Does political correctness limit free speech?

Question

It seems to me it does limit free speech what do you think?

Answer 1

________________________________________

There should not be penalties for speech that is not politically correct. What today is accepted by many to be appropriate speech tomorrow may be ridiculed, reprimanded and offensive. The day laws dictate what can and can not be said is the day we no longer are challenged by anything that may be remotely offensive, leaving our gross assumptions and ridiculous bias to remain unchallenged and comfortable.

In the same breath one attempts to enforce what is acceptable to say, one also enforces what is acceptable to believe. Beliefs are our most vital freedom and to disconnect the articulation of ideas from the ideas themselves by restraining speech, just leaves the ideas we believe need changed muted and unchanged.

The heart of the matter is, speech is our best way of changing ideas and growing in our own beliefs, to restrain them is to hang ourselves intellectually.
Colleges are justified in disciplining students for speech when the assumptions it itself uses to restrain the speech become towering objective truths instead of heavy laden assumptions equal to, and as damaging as, the speech it intends on silencing. Political correctness is O.K. as a courtesy and a negligent mistake impeding progress when it is enforced.
As to the question of boundaries prohibiting abusive speech, I believe these boundaries already exist in the common man and do not need static laws to enforce them. It is my belief that by placing something static and immovable where movement and change are essential would be unfortunate.

Also, to rely on laws to make people say what we want would be an underestimation of the importance to rely, not on laws to create the environment in the world we desire, but on individual convictions themselves. If we want something a certain way we need to appeal to peoples convictions not make them convicts. Laws have the innate tendency to usurp the throne of individual leading and revelation, a leading and revelation that I want to help, not hinder. The last thing we need are a people relying on outward government and laws instead of inward essential truth. Intellectual and spiritual laws belong to conviction not to government.

Answer 2

Here's how to check whether your free speech has been limited: Can the government put you in jail for saying what you said? No? Then no, political correctness does not limit your free speech.

Answer 3

Of course political correctness limits free speech. Too many people are afraid of saying it like it is because they are horrified their opinion might offend someone. This is completely pointless and counterproductive. As things sit right now, there are so many people who love to pull the race card, religion card, sexual orientation card, etc. that if I'm not careful I could offend them all.

Screw that, I really don't care. If me calling it as it see it makes me appear to be a racist, homophobe, religious zelot, etc. then so be it. It is my opinion and I am entitled to it. If I were to say their is a corelation between neighborhoods w/ high crime rates and the race of the population that lives their does that make me a racist even if it is backed up by statistical evidence.

Oh wow, I probably just offended someone. What if I were to say that their is a higher occurence of HIV amongts the gay community because of random and unprotected sex. Now I'm a homophobe also......Wait, I just forgot I really don't care and those who are so ignorant to not be able to see the inherent truth in statments they find offensive are probably not the kind of people whos opinions would matter to me in the first place.

In short, I believe that political correctness is on of the greatest tragedys to have ever occured in this country. Besides, anyone with a decent vocabulary can be condescending and demeaning to anyone they want and be as politicaly correct as they need to be. Political correctness just requires a sugar coating.

Answer 4

I believe PC is the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it. It sounds a little extreme right now, but to get to the top of the ladder you need to get to step one first. When you can limit someone's right to say something, regardless of how hateful or "morally wrong" it might seem, then you are establishing that you have the right to stop people from saying something. In 20 years something else will be censored and in 40 years something else, etc... Also - to the person who stated being PC is not the law but a choice - you could NOT be more wrong!

Here's the real question: If the majority of people don't like being PC - which is true - then why do we put up with it????

Answer 5

Yes. When people riot over Rodney King (who attacked police officers and perhaps were overly brutal but not without cause) beat a white truck driver, Reginald Denny until his face is fractured into 91 pieces, and has a permanent dent in his head from the incident- and the 4 people accused get off almost scot-free- that is racism. Furthermore, when "The outcome of the trial was said to be "payback" for the acquittal of the four police officers charged with beating Rodney King. Yet, according to Salon " When O.J. Simpson was found not guilty, some black Americans said it was "payback for Rodney King." This is racism.
When people know about the Birmingham, Alabama church bombing, the Byrd dragging case, and the Duke Lacrosse rape (which seems to be more and more unlikely each day) yet the Zebra Killings in San Francisco are mostly unknown, and when the absolutely brutal double rape, torture, and murder of Channon Christian and boyfriend Christopher Newsom (not posting the link to the really graphic descriptions- google workingclassconservative and their names if you wish to know) are not well reported in the media- this is racism. Yet we do not report on it, as it is politically incorrect. All the Duke students were accused of doing was raping a woman. The accused in the Channon case are accused of kidnapping, abduction, rape, torture, maiming, attempts to destroy evidence- over a three day period. All the talk of the media being more biased against black men in their news reports are untrue. If so, then why did this case not make national headlines, like the duke case?

Answer 6

I certainly agree with that. It definitely puts a damper there, because we have to tiptoe around trying not to offend people. I don't deliberately try to hurt or offend anyone, but I am entitled to my opinions. To me, there is a difference between hate speech, which you have to be careful with, like say what might come out of the mouths off KKK members, and me saying that I believe homosexuality is wrong. I stated my opinion, could use the Bible to back it up, but I haven't said I hate homosexuals and they should be killed, like what would likely come from the aforementioned KKK rally. I have gay and lesbian friends, but I disagree that that is a desirable lifestyle, and I should be allowed to say so. Some would find it offensive, but it's not spouting hate against anyone. I think that offending someone is one thing, but when you push it to the level of talking death and destruction, that's where the limits should be, and even then, if you are talking wiping out radical Islamists, because you can't reason with them, that's just the way it is. I feel that unless you incite violence, except perhaps in a war or defense situation, the rest needs to be acceptable, whether some like it or not.

Answer 7

Do good manners limit free speech? Yes, but self-imposed limits are fine. It's governmental censorship that the first amendment protects against, and then only so far as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. For example, if you start a rumor that snicker's bars give you testicular cancer, you can be sued for the loss of business. You're free to say anything, but you're also responsible for anything that happens because of it.

Answer 8

Political Correctness does limit free speech. If one is censored from speaking openly and confidently pertaining to views outside of the norms or morays that society rejects, with regards to fear of retribution or loss of their livelyhood then this can only lead to repression. Eventually, these repressions simmer into cynacism, malice and revolution. History is replete with examples of this. Social reprobation of unpopular views without fear of losing one's job or being ostracized, with redemption, is what philosopher John Stuart Mills advocated. The philosopher Voltaire made his point by stating--"Even though I wholly disagree with you, I will defend to my death your right to speak." Our first amendment rights and a free press is what gives expression to a people not oppressed. Intent and action are to be discerned. What you say and what you do are entirely two different things. As long as one does not yell fire in a crowded theater, thus causing potential injury, then you are within the mandates of speaking your mind, no matter how unpopular that may be. I would like to point out that the very concept of political correctness comes from the head of CHEKA's secret police in the former Soviet Union (the successors are the NKVD and KGB) by the name Derzinski (sic). Thankyou.

Answer 9

Political correctness what a term....seems to me it prevents correction of the politicians.....

check out the political BS when free speech is challenged, in US vs John Lennon

Answer 10

So do manners and any other form of excercising judgment.

I happen to think PC is way out of hand, but I only consider it limiting on free speech when it chills discussion of real issues - which come to think of it, it can, particularly in areas like immigration.