Your Actual Freedom of Speech vs. Those in Total Opposition to Political Correctness

[BeeNee]

I have never quite understood the argument made by some that America is so politically correct that they would rather move to Canada or other country (in case you were wondering, those same people still live here). Anti-political correctness advocates usually angrily point to their first amendment rights to freedom of speech which few have apparently actually read and/or fully understood as justification for alleging they should have the power to be able to say whatever they want, when they want, and where they want to. If you've actually read your first amendment right, it does NOT actually say that you can say and or do whatever you want, when you want, free from any restriction whatsoever. It also ironically protects many of the things you want to and express mainly because political correctness is not actually law. I mean if you are going to stand up and strongly defend something, you might want to know what you're actually defending.

What are your actual rights? Freedom of Speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws (see video below).

The freedom of speech is NOT absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.

"Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons, and restrictions on the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance."

I see a few problems with those that feel we need to get rid of political correctness in America.

1. The problem with the argument that we need to get rid of political correctness is that the very people who say they should have more freedoms of speech, already in fact have them. If you have a dessenting opinion, you are free to express it. If you want to call an officer who is a woman, a police man, instead of police officer or police woman, you cannot be arresseted for that. If you want to make your youtube vidoes, or protest your local government, or get on tv in an op ed piece, nothing is stopping you. We don't live in a country where a corrupt government/police force is going to bang on your door in the middle of the night, strangle your children in front of you, and then blow your head off because you wrote a blog about how you dislike the president or your hatred of feminism. If you don't agree with whomever, about whatever, aside from the exceptions to your FOS under law, you can say pretty much what you like already.

2. Aye, but there's the rub. Those who want to be so free to express themselves, don't like the idea that people can and often do, fervently oppose their opinions and ideas. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are free from the opinions of others on said speech whether they agree with you or not. With the instantaneous nature of things like social media and news outlets, such opposition can be swift and unyielding, and few, knowing their opinions, want to deal with the consequences of their freedom of expression. They just want to be able to say anything they want and basically have everyone agree with them, but you have to be able to deal with opposition. You think everyone just stood by and agreed with the Founding Fathers?

3. Then there are those people who freqently complain about their ideas being censored by a social media site like GaG because of so called political correctness, but again, this is where knowing your rights comes into play. If you create something, such as a website, you have the right to censor it all you want because when you create something, whether you open it up to the public or not, it is yours. In fact, if you read the fine print on those contracts no one reads when they sign up for sites such as these, YOU have already agreed to allow this and other websites to censor you in anyway they deem appropriate. Don't like it, what is free is that you don't have to be a part of a so called "repressive institution" and you can exercise your own rights, create your own website, and truly allow anyone to say what they want on it, but much like those moving to another country, you're...still...here.

4. There is that subset of people who's intentions are less about being able to make more political commentary or express opposition to certain ideas, and much more about feeling that they should be able to freely use/implement things like racism, hate speech, sexism, bigotry, religious discrimination, homophobia and/or obsenities, etc. There are clearly reasons why your FOS does not neccessarily guarantee or protect this as part of that freedom, but despite someone not liking the idea of someone saying these things, a lot of your right to do so IS already protected by FOS. (see no. 3)

When you stand up and say I'm going to move away from this country because you want more freedom of speech and to do away with political correctness altogether, you will quickly find yourself with very few options for that and continuing to say this as if it actually means something without action, means to some degree that you recognize that you have far more rights here then you would in a lot of other countries. Now considering, aside from those protections under law, you have freedom of speech and cannot be arrested for expressing your opinions, or not wanting to use certain so called PC terms for certain people or places, and no one is coming to kidnapp and kill you for having an opinion, the only thing stopping you from using your right, is you, but again, don't think that just because you use it, there won't be opposition to your thoughts and ideas. This is exactly WHY we do have freedom of speech in the first place.

An interesting article if you're interested: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-speech-isnt-free/283672/

...and more on what freedom of speech actually means:

[hellionthesage]

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Abridge: 1. shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
"the cassettes have been abridged from the original stories"
synonyms: shorten, cut, cut short, cut down, curtail, truncate, trim, crop, clip, pare down, prune; More abbreviate, condense, contract, compress, reduce, decrease, shrink; "she was hired to abridge the works of Shakespeare for a children's book club"
•shortened, cut, cut down, concise, condensed, abbreviated; censored, expurgated
2. curtail (rights or privileges).
"even the right to free speech can be abridged"
In fact what your describing in your first part is actually unconsitutional according to the first amendment, any law that abridges/curtails the freedom of speech is in direct violation of the first amendment, quite literally as it states it in the first amendment, "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
By attempting to punish those who speak out yoy are censoring speech, now yes their are only a handful of laws that violate the first amendment, but society as a whole does deal out punishment for speech. If a person says something that the populace does not like they can and are fired from jobs, harrassed etc. despite the fact that they where within thier rights to speak and it has no bearing on their occupation. This is how society as a whole censors speech. In fact your take is actually an attempt to censor speech (fully within your rights to do) by attempting to argue that they should not argue or point out what they see as a manipulation and suppressoin of opinion. As for your second remark, I think that your response shows the opposite, that is those in the majority do not like thier opinions questioned. Those in the minority have their opinoins questioned all the time, that is not what they argue against but rather the extreme response to disent that they argue is going to far and thus a violation of their right to speak freely. Now to speak of an opinion does not mean you are granted immunity for it but the fact that in society you can be punished in ways unrelated to the statement is an issue that does need to be adressed.

[BeeNee]

So shall we then only hold true the first 10 amendments and ignore all else that came after it because a law, amendment, or rule can never be changed because it was once written down by people who did not have to live in a world where the internet, copyright law, or television existed? Get out of here with that! You make rules as a society that you feel will serve that society as your society sees fit. We elect people to do so. These same people made abridgements. As for the latter, if we do away with any restrictions on FOS, you open the door for people being able to freely exhibit child pornography, openly incite violence and/or hatred of a group, and steal your personal works. For this, and oh so many reasons, we have limitations. The majority has always ruled in this country in regards to most if not everything. So if someone has an idea or thought that goes against that, say women's rights for example, it is up to them to make their point, to go against the establishment...

[BeeNee]

and fight for themselves to be heard. This is literally how it has always been. The only difference now is that we have an internet which can link people together instantly and can easily band people together. This can obviously work for or against you. Going back in time to 1791 for a minute... this FOS was never meant for you to be able to call your neighbor an asshole. This version of freedom of speech was about you being able to protest your government openly and freely without persecution. You still have that very right.

[hellionthesage]

But what benefits come from abridging a persons right to freely express themselves? If a person lies to do harm to another then punishment makes sense as its not an expression but a tactic to do harm. However political correctness prevents people from expressing their opinions. ergo it is an abridgment of the first amendment and if it is legally backed it would be illegal. Yes opinions can hurt people but if it is not a direct attack designed to hurt their economic standing then it is not an assualt on the individual. A man can talk about black people being worthless etc all he wants as long as he is not stating an explicit lie that is designed to cause an individual to lose their job or destroye their personal repuation for personal gain then it should not be illegal. Who decides what is appropriate and what is not? Just because the majority doesn't like something doesn't mean it is wrong, just because its voted for doesn't make it truth.

[hellionthesage]

The people that made abridgments are also frequently corrupt, the reason why we have the amendment to begin with to be a balance for the inevitable corruption of the government. They are the ones who violated their own laws with the torture of prisoners in guatanomo bay and with the countless violated laws with the NSA. These are the people who decide what we can and cannot say and do. Hence the ammendment to counter this fact. Child pornography is rape it is evidence and ergo it would still be illegal. Inciting violence in what way? Again their is a difference between words and actions so as long as violence does not occur they have the right to speak as they will. Copyright laws are not in violation of free speech, how have you come to that conclusion, freedom of speech is the freedom to speak opinions and beliefs, not take credit for somethign that is not yours. They are very different. Yes the majority rules, which one could argue makes the few subjegated

[hellionthesage]

as they are forced to do as the majority says, not unlike political correctness. I don't know what your reffering to when you talk about "womens rights" since that has nothing to do with freedom of speech and women have and always have had "rights". But along those lines we can argue why the majority having all the power, as what your saying would result in, is bad. For instance how the majority of society is force fed an idea that women are victims that they did not have the right to vote. In a society that protects the right to disent a person is able to point out that men also did not have the right to vote, that they gained it only seventy years before women and it was specificly because they could be conscripted into various services, the most common being bucket brigades and military, without their concent and under the threat of legal action (imprisonment being the most common). See how that completely changes things? Now if we where to be politicly correct

[hellionthesage]

this would (and currently is) remain an obscure fact allowing the populace to continue believing a lie, one which would perpetuate other lies. That is why we allow freedom of speech, because a persons feelings don't matter, a persons desire not to be questioned doesn't matter. No one will ever learn or know anything without disent, without questioning the majority so in order to prevent the government from silencing those who would question it, to prevent ideologies to silence those who would question them we allow all people to have an equal voice since we cannot give all people equal power, equal numbers. The first amendment was about protesting the government but your missing a very large fact which is it was also about protesting ideologies, those who protested the government did so because of religious persecution, political persecution, cultural persecution. That is why we have the freedom of speech, to prevent those people from being silenced.

[BeeNee]

“But what benefits come from abridging a person’s right to freely express themselves?” You, nor I, have a right to give away, for example, national security secrets. A recent publication listed the name of an undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame exposing not only herself, but the possibility of exposing other operatives. This risks the lives of that person, and many others, and puts us all at risk if those secrets she or others are holding onto to protect us, ever get out. I fear I’m in danger of quoting lines from a “Few Good Men,” here but people have no idea what they are actually asking for when they ask for TRUE freedom of speech. You can say it’s BS all you want until it’s you or your family or your country on the line. In the case of Plame, her family had no idea she was an operative, because…she was an undercover operative.

[BeeNee]

Political correctness is not law no matter how you spin it. You can go against the majority or minority if you want to, however, in regards to being fired at your job for speaking your mind, if you own a business, you have the right to fire employees for speaking ill of you and/or company. You can also fire them for showing up late all the time and sleeping at the desk. No person is going to agree that employees should be able to just say or do anything they want because if that info is negative or false, for one, those words can have a major impact on the business and or clients (btw: one of those very abridgments does not protect say an ENRON from lying in court), but being fired and all, your rights to then go on the web, to the media, to anyone who will listen to further complain about your firing are still upheld. Words do in fact have impact. Inciting violence and or riots by urging people to grab rocks and run into town and beat people up, have impact...

[BeeNee]

We see this literally all the time with mob mentality. You said, “Again their is a difference between words and actions so as long as violence does not occur they have the right to speak as they will.” You have already admitted that we cannot truly have free speech to say whatever whenever because of such incidences where people’s words have spurred people to violence against others and as a result people have been run over, trampled, and/or killed, yet in the same breath you say FOS rights should be defended and no abridgements or changes should be made. This is one of those very abridgements for the very safety and protection of the American people! I think that is a pretty strong case for not allowing true unfiltered free speech...

[BeeNee]

The truth of the matter is the majority of those who rally against political correctness rarely have anything to do with the original ideals of Freedom of Speech. These aren’t people who want to fight against the NSA or corruption in government. Those people that want that, are doing that and exercising their rights (btw those people won a case against said government to protect a terrorists phone from having to be exposed by Apple and exposed the NSA spying on us, so you can’t really say the system only tips in a corrupt governments favor). No, what’s happening is this set who want to get rid of the PC culture, want Starbucks to print Merry Christmas on a cup, they want to be able to keep a football team logo with a racist mascot, and they want not to have to make concessions for every single person who claims they are some new category of human being.

[BeeNee]

The majority isn’t always right, but neither is the minority, which again is why we do have freedom of speech with the caveat that this doesn’t come without some minor restriction, struggle or opposition. Laws are meant to change with the times. Standards and practices for the 1700’s can’t be a be all end all standard for all time because the world changes, people’s ideas change, technology changes and so on which is why we have ourselves to vote and elected officials to make sure those changes happen...(P. S. 1,000 word limits are annoying).

[hellionthesage]

well the man who whent against the NSA lives in russia now because if he comes back to america he will at least be arrested and judged by a military tribunal. so thats not really a good example. You keep saying that people who go against the majority are only doing it for the wrong reasons but how can you determine that? Furthermore how can you claim that they should have less rights then the majority (as you are trying to say that they should be punished for speaking out while they argue that its absurd that they would be punished for speaking out)? You claim they have bad intentiones but is it because you disagree with them? Is it because your afraid that what they say might have influence and take that away from you (being one of the majority opinion holder)? What are they doing that is going against the legal right of speech?(which I have pointed out already gets violated)?(the word limit is annoying)

[BeeNee]

Okay, then, let's simplify because I really don't feel like 'box' typing a whole long thing again. Do you personally think we should have a society with no limitations on speech whatsoever? People are free to call your wife a slut at work, people are free to print national security secrets on the front page, people can lie in court with no repercussions, groups can urge people openly to go kill each other...

[hellionthesage]

What your describing isn't freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the abilty to speak of an opinion or belief without censor. What you are describing is a world without consequence which is completely different. National secrets can cost peoples lives and they have nothing to do with expression of thought or belief ergo it is not applicable, same goes with lying in court, it is not an expression of thought or belief but an attempt to obfuscate the truth for ones own personal gain. Yes I think if some one thinks my (hypothetical) wife is a slut he should have the right to say it. Why shouldn't he? What if she is what if she is cheating shouldn't he have the right to say it out right? Would I not be better off for it since he stated it? To give an example, a reporter was asked about her about her opinion on israel, she stated they should stay out of gaza and stop instigating fights. She was fired for that personal opinion (which was asked for) because it was not politically correct.

[hellionthesage]

Now we know that what she said was her opinion, it had no bearing on her job or how she did her job but it didn't matter because she spoke out against popular opinion. It didn't matter that at that point in time the conflict had occured because of Israel violating its cease fire terms and taking over territory it admitted and was not theirs. It didn't matter that 15 palastinians die for every 1 Israely, or that Israel has violated not only its peace treaties and cease fires but UN sanctions/policies and international laws. None of that mattered because the reporter was not PC, she did not speak popular opinion and she had her career destroyed because of it. This is what the freedom of speech is suppose to protect. The same thing occured with the treyvon martin case where no laws where violated, it was in self defense (as evidence of the lacerations on the back of Zimmermans head, black eye and broken nose) yet police where fired for not claiming it was caused by racism. This is what

[hellionthesage]

the first amendment is meant to protect. The right to state what you believe, to be able to freely express your thoughts and opinions without economic/legal repercussions. So that is why political correctness, which is provably harmful to society (if you can't criticise a problem it can't be resolved) is a problem and why the freedom of expression is so very important. So important in fact that it was the first amendment ever created specificly because those who wrote it where all to familiar with what happens when that right is taken away from the people.

[BeeNee]

True free speech is an absolute impossibility. For example, we have hate groups in this country who believe that Jews are the devil and they intend to send them back to hell from whence they came. This is their belief. You may not share it, but they do. To have free speech without filter or restriction would mean these same people would be able to go into said job, church, grocery store, wherever and preach their hatred and encourage violence against others. Why are their restrictions on this? Because any rational thinking human being knows that this type of speech isn't just words in the air that hurt no one. Hitler was just speaking a few words too right? We have consequences to certain speech because they can and do sometimes incite violence and hatred of others. This is not in the First Amendment, this is an abridgement to said rights to free speech and so is not being able to falsify statements. You can't just say oh its wrong, and people shouldn't do it.

[BeeNee]

The reason we have consequences is because they have been put to law. Changes have been made to the very document securing our free speech that protect us from certain types of free speech, aka, slander, hate speech, revealing national secrets. And clearly you have no wife, because that's total BS that you would actually advocate your wife being called a slut openly in a place of business where she works... because maybe she is? No self respecting man... and all the rest... Anyway, we're coming upon the fork in the road where I fear we will have to agree to disagree.

[hellionthesage]

Yes they can, its their right to speak of what ever they wish. The reason for this is as I have already mentioned, because some times (incredibly frequently) society cannot distinguish between hate speech and fact, inciting of violence and inciting change, of insults and honest criticism. Since people cannot handle this all are allowed to speak so that no voice is in control. You want to silence all because you don't like what they say, so why can I not silence your voice as well? Why are you the arbiter and not me, or some one else? Who decides what some one can and cannot say can and cannot believe? If you allow one voice you silence all others. This is why we allow the freedom of speech. If we did not Martin Luther King would have been silenced, is that the world you wish to live in? The people who opposed the war in iraq would have been silenced, is that what you want? It goes both ways.

[hellionthesage]

The fact is truth has nothing to fear, lies can and are disproved, the only ones who wish for silence are those who fear what might be said. We allow speech, the freedom of speech unfettered because in the end, truth will win out, but only if we allow it to exist. If we stamp out freedom of speech we prevent the truth from being heard (as I made multiple examples of) and that inturn harms all of us. Only cowards fear words, only cowards would silence everyone for fear of hearing the opinions of one. This is why it was the first amendment, they had experienced this tyranny, the affront to truth and decency, and it was the first law they made that one can speek freely and think freely without fear of persecution, that it was so important that they stated clearly that it was a law that cannot be abridged, that cannot be watered down to suit the needs of the few but must be maintained at all costs to ensure liberty and truth for the people.

[hellionthesage]

How can you not see why this is vital, you yourself would also be silenced by this. Are you really that afraid of what others say?

[BeeNee]

We have the very (few) restrictions you and I have spoken about on the right to Free speech, yet I am not silenced and neither are you. As I've said in my take, the vast majority of things you argue for, are already protected. I, and I'm sure, you, question the government and its leaders all the time, we have dozens of news, blogs, vlogs, newspapers, and shows that do the same... we're publicly having this discussion. The true intention of the first amendment, as in the ability to question your government without fear of reproach has been upheld. I have but to spend two seconds looking into the lives of a North Korean citizen to know I am not "silenced." Even with tales of woe about government corruption which clearly exist, "the truth will eventually come out," but the ability to expose that truth, again, is already protected. I mean where are the murdered bodies of those who exposed the IRS, Vet Admin, presidential mistresses, and Weapons Mass Destruction scandals?

[BeeNee]

We, as a nation, create our laws as we see fit to protect our nation. Those laws didn't just come about magically out of thin air. If you want the ability to make and change laws, and you have the mental fortitude to understand that laws change with the times and the people they represent, you can't then also decide you want to suppress that right of the people because you personally don't agree with it. Why be allowed to vote then? Why be allowed to elect politicians then? Why if people are so silenced, have there currently been no changes to these abridgements since their institution. The fact is---changes can always be made and for good measure. The original document only contained 10 amendments, and I know a few people who would be happy to argue quite easily with you, why changes to said document were and still are important. Rest assured, if your wish is for people to be able to freely incite violence and hatred of others, those people have never needed a law to do that.

[hellionthesage]

You mean the ones that cost people their jobs? Their economic well being and potentially social as well? No those are not protected, at least not well enough. The first amendment does not at any point state that you are free to speak freely about government policy, not once. It states, and I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" ie you have the freedom of speech whether that is government, ideology, politics, faith it does not matter it is your right to be able to speak of it freely with out economic/legal ramifications. Plenty of people fight against the abridgment of the freedom of speech. You know this otherwise why would you ask the question? Because people are arguing against it, every time some one complains of censorship, every time they attempt to avoid the FCC they are fighting it.

[BeeNee]

... then I'm sure, if you feel that you are being silenced and want more rights to freedom of speech than you already have, you have made an actual and continual effort to fight against what I can only assume you feel is severe and crippling government suppression? It's fine to complain, but without action behind it, you fall into the category of "I'm moving to Canada."

[hellionthesage]

Every word out of my mouth is an act of rebellion. I speak my opinions freely ergo I am actively rebelling against the ideology that a person is not entiteled to an opinion or belief. I speak it to any one at any time whether it be bosses teachers government. People are not asking for more rights to freedom of speech but rather to have their preexisting rights acknowledged. Its primarily society that is trying to silence people because they don't like what they here, like you, that people are arguing against. I will not move to Canada, I simply refuse to be silenced just because others feel they are important enough that only they should be allowed to speak. Its society that needs to change not law so the only way to fix a society is by the spread of ideas. In short I have already fought for change by simply choosing to argue against you. No tactic will get me to self censor in order to fit what you or any one else believes is "appropriate" speech. My words are defiance.

[BeeNee]

1. I like my opinion, you like yours = free speech. The irony is, in a way, you keep saying that I'm what's wrong with society, people like me, and all that bit, but is this not my opinion... which I believe in, just as you do yours? I'm still speaking it, and a million comment boxes later, so are you, even with the current abridgements to Free Speech. 2. If you care not in the long run, and will say what you want to say, and are "defiant," then what is the issue? You seem to have all the rights, and freedoms you need right now or care not for the laws that would restrict them because you don't agree with them and are going to do what you want anyway. 3. Thanks for the interesting conversation. Very thoughtful. Best of luck to you. 3.

[hellionthesage]

Of course you have the right to freedom of speech, never said you should be censored, what I am pointing out is when it becomes noticable to the majority (like in the cases I pointed out) their is sever backlash for it even if its completely unrelated to the persons job they get fired for it. This creates many issues, you where advocatign for this to happen I am not. Hence the difference, I am not sayign you should not be allowed to believe this is right, you should, what I am saying is that if you remove that right from others not only is it hypocritical but its dangerous for you and society as if you can silence others what will stop others from silencing you? I have the luxury of speech because I have nothing for some one to take, I am not a high profile person who can have their life destroyed simply because some one descides they don't like what I had to say (not that it would stop me, but it will stop others). That pressures people into silence.

[ClassicRocker]

Generally I agree with what you're saying, but when people use certain words in a descriptive rather than an inflammatory way such as using the word "nigger" to describe something a hate group might write on a wall. Or just reading "Huckleberry Finn" out loud should not be getting professors put on leave.

Tenured professors and other educators should not have to fear using words academically when used in a non-inflammatory way...

If you were offended by my first paragraph you are the problem...

[BeeNee]

Was there an actual concrete case of that happening? I doubt a professor would get put on leave for discussing that literature, especially given that book lists are approved by the University and shown to students prior to signing up for classes. That is not the hate speech the exceptions to FOS alludes to. It would literally have to be, as you say, someone purposefully spray painting, for example, a swastika on say the Jewish studies building.

[ClassicRocker]

Here's one for huck Finn
www.latimes.com/.../...igation-20150617-story.html

and he didn't even quote a part that had any offending words. The mere fact that he quoted the book got the PC crowd all butthurt.

[ClassicRocker]

Suppression of free speech in academia is a legitimate problem. Here's one about a professor that used it descriptively like I did in the first paragraph almost exactly:
www.theblaze.com/.../

[BeeNee]

Oh God, no. I worked in an elementary school for 4 years, and let me tell you... those parents are THE worst parents in life. This doesn't surprise me at all. Let me give you the short list of what all was banned at my school---no birthday parties or treats, no mentioning of religious holidays/events, certain colors were not allowed to be worn (more for safety reasons due to the area), no one could wear shorts or skirts. I spent half my time with parents having conversations about total BS instead of teaching their actual kids. Thankfully I had a principal who was like a bull. I'm still looking to see if this has ever happened on a college campus. Anything below that is subject to a whole bunch of crap because parents are involved.

[ClassicRocker]

Look at my other example... A college professor was giving a lecture and used the word "nigger" descriptively and was subsequently fired... Not calling a student that, not making a joke, not using it as part of an insult or stereotype. Just saying it as part of a discussion about race and inequality. LIKE ANY GOOD PROF...

[BeeNee]

did you send a link?

[BeeNee]

Nevermind, I found the article about Andrea Quenette. A couple of things. Quenette was not fired, she was put on leave because she requested to be put on leave. Second, since this just happened in November of 2015, the outcome of all this has not been decided. Third, the open letter medium.com/.../what-follows-is-a-letter-collectively-written-by-the-students-currently-enrolled-in-coms-930-at-the-8f4914d4bbd5 written by students seems to be more about her overall lack of knowledge, by her own admission, about racism and the denial of certain racial issues, not just her using the N-word in her classroom though not directed at anyone. This brings up the point I have made in my take, that just because you exercise FOS, it doesn't mean you are free from opposition. You can no more argue her right to FOS, then you can argue the students. You can't say one person is more free to use freedom of speech than the others which is in effect what this case will be about.

[BeeNee]

The students are in fact arguing their rights for freedom of speech which they feel they have been denied by the teacher, which they go into great detail about. They argue that a professor should be able to not only express her own POV, but also on the same token hear and allow for discussion of contradictory or opposing POV to her own. They claim she did not do this and often got defensive when students of color gave their own personal accounts of racism, which the teacher admitted she never had to deal with, yet, they say, she denied their experiences or examples of racial inequality. We'll have to see how it all shakes out.

[ClassicRocker]

That doesn't change my stance. That seems like exactly the kind of academic debate that should be protected...

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

you have way too much time on your hands.

[BeeNee]

... says a person on GaG... ok then.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

well played :P... you still wrote all that. and no, i didn't read

[BeeNee]

yet you're still here... so yeah...

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

cause i'm bored? i was referring to the fact that you wrote all that. don't overthink it, babe ;)

[BeeNee]

Did I write all of this, I wasn't aware. I must be bored. Go figure.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

cool

[zagor]

And we have more freedom of speech and less political correctness than Canada...

[Viperkiss]

In what way?

[zagor]

@Viperkiss When a magazine in Edmonton reprinted the Danish cartoons that some Muslims felt insulted the prophet Mohammed, the editor was charged with a crime. Only after public outcry were the charges dropped. Ever seen those parody cartoons of Bart and Lisa Simpson doin' it? In Canada that is child pornography, under the same statute as the real thing.