Destroying free speech
I watched with sorrow and outrage when the Taliban destroyed the Buddha of Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan in 2001. I thought that was a heinous and detestable act of religious intolerance, and should never be allowed by anyone on the planet.
I again watched in dismay as Isis destroyed historic statues in Hatra simply because their current interpretation of religion defined them as idols worthy of destruction.
So how could I watch with equanimity as a mob of anti-racists did the same thing with a stature commemorating a Confederate soldier in Durham, North Carolina? While I oppose the display of Confederate memorials and flags on public lands as much as anyone, I find it hypocritical to support the act of mob destruction in the name of religion in this case when I opposed it in previous cases.
There is a way to remove unpopular and unwanted testimonies to things you don't believe in. And that is through a process of law. If you don't like something, sure, you can demonstrate against its existence. But I don't think you have the right to destroy it simply because it offends you. After all, isn't there always someone who is offended by something in this world?
To me, the existence of the statue is related to the issue of free speech. We can control free speech, but we shouldn't destroy it. And by giving in to mob rule, to destructive behavior, we destroy free speech.
On the other hand, the statue represents an expression of values that are repugnant to a great many people. And the people have a right to object to that expression and to demand that it be taken out of the public forum.
I again watched in dismay as Isis destroyed historic statues in Hatra simply because their current interpretation of religion defined them as idols worthy of destruction.
So how could I watch with equanimity as a mob of anti-racists did the same thing with a stature commemorating a Confederate soldier in Durham, North Carolina? While I oppose the display of Confederate memorials and flags on public lands as much as anyone, I find it hypocritical to support the act of mob destruction in the name of religion in this case when I opposed it in previous cases.
There is a way to remove unpopular and unwanted testimonies to things you don't believe in. And that is through a process of law. If you don't like something, sure, you can demonstrate against its existence. But I don't think you have the right to destroy it simply because it offends you. After all, isn't there always someone who is offended by something in this world?
To me, the existence of the statue is related to the issue of free speech. We can control free speech, but we shouldn't destroy it. And by giving in to mob rule, to destructive behavior, we destroy free speech.
On the other hand, the statue represents an expression of values that are repugnant to a great many people. And the people have a right to object to that expression and to demand that it be taken out of the public forum.
Comments
Post a Comment