[Mpls] RE: Racially Insensitive Langauge & Disability

[Michael Atherton]

WizardMarks wrote:

> WM: Well, now, that's the point isn't it? I daresay  those 
> Mpls. police officers would not choose to associate with 
> Channing, but, since he reports for the daily newspaper of 
> this city, they have no choice but to contend with his writing 
> when it is directed at them. They cannot vote him out.

...

> WM: What's done in academia is not at issue. We're discussing 
> what terms are used in the daily newspaper. If using the term 
> 'people of color' restricts your freedom of expression or enforces 
> conformity to particular sets of social norms, that seems like a 
> personal problem to me.

I'm glad that we're getting down to basic issue here.  Please
allow me to summarize.  The question is whether individuals
or newspaper reporters should be penalized for using offensive
language.

The answer is clear and unequivocal: American citizens and
residents have a First Amendment right to be offensive. If
this right offends you, sorry, but the alternative is to create
censorship boards and congressional committees to insure that
"correct" and "acceptable" behavior is adhered to.  I've always
been disturbed that people don't understand why the First Amendment
is, for the most part, unconditional.  I think that this issue comes
back to my observation that much of liberal politics in Minneapolis
seems to be about forcing your values on others, without any 
understanding or respect for the rights of others.  And here we're
not discussing an "implied" right to smoke (or whatever). Freedom
of the press and freedom of expression are fundamental and explicit
protections.  You are free to believe and express your opposition to 
the First Amendment, however it's ironic given that it is the foundation 
of the "Civil Rights" movement.

I'm not sure why, but we don't seem to hear the phrase, "I may not
agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say
it," anymore.

Michael Atherton
Prospect Park