Caution: What you read may be slightly shocking
Fear of being offensive limits the realm of free speech

Nobody hates me. Okay, as far as I know there is nobody who hates me. Well, maybe a few people, but they certainly haven’t voiced their opinions about me recently. Am I doing something wrong?

It seems that in America it is no longer sufficient to be intelligent or funny or creative in order to garner notice.

The only attribute that finds massive attention seems to be shock.

Whether it’s licentious lyrics snaking between heavy metal riffs or pseudo-politik from the wasteland that is Sean Hannity’s mind; if it’s video of a guy shooting himself in the leg with a gun while teaching gun safety lectures or it’s a certain student senator and writer for the Arbiter, everyone is intrigued and beguiled by shock.

And a natural by-product of shock is offense, usually taken in heavy doses by people who have nothing better to do than be offended.

I may be mincing words in an effort to stay clear of the conversation that has enveloped a chunk of Boise State University, but the last thing I need is for the cloud of offended sensibilities to hover over my head. Maybe I’m just a dumb white guy. I’m leaning closer to the latter.

I may have grown up in a society which values shock but I am not really shocked by much.

Some random writer publishes an article complaining about a campus group and I barely register notice.

But say that politicians have suddenly become champions of a progressive system of government, in which everyone has a voice and the welfare of the state is praised above homeland security, then my heart may just skip a beat.

Is it my upbringing in predominantly white neighborhoods that has clouded my sense of outrage or could it be the years of idolatrous worship at the foot of my television that has dulled my eyes to the plight of the oppressed?

Somehow I don’t always understand how everyone became offended so easily.

Mr. Sawmiller offended a lot of students by labeling a certain club as racist, yet while I may be inclined to agree that what he said wasn’t exactly what I would have written, I think it’s possible that the cloud of anger spread too quickly.

I guess my sentiment is that certain outcomes of an offended person’s rage may be a bit hasty. What I am speaking of is the demand for an apology.

Apologies are the worst form of self-effacement that I have ever witnessed.

Sure, there are the simple apologies for acts such as stepping on someone’s toe or watching Fox News, but what I hate is the apology that is forced.

What is the valus of letting another human being quickly backtrack from a statement if it doesn’t do anymore than coddle the ego of someone who doesn’t agree with what was said?

A forced apology stifles involvement of both parties in negotiating a settlement of ideas.

If Mr. Sawmiller apologizes for his remarks why should he bother to speak at all? He believes in what he said and a forced apology would remind us that anyone who is offended can shut down free speech with a simple declaration of offense.

The idea behind free speech is that of equality for all who would desire to air their ideas to others. If you don’t like the idea then you tell the person and you both can argue for eternity.

However, without open debate – offended people everywhere could force speakers to conform to societal norms through fear and scare tactics. A forced apology for an offended group ignores the essence of free speech.

Jacob GOOD
Opinion Writer

Related Posts:

1. Free speech belongs to the people. Will you speak?
2. Free speech has its limits
3. Free speech is for everyone, even pro-lifers
4. Free speech still free at the Arbiter
5. Sen. Sawmiller is a champion of free speech