Free Speech Should Be Protected: A Letter to the Maneater
Published in The Maneater, September 16, 2005.
I am responding to Dan Friesen's column, "Thou Shalt Watch Your Language," and Angad Nagra's guest column, "Serious Debate Needed at Speaker's Circle," both of which appeared in the Sept. 13 edition of The Maneater.
I am hesitant, somewhat shamefully, to use a religious label to identify myself. This hesitation does not exemplify a weakness of faith, but a fear of being grouped ideologically with such people as the religious extremists who feel compelled to exercise their First Amendment rights in the middle of our campus. While Brother Jed and I may believe in the same God, our understandings of God are both very different and (whether he admits it or not) very incomplete. Henry David Thoreau said, "The universe is wider than our views of it," and I believe this statement is accurate in every aspect and true for all people.
I understand Brother Jed verbally attacked Friesen's father, and thus it seems Friesen felt Brother Jed's children were fair game. I fundamentally disagree, however, with Mr. Friesen's narrow list of options for the children's development. Whether you believe in a benevolent God who gave you free will, or the absence of a God to restrict innate free will, it is an observable fact that you and I (and the Brother Jeds of the world) have free will to make our own choices. This free will extends to the children of Brother Jed.
They may follow their father's fire and brimstone version of Christianity, or they may form or adopt their own viewpoints as they gain intellectual maturity and independence from their father. Life is a journey where there are many opportunities for choices, and many choices from which to choose. While they are seldom argued, there are more sides to issues than the two extremes.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said we must be especially vigilant in protecting the freedom to express viewpoints we detest. This freedom extends to the "angry fear-mongering" you describe. Nagra, who wrote the guest column, cannot truly speak for a conveniently silent "silent majority," nor do the opinions of a majority strengthen or inhibit one's fundamental right to speak. The characterization of a debate on the political issues Nagra mentions as more important than the rhetoric of Brother Jed is merely the opinion of the columnist - Brother Jed probably feels his topic is more important.
As the former editor in chief of a college newspaper, I understand only too well the active restraint involved in allowing the dissemination of viewpoints I detest, and in refusing to allow an ideological discussion to degenerate into a battle of personal insult. Despite being repulsed and offended from time to time by the speech of others, free expression is one of the most vital facets of our liberty. The volume of Brother Jed's rhetoric is not the cause of Friesen's complaint, I believe his true objection lies with the content of Brother Jed's rhetoric. Brother Jed's rhetoric is protected speech and must be allowed to continue, whether you and I agree with its content or not.
I am responding to Dan Friesen's column, "Thou Shalt Watch Your Language," and Angad Nagra's guest column, "Serious Debate Needed at Speaker's Circle," both of which appeared in the Sept. 13 edition of The Maneater.
I am hesitant, somewhat shamefully, to use a religious label to identify myself. This hesitation does not exemplify a weakness of faith, but a fear of being grouped ideologically with such people as the religious extremists who feel compelled to exercise their First Amendment rights in the middle of our campus. While Brother Jed and I may believe in the same God, our understandings of God are both very different and (whether he admits it or not) very incomplete. Henry David Thoreau said, "The universe is wider than our views of it," and I believe this statement is accurate in every aspect and true for all people.
I understand Brother Jed verbally attacked Friesen's father, and thus it seems Friesen felt Brother Jed's children were fair game. I fundamentally disagree, however, with Mr. Friesen's narrow list of options for the children's development. Whether you believe in a benevolent God who gave you free will, or the absence of a God to restrict innate free will, it is an observable fact that you and I (and the Brother Jeds of the world) have free will to make our own choices. This free will extends to the children of Brother Jed.
They may follow their father's fire and brimstone version of Christianity, or they may form or adopt their own viewpoints as they gain intellectual maturity and independence from their father. Life is a journey where there are many opportunities for choices, and many choices from which to choose. While they are seldom argued, there are more sides to issues than the two extremes.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said we must be especially vigilant in protecting the freedom to express viewpoints we detest. This freedom extends to the "angry fear-mongering" you describe. Nagra, who wrote the guest column, cannot truly speak for a conveniently silent "silent majority," nor do the opinions of a majority strengthen or inhibit one's fundamental right to speak. The characterization of a debate on the political issues Nagra mentions as more important than the rhetoric of Brother Jed is merely the opinion of the columnist - Brother Jed probably feels his topic is more important.
As the former editor in chief of a college newspaper, I understand only too well the active restraint involved in allowing the dissemination of viewpoints I detest, and in refusing to allow an ideological discussion to degenerate into a battle of personal insult. Despite being repulsed and offended from time to time by the speech of others, free expression is one of the most vital facets of our liberty. The volume of Brother Jed's rhetoric is not the cause of Friesen's complaint, I believe his true objection lies with the content of Brother Jed's rhetoric. Brother Jed's rhetoric is protected speech and must be allowed to continue, whether you and I agree with its content or not.
posted by Randal A. Burd, Jr. at 9:26 AM
0 comments
