Just a few notes/thoughts/questions on "Giving and Taking Offense."
First, Warburton quotes Oliver Kamm:
“The notion that free speech, while important, needs to be held in balance with the avoidance of offence is question-begging, because it assumes that offence is something to be avoided. Free speech does indeed cause hurt—but there is nothing wrong in this. Knowledge advances through the destruction of bad ideas. Mockery and derision are among the most powerful tools in the process.”
???
Warburton later writes:
“In the United States, the First Amendment free speech protection has in some renowned cases led to judgments that, disgusting as such hate speech may be, it should still in many cases be permitted. It is protected from prosecution because it is potentially part of a political debate” (56).
Again, ???
In 2015, at the National Prayer Breakfast, then President Barack Obama said:
“lest we get on our high horse and think this [terrorism in the name of religion] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
He was soundly criticized by some people, including former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore:
“The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime. He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”
Um, what?
I believe that freedom of speech is important, even if that means hateful speech is permitted. While hateful speech is permitted, this does not automatically mean that the speech is accepted. Hateful speech gives people the opportunity to override this hate and dig deeper into why this hateful speech is philosophically, ethically, and morally flawed. Obama mentions that freedom of speech allowed people to justify Jim Crowe and the Crusades because the people claimed they were doing it for God. It is important to know that this is their reasoning, but if you look at what God says, "Thou Shall Not Kill" is a very big rule in Christianity. Thus, the crusades and the reasoning behind it was not justified. We can see how their reason was actually hate, and that they gave a different name to it so that they could justify it. I think this falls under freedom of speech, publicly lying to yourself, though that does not mean it is right. However, we can see this and combat it, learn from it, and learn that hate only causes pain, it does not migitate it. As citizens and as social media users, we can continue to spread this idea. We can see hate and fight against it, which I believe to be a valuable exercise, like Oliver Kamm suggests.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the beginning of Kamm's quote where he states that knowledge can ultimately advance, and that offensiveness can bring about knowledge, I immediately see concern in the last part of his statement, where he applauds mockery and derision. This reminds me of the debate we watched in class where (the name of the particular man escapes me) one of the men believed bullying is always necessary for a child's development. We should not be advocating for hate speech and violence, whether through words or actions. Referencing the quotes further down in the post, Jim Gilmore's quote has irritated me far more than the offensive readings we've read in the past. In my opinion, many people are too attached to thinking they are superior in their thinking, going as far as to ignore factual evidence in favor of keeping their side "in the light." If we keep thinking this way, we will never progress and there will never be positive change. Not to get too into politics, but against Gilmore's quote, I think that Obama very much believes in America and its values, for he is calling for Americans to think logically about their past and to seek change.
ReplyDelete