I am really not sure what this new movement is all about. It is way beyond political correctness. Simply put, political correctness is about giving just names to ideas and persons. Personally I think it can be a beneficial idea to see a person for whom they really are instead of saddling them with a stereotypical name. However, when did political correctness devolve to the point that you cannot say anything because you might offend someone, well at least as long as society decides that you don’t have a right to offend that particular group of persons? Protected groups change and political philosophies change and political loyalties change with varying degrees throughout history. If you forbid one group from speaking one day, who is to say that it will not be your turn tomorrow to be silenced?
The truth is that we do have hate crime legislation in the United States. Hate crimes in the US are nothing new. But, many commentators say it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Yet, I take a different tact. Our hate crime legislation is an indication of someone’s intent and if that intent is to do harm because someone was a minority then the felony involved is seen as having a greater effect upon society. For example: if an individual is attacking someone based upon their skin color or religion rather than in a general brawl, then society has deemed that that attack warrants a higher punishment. Is speech being attacked or curtailed here? No. Speech is used to prove an element of the crime. It is not the crime itself. Speech is being used to show the intent of the criminal and why they are breaking the law. It is no different from any hearsay exception where speech is used to prove an element of the crime. I would say it is akin to the felony-murder rule as well. While many felonies in and of themselves do not stipulate an extensive amount of incarceration, however if death occurs during the commission of the felony, then a higher penalty is paid. The same type of penalty exacerbation occurs under hate crime legislation in the United States.
Now hate crime in other nations, particularly Europe and Canada, occurs when speech is directly curtailed because you might hurt someone’s feelings. This is very different from in the United States and is seen here in the US as a violation of freedom of speech. The interesting point here is that hate crimes are selective in these countries and it is all about appeasement of particular ethnic groups rather than standing up for values and ideas.In fact, Sweden is notorious for condemning any anti-Muslim writings in their newspapers, but hiding behind freedom of speech in not attacking any anti-Semitic writings in the same newspaper.It is truly unfortunate and says alot about Europe and particularly Sweden. Now we do have some laws that can curtail speech here in the United States too. We do have laws that say if imminent violence can occur then speech can be stopped. But generally under those circumstances a court tells the city or municipality to put on more police. Also it becomes an issue of prior restraint which courts are very loathe to ever allow. Unfortunately we do see colleges and universities claiming probable violence as a reason to shut down speakers. Ironically that speaker is usually a conservative political proponent, someone the majority at the university or college rejects to begin with.
The question becomes, what are the colleges and universities so afraid of? The administrations seem to be afraid of violence from those that the speaker offends? Well, why are these violent students allowed on campus and allowed to attend the school? You have no right to attend any university or college. In fact, if you are violent you do not have a right to be in any mainstream environment in any school at any grade level. If you interrupt someone’s right to learn and be educated then you have no right to be in a place of education. That is simple education law. In fact some of the tactics used by many protesters are in and of themselves a form of assault, a societal crime, not just an educational one. I find it terribly disappointing that bastions of free thought and liberal thinking such as universities and colleges globally curtail speech in anyway shape or form. Interestingly enough since conservatives do not physically attack people who disagree with them their opponents are given free rein over colleges and universities to spew their hatred of western freedoms and values. How’s that for irony, using western freedoms to destroy western freedoms.
The truth is that free speech is tough. It’s probably one of the toughest of the first amendment rights to stand up for. But it is the basis of a democratic society. The reality is that people will make you angry. Democracy is not for the thin-skinned or the weak of heart. If you want a free society you need to fight for it and allow those whom you despise to speak their mind. In plain and simple terms, if you want to live in a free society, grow a pair.