Is Political Correctness a form of Censorship?

I’m not a fan of what is called “Political Correctness” (hereby referred to as PC). I find it to be stifling to the concept of free speech as it’s usage is almost required now in every aspect of life, far beyond the original intent. As long as a person is not inciting riots, I don’t see why simple good manners, courtesy, and tact aren’t good enough. I have noticed a trend with PC, that disturbs me. I find most use it as an excuse to lie and deceive.


From Wikipedia:

Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.

I find PC to be counter-productive to the concept of “tolerance”. I don’t have to like what you say, I don’t have to believe it, but I will fight for your right to speak your mind.

Promoting tolerance

Still another explanation is that freedom of speech is integral to tolerance, which some people feel should be a basic value in society. Professor Lee Bollinger is an advocate of this view and argues that “the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters.” The free speech principle is left with the concern of nothing less than helping to shape “the intellectual character of the society”.

This claim is to say that tolerance is a desirable, if not essential, value, and that protecting unpopular speech is itself an act of tolerance. Such tolerance serves as a model that encourages more tolerance throughout society. Critics argue that society need not be tolerant of the intolerance of others, such as those who advocate great harm, such as genocide. Preventing such harms is claimed to be much more important than being tolerant of those who argue for them.

There’s a movie called “The American President” starring Michael Douglas as the President, and Annette Benning as the lobbyist he falls in love with. It’s a wonderful story….OK so I can be a romantic on occasion as well LOL….however, near the end of the movie, “the President” gives a great speech at a press conference when defending his silence against mud slinging at him, and also Annette Benning’s character against a flag burning incident in her college years by someone (played by Richard Dryfess) running for president. I don’t remember the quote verbatum, but it had to do with Freedom, and how the symbol of our country and its freedom could not ONLY be our flag, but the right of a citizen to burn that flag in protest. Actually, I loved the whole speech and everytime I hear it wonder why there isn’t a single person in Washington capable of speaking so well. Maybe they should find hollywood scriptwriters…hehehehehe

Flag burning

The divisive issue of flag burning as a form of protest came before the Supreme Court in 1989, as it decided Texas v. Johnson. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Gregory Johnson for burning the flag by a vote of five to four. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. asserted that “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” Many Congressmen criticized the decision of the Court and the House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the Court.[1] Congress passed a federal law barring flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down as well in United States v. Eichman (1990). Many attempts have been made to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag. Since 1995, the Flag Burning Amendment has consistently mustered sufficient votes to pass in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. In 2000, the Senate voted 63–37 in favor of the amendment, which fell four votes short of the requisite two-thirds majority. In 2006, another attempt fell one vote short.

Something else new that I’ve noticed the past few years, is these so-called “free speech zones” that are set up, usually nowhere within sight or earshot of whatever is being protested. Can someone kindly explain to me what is so free about having to state your opposing opinion in a designated area where no one of any importance, if anyone at all, will hear it? Doesn’t this also infringe upon that other First Amendment right of “free assembly”?

Political speech

Free speech zones are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech as an exercise of what is commonly called “TPM” or “time, place manner” regulation of speech. Free speech zones are set up by the Secret Service who scout locations near which the president is to pass or speak.

Officials may target those displaying signs and escort them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters may be barred from displaying protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.[citation needed]

Protesters who refuse to go to free speech zones could be arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. In 2003, a seldom-used federal law was brought up that says that “entering a restricted area around the President of the United States” is a crime.

WE the people need to wake up!!


~ by swfreedomlover on December 30, 2007.

One Response to “Is Political Correctness a form of Censorship?”

  1. It absolutely is a form of censorship. Common sense should tell us how to act and when to keep our mouth’s shut. I don’t need some politition to tell me what to say and when and then have to go through them before I say it. Since when do others have the right not to be offended? Shit happens…….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: