David Brooks’ fantastic column in the New York Times about
the Charlie Hebdo attacks and political correctness on college campuses really
got me thinking. Of course resorting to
violence in response to being offended is way beyond the pale.
But Brooks’ point is also important. Just how strongly do you support Charlie
Hebdo’s right of free expression? Even
when it is offensive? Even when it is
insulting to a religion or ethnicity or gender or . . . ? They offend everyone at some point. Do you agree with Brooks’ when he says that
we should apply this equally to controversial opinions of people who are coming
to speak at your campus or workplace or church?
My Take
Here is an example that I think you can use to test your
commitment. What do you think of the name
of the Washington D.C. professional football team? If you think it is offensive to Native
Americans, what do you think should be done about it? Nothing, because it represents freedom of
expression? Do you think we should each
make an individual decision about whether to support the team, boycott their
games, and buy their merchandise? Do you
think that the league should require that they change it? Do you think the government should get
involved in any way?
I ask in part because the U.S. Patent and Trademark office
has canceled their trademark protection because it disparages Native
Americans. I find this to be a step too
far. It is OK for private citizens to
take these kinds of steps, but when the government does it, I think it violates
their freedom of expression. As I have said in this blog before, I am a
strident believer in individual freedoms, at least when it comes to government action. I personally would boycott any organization
or person that is being offensive. And I
would recommend that action to any other private person or organization who
will listen to me. But not the
government. Stupidity and offensive
expression should never be made illegal.
Your Turn
What do you think? Do
you think the government should get involved?
