A New Concept of Free Speech, by Arianna HuffingPuff.

Hate speech from right-wing talk radio and other sources (Republicans, Christian evangelicals, Big Hollywood bloggers, etc.) is an intolerable obstacle to progress in America. Such speech illustrates how badly we need to get over our foolish American notion that we can let everyone go around having their own opinions about things.

America should start following Canada's practice of having a Human Rights Commission that establishes the acceptable opinions on major public issues. In Canada, anyone having an improper opinion can be charged with a hate crime.

The Supreme Court should reinterpret the right of "free speech" to mean "speech that makes us more free," meaning free from racism, social injustice, and right-wing tyranny. Only speech that promotes these goals should be constitutionally protected.

Hopefully, Obama's forthcoming appointments to the Supreme Court will move us toward this goal and allow us to begin aggressively cleansing our nation of hate criminals (defined as anyone whose opinions inspire hatred toward them by decent, progressive people).

Thought experiment #1:
Suppose Miss Prejean had answered this way:
"On August 16, 2007 during his campaign, President Obama said: 'I am a Christian... and I believe that marriage should be the union between a man and a woman.' I agree with President Obama on this issue."
It would be interesting to see how different the reaction might have been.

Thought experiment #2:
Suppose Miss California was an immigrant Muslim and gave the same answer as Miss Prejean. The reaction would likely have been very different. Many on the left would have given her a pass on the grounds that we need to "respect cultural differences." Which raises the question: why do traditional Muslim beliefs deserve a pass but traditional Christian beliefs do not?

Thought experiment #1:
Suppose Miss Prejean had answered this way:
"On August 16, 2007 during his campaign, President Obama said: 'I am a Christian... and I believe that marriage should be the union between a man and a woman.' I agree with President Obama on this issue."
It would be interesting to see how different the reaction might have been.

Thought experiment #2:
Suppose Miss California was an immigrant Muslim and gave the same answer as Miss Prejean. The reaction would likely have been very different. Many on the left would have given her a pass on the grounds that we need to "respect cultural differences." Which raises the question: why do traditional Muslim beliefs deserve a pass but traditional Christian beliefs do not?

A New Concept of Free Speech, by Arianna HuffingPuff.
Hate speech from right-wing talk radio and other sources (Republicans, anti-abortionists, Christian evangelicals, Big Hollywood bloggers, etc.) is an intolerable obstacle to progress in America. Such speech illustrates how badly we need to get over our foolish American notion that we can let everyone go around having their own opinions about things. We should start following Canada's practice of having a Human Rights Commission that establishes the acceptable opinions on major public issues. In Canada, anyone having an improper opinion can be charged with a hate crime. The U.S. Supreme Court should reinterpret the constitutional right of "free speech" to mean "speech that makes us more free," meaning free from racism, social injustice, and right-wing tyranny. Only speech that promotes these goals should be constitutionally protected. Thankfully, Obama's forthcoming appointments to the Supreme Court will help move us toward this goal and allow us to begin aggressively cleansing our nation of hate criminals (defined as anyone whose opinions are so offensive as to inspire hatred toward them by decent, progressive people).