Thought Police

De Dolores, que volvió con todo. ¿Estamos dispuestos a permitir que la corrección política limite severamente la libertad de expresión?:

While some of us have some vague understanding that we somehow enjoy greater freedoms in the U.S. than in any other western nation, many an American might be surprised to learn that even our liberal neighbor to the north, Canada, limits free speech far beyond that which an American could comfortably tolerate. Bill-C250 (37th Canadian Parliament, 2nd session) makes criminal any speech which under fairly broad definition could be deemed “hate speech”. This includes speech made through electronic means such as telephone and radio.

The bill has become rather infamous amongst scholars of free speech. From the beginning, the well-intentioned legislation sent a chill through the conservative community, who argued that it would subject clergy who preached on the immorality of homosexuality to prosecution. The bill was subsequently amended to include a “not withstanding” clause which stated a religious exception. But the broad language of the amendment wasn’t adequate, and controversy grew. Over time, the bill has ended up protecting those who might be offended, rather than protecting freedom of unpopular expression - the hallmark of a free and vibrant society.

One controversy came in 2003 when a Saskatchewan man and a newspaper were both sued successfully, after the publication of a pro-Christian advertisement stating that homosexuality was condemned by the Bible. Three gay activists collected damages from both parties. Shortly after passage of the bill in the same year, a minister was sued for speaking out against radical Islam from the pulpit. He lost the appeal. Upon hearing the decision, one University of Western Ontario professor of constitutional law, Robert Martin, lamented, “Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated.

There is no question that freedom of speech in any country needs to have limits. In the U.S., limitations are specifically defined and revolve around the immediate public safety (see the “fighting words doctrine”). The law errs toward protecting speech - no matter how offensive, hateful, or ignorant - rather than protecting government ideology. In fact, as our laws read, speech cannot be limited simply because the government disagrees with the content. In this way, we protect the free exchange of ideas, and maintain the freedom-friendly ideology upon which we have built our free society. When we allow the government - or the more vocal activists - to intimidate into silence those who speak less popular ideas, we begin to turn our backs upon that which is American, that which is truly free. And we begin to allow the policing of thought as well as speech.