Another classic example of liberals’ one-way interpretation of free speech. Hot Air has covered an event which occurred at University of Wisconsin Stevens Point recently. Some pro-life activists had obtained permission from the University to put up a display of crosses on one of the lawns. Then, a pro-abortion individual came along and started pulling all the crosses down. His defense? Abortion is a constitutional right, so now you don’t have the right to challenge it.
Why do liberals think free speech only goes one way? Why is only their speech protected? How do they justify this to themselves? In my experience, it’s often because they see themselves as believing the right things, and so believe that the field of acceptable opinions has them at its center, not at the left-most fringe. As a result, all conservatives and worse are in the unacceptable part of the spectrum. Free speech shouldn’t really protect all speech, just that speech which falls within the acceptable range. At any rate, not anything that’s likely to change soon.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
If you’re going to post this on the front of your site:
“Everyone has the right to believe as they will, and to express their views, however extreme or false they may seem to others. This site is an attempt to portray in a reasonable and rational way the other side of the argument. I invite your constructive comments and feedback and would love to hear from those who have views on the subjects I tackle.”
and complain about free speech rights being violated…
then don’t delete comments because they show your lack of knowledge.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Dear anonymous commenter. Please stop leaving your obnoxious comments on the site – as you see from the quote above, I invite “constructive comments” not personal insults. If you have something constructive to contribute, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, please go elsewhere.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
You want constrictive criticism? Ok.
1. The Associated Press (AP) wrote the story. As a wire service they sell their stories to many members of the media including CNN.
2. The article’s thesis is easy to understand. It’s first sentence!
3. The show is satire. And both your sources say so. Satire by defination is not objective.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Thank you – much better. I’ve put this on the original post too. I’ve no objection to civilized comments.