Although most Americans claim to venerate the ideal of \"freedom of speech,\" when it comes to actual practice there are few purists. \"Free speech\" purists recognize that defending the right to freedom of speech is not the same as endorsing what a speaker has said; therefore, purists recognize that viewpoints they disagree with should be just as zealously protected as viewpoints they embrace. <\/p>\n
Unfortunately, most so-called advocates of \"freedom of speech\" in America subscribe to four basic rules: 1). Revere freedom of speech when you (overtly or covertly) agree with what is being said, and revile it when you don't; 2). Do not gauge the \"offensiveness\" of speech by what was said, but instead by whether it supports or contradicts your political, religious, social, and\/or economic agendas; 3). Realize that your hypocrisy will be camouflaged by the failure or refusal of most people to engage their long-term memories; 4). Know that the right to \"freedom of speech\" is only relevant when one has the political or economic resources to utilize it. <\/p>\n
The most recent \"controversy\" in America regarding \"freedom of speech\" conclusively illustrates the application of these rules. Phil Robertson, the patriarch of a family that appears on A&E Network's Duck Dynasty, was recently suspended from the show for remarks he made during an interview with GQ Magazine. <\/p>\n
Although most of this \"controversy\" has revolved around the negative remarks Robertson made about gays and lesbians, Josh Barro of Business Insider (12\/21\/13) explained that Robertson's statements even implied that African-Americans were happier when racial segregation was the law in the American South. <\/p>\n
In response to Robertson's remarks, a popular, country-themed restaurant chain, which once endured its own controversy regarding its views towards gays and lesbians, removed Duck Dynasty merchandise from its shelves, provoking such \"outrage\" that it reversed its decision a few days later. <\/p>\n
Upon reading this, I could not help but wonder how many of those \"good ole boys and gals\" who were so \"outraged\" by this restaurant's actions had absolutely no complaints a few years back when country radio stations banned the Dixie Chicks from the airwaves because of remarks they made that were critical of George W. Bush. <\/p>\n
I also thought about how the former Commissioner of the National Football League (NFL), Paul Tagliabue, once refused to hold the Super Bowl in Arizona because of its failure to create a state holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., yet the NFL still has a team called the \"Redskins,\" and how, more recently, Wisconsin's demagogic governor Scott Walker fired a campaign aide for \"racist tweets,\" yet later enacted a law making it more difficult for people to legally challenge the nicknames of sports teams that Native-Americans find racially offensive. <\/p>\n
What is particularly disturbing about the Duck Dynasty \"controversy,\" is that even the short-term memories of many Americans have failed. The news organization The Young Turks recently aired an interesting montage showing how many of the very people and organizations now vociferously defending Robertson's right to \"freedom of speech,\" were, a few weeks ago, just as vociferously condemning the MSNBC network for its failure to \"punish\" journalist Martin Bashir (who was later forced to resign) for statements he made about America's goddess of right-wing idiocy, Sarah Palin. <\/p>\n
Perhaps even more hypocritically, given their defense of Robertson's statements, is how many of these people and organizations also remained silent, and in some cases even supported, MSNBC's decision to cancel actor Alec Baldwin's late night talk show after he allegedly used \"homophobic slurs.\" <\/p>\n
Although Palin herself denounced as \"hypocrisy\" MSNBC's initial failure to \"punish\" Bashir, she did not hesitate to display her own hypocrisy in defending Robertson by lamenting that \"free speech is an endangered species.\" <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Follow this link:<\/p>\n
Freedom of Speech: An "Endangered Species"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Although most Americans claim to venerate the ideal of \"freedom of speech,\" when it comes to actual practice there are few purists. \"Free speech\" purists recognize that defending the right to freedom of speech is not the same as endorsing what a speaker has said; therefore, purists recognize that viewpoints they disagree with should be just as zealously protected as viewpoints they embrace. Continue reading