One of the biggest challenges we as believers of the 1st amendment will face in the new year will be to resist the renewed effort to expand "Hate crime" legislation. We will experience increased pressure from special interest groups to include sexual preference, religion and a number of other topics that they would like to legislate the direction of dialog that is legal. This restriction is already in place in Europe, Canada and Australia. In Australia, two pastors were tried and convicted of "vilifying Muslims" for quoting from the Quran in an attempt to point out differences between Christianity and Islam.
If you believe as I do in the right to free speech and thought you must remain vigilant and challenge this attack on one of the main pillars of our nations founding. Write you congressmen on this before it becomes a national issue.
4 comments:
Actually, things have already turned in the USA. In an ever-growing number of organizations, freedom of speech has been effectively eliminated by Human Resource departments who decree that "the intent of your words doen't matter - all that matters is the 'perception' of the recipient".
I've had that exact thing happen to me when I briefly worked for the City of Eugene. I was working in a temporary job and was told that they wished I was full time so I could be sent to training camp.
I see a hugh future in psychology trying to help people that have developed a psychosis trying to anticipate the "perception of the recipient".
Precisely. Our founding guarantee of freedom of speech is being perverted in an Orwellian way - and this whole "perception of the recipient" thing is just over the top. As there is no possible way for you to know the "perception of the recipient", such rules effectively prevent you from exercising your rights as an American citizen. This is why I'm presently engaged in legal action to invalidate such "rules".
The case you point to is in Australia, isn't it?
Can you point me to this hate crime legislation you speak of?
Personally, I don't consider some things to be free speech rights, which others might consider. For instance I don't think one has the right to tell people to commit violent acts against others, without taking some responsibility for the violent acts if they are committed.
I also don't believe that having a right to purchase the speech of others (such as in election campaigns) is the same as having free speech to do your own speaking.
Post a Comment