Liberals Should Be Ashamed

I was surfing the internet recently when I came across an article about ‘lefties’ attempting to restrict the free speech of a reality star, Michele Duggar. The campaign was focused at TLC to pressure them to cancel “19 Kids and Counting”. It seems that Michele Duggar was working phone trees prior to the November mid-term elections and was calling in opposition of LGBTQ rights in her home state of Arkansas. The deeply religious Duggars have been out spoken with their Fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

A year ago, Phil Roberts the family patriarch of the reality show “Duck Dynasty” also ran into a ‘buzz saw’ of opposition for public comments about LGBTQ. He was actually suspended by TLC for a short period of time until the public outcry forced them to reinstate him. It doesn’t appear to have had any permanent effect on the popularity of the reality show.

What’s wrong with this picture? As a liberal who promotes Constitutional First Amendment Free Speech rights, I am appalled by others in the liberal movement who want to restrict certain speech they find offensive. As a liberal, I support removing restrictions that are not directly harmful to people. I think I am consistent with my views, if I see liberalizing drug laws and supporting free speech rights. I too find a number of public figures speech offensive, but like Voltaire I will defend their right to my death to support free speech. Not all public figures are the same.

Private public figures can say anything they want as long as it’s not slanderous even if it is offensive to a majority of the population. What kind of harm will their speech do to society? Usually they have no more power over people than non celebrities. There celebrity may make more people listen to what they have to say, but it doesn’t force anyone to do something they don’t care to do. I don’t know how you would even measure their influence on really important things.

Unlike private public figures, people who have been elected, appointed or are employed by government entities have a different level of responsibility from that of the private citizen. Where the private citizen hasn’t any real power, the public figure does have power to impose action, draft and implement policy, and the possibility and power to create real harm. It is appropriate to hold this group responsible through demonstrations, mass writing campaigns and if their speech leads to harm, hold them legally responsible. The preferable action to oppose offensive speech political figures is through the electoral process.

Even though I have purposely separated the private and public citizen, both their rights to free speech is sacrosanct. The only limits should be speech similar to that which the SCOTUS has constitutionally limited.

Liberals should hold themselves to a higher standard and to not promote the hypocrisy of; “do as I say, not as I do”. They are constantly screaming about being attacked from the political right with lies, misrepresentations and innuendo. All I have to say is, that it is politics and it is your responsibility to disprove their speech not limit it. When all is said and done, what’s more important; the right to free speech or the right not to be offended?