Is anti-gay adoption article in paper free speech or hate speech?

By David McElroy · January 28, 2012

If someone I agree with says something controversial, it’s just free speech and should be protected. But if someone I disagree with says something controversial, it’s hate speech and should be banned. Right?

Newspapers frequently air opposing views of issues on their editorial pages. It’s been a staple of school newspapers for years. Pick a controversial topic and two students write opposing views about the subject. It doesn’t seem controversial, but an attempt to air opposing sides about adoption by gay couples has turned into a serious conflict over free speech.

A high school newspaper in Shawano, Wis., is facing criticism after someone had the temerity to argue that adoption by gays was wrong. The article taking the other side — saying that adoption by gay couples was acceptable — didn’t draw criticism. So it’s not the discussion of the subject that’s the problem. It’s that some people don’t believe those with other opinions have the right to express them in print. That’s not free speech, apparently. It’s “hate speech.”

I’m not interested in trying to get into the subject of adoption by gay couples. It’s completely irrelevant to the point here. The only issue we’re going to look at is free speech and “hate speech.”

Here’s what the offending article said:

“If one is a practicing Christian, Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is (a) detestable act and sin which makes adopting wrong for homosexuals because you would be raising the child in a sin-filled environment.

“A child adopted into homosexuality will get confused because everyone else will have two different-gendered parents that can give them the correct amount of motherly nurturing and fatherly structure. In a Christian society, allowing homosexual couples to adopt is an abomination.”

A gay parent who has kids in local schools complained about the article. He said that article is “hateful” and shouldn’t have run. “This is why kids commit suicide,” he said.

For its part, the school system has apologized for the article and said it will review the editing process for the paper.

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the school superintendent said in a written statement.

So if you express the opinion that something is acceptable, it’s just free speech. But if you express the opinion that something is wrong, it’s an “offensive article” that creates a “negative environment of disrespect.”

So who gets to decide what’s offensive? And who decides what creates a “negative environment”?

An Alabama school is facing just the opposite problem right now. At a small high school near Tuscaloosa, a sophomore wore a hooded sweatshirt with the slogan, “Warning, This Individual Infected With ‘The Gay,’ Proceed With Caution,” so she was required to remove it. A progressive left organization is pressing the school on the issue, demanding that the policy be changed.

In both cases, the opinions expressed have the potential to be disruptive and create a negative environment. Some people are going to disagree with each message. Many social conservatives are going to be offended by the Alabama girl’s sweatshirt. Many social liberals are going to be offended by the Wisconsin Christian’s article. So why is it OK to offend one group, but not the other?

Honestly, I don’t care which side of the issue schools come down on. I don’t care if all offensive opinions are allowed or all offensive opinions are banned at school in order to avoid interfering with the school’s mission to teach. Personally, I’d err on the side of allowing more speech, but I’m mostly concerned with being even-handed.

There was a time when social liberals were concerned about making sure that students had the right to speak their minds. They spoke up for student rights and student press rights when the issue was expressing opinions about the Vietnam war or a number of other issues — as long as the dissenting opinions were socially liberal. But now that those socially liberal opinions have become mainstream, many liberals want to close the door to free speech. They’re no better than the social conservatives a couple of generations ago who wanted to ban different ideas.

Running a school can be a complicated thing. Sometimes it’s not easy to maintain an environment that’s conducive to keeping the focus on learning. I don’t pretend to have all the answers about how it ought to be done. (I will say, however, that a lot of these problems would go away if all schools were private and people could choose different rules by choosing the provider that had rules they liked.) But if we’re going to have government-run schools for now, the same rules need to apply to everyone.

If a writer for the school paper gets to express his view that a certain social position is right, it’s reasonable to let someone express the opinion that the position is wrong. And if someone is so fragile that he can’t deal with the fact that someone thinks he’s wrong, he needs to grow up and accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with any of us — even on issues that we feel passionate about.

The same rules need to apply to everyone, regardless of the content of the views being expressed.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts