these thoughts, they should be free to say these things if it crosses the line into action, or even imminent incitement to action, that's another story in this case, that never happened the first amendment prevails here opinion: the danger society doesn't talk about  it is easy to claim that these sigma alpha epsilon boys did not deserve first amendment protection many have said so but, when you hear that, your immediate reaction should be one of skepticism the first amendment is not there to serve as a comforting blanket of civility in fact, it is there precisely to protect the sharp edges it is there for the kkk, the nazis, sae, and you alike it is there for words that shock us, challenge us, and that bother us you should want to protect the sae boysnot that they deserve it you should do so because the day will come that your speech is unpopular once, speech in favor of racial equality was considered to be 'bad speech' once, professors were kicked off campus for not being 'anti gay enough' but, today, the thought of equality and tolerance have won out in the marketplace let that victory stand, without trying to cement it with the force of law, and without destroying the very liberty that allowed these 'good thoughts' to flourish in the first place
paraphemia dependents university of oklahoma
no related information