Amendment 1
by Sandra HawkinsAn educated family man dedicated to saving lives and easing the suffering of others was shot down and killed in the early morning light outside of his office simply because of his beliefs and the job he performs (ABC News). There was rioting and death in a distant country resulting from the remarks of a religious speaker (ABC News). A businessman on a plane trip was taken from his seat without explanation and interrogated for hours based solely on his nationality (CNN). Caught on videotape, an uneducated man was beaten senseless due to the color of his skin by those sworn to protect him (ABC News). A mother weeps; her loving, sensitive teenage son was killed by a mob because of his sexual preference (Newsweek 6). Each victim was a minority by numbers or views and was subjected to violent behavior for the crime of being themselves. Individualism is a right guaranteed to all people through the writings implemented by our founding fathers, which our government secures through the Constitutional Amendments. If we fail, however, to remember that freedom of speech belongs to all the people regardless of beliefs, we sacrifice all people’s rights.
Has our government, through political correctness or incorrectness as established in today’s society, failed to defend the population the laws were set up to protect? Our Constitution was constructed on the foundation of a republican government, which set forth laws to protect us from the tyranny of a majority rule. Through the attachment of The Bill of Rights (NARA), we are guaranteed constitutional rights of “freedom of speech,” the pursuit of happiness, and liberty and justice for all. Because of these rights, all minorities have the identical rights and guaranteed protection from discrimination as the majority. Can our laws guarantee us protection from extremists? No, they cannot. However, they can and do guarantee us protection of our rights, and the extremists guilty of committing the acts of violence and terror in the prior paragraph were brought before the courts of our land and punished for their crimes against humanity.
Our system, government, media, and leaders, through the interjection of an intolerance and non-acceptance policy towards individuals or groups with the desire to trample on the rights of our nation’s minorities, have set forth the maximum protection for minority groups. The people of our nation have followed their leaders in acceptance or at least toleration of minority groups’ beliefs and rights whether based on sexual preferences, skin color, religion, or a woman’s right to abortion, etc.. As a great nation and leader of the free world, it is our government’s and the people’s responsibility to protect all law-abiding citizens from discrimination regardless of their differing views. We as a nation have accomplished the protection of minorities’ rights even though we are not always able to protect each individual. Our government’s focus on the protection of even the smallest minorities’ rights have led to greater freedom and acceptance of differences while leading the way for individuals to voice their views and beliefs without the fear of unjust repercussions.
To deny any individual or group the right to voice their views in a peaceful, non-violent, and non-threatening manner jeopardizes all people’s rights. Our government needs to protect freedom of speech whether one’s opinion is politically correct or incorrect by today’s standards. This protection necessitates non-discrimination, fair and unbiased response from our media, and the equal opportunity to respond to the rhetoric of those who would choose to distort the facts. To stereotype any minority group as agitators or perverse individuals because of their beliefs or values does a disservice to all. Should this statement not hold true also for the majority groups with differing beliefs?
Have we trodden on the rights of the majority in our efforts to protect the minorities? A man was ripped from the seat of his truck by a mob, beaten and urinated on for the whole world to see; his crime was being a white man (Newsweek 8). A young secretary was opening the morning mail and found a letter covered in semen and blood stating, “Welcome to the World of AIDS” simply because she worked for a preacher who teaches “hate the sin, love the sinner” (Interview). A fire causing 12 million dollars of damage in Colorado was the result of animals not being treating as ethical as a minority group believed necessary (Newsweek 23). A high-ranking political man who worked his way to the top of the government serving “we the people” had his reputation assaulted in the media by an influential black actor due to the fact he was of African heritage and working for a white republican President (Newsweek 7). A sixteen-year-old girl died from the complications of a legal abortion her parents knew nothing of; however, her ears were not pierced because parents’ permission is required for ear piercing of minors. A minister receives a threat both in written and verbal form to stop speaking his views on homosexuality or his church will be bombed (WSET News). A sixteen-year-old girl sits in her public school classroom and has to listen as her homosexual teacher tells the class that Christianity is a joke, Christians are annoying, and the Bible is fiction (Interview). Do we know the ramifications dealt to the individuals committing these acts of violence, belligerence, and terrorization? No, we do not; the final outcome is not covered in the media because of political incorrectness. The individuals or groups committing these extreme acts are attempting to violate the freedom of speech of those with conflicting views. The same minority groups whose rights our government fought so hard to protect and give voice to are not exclusive to extremists, and those extremists committed these crimes. Should we hold accountable and silence the voices of these minority groups because of the few extremists at hand? No, we should not, just as no majority group desires to be held responsible or stereotyped with extremists.
Stereotyping has become abundant in the direction of the mainstream majority under the pretext of “politically incorrect” To take a stance on any subject with differing views of the “oppressed minorities”, you are considered politically incorrect and open yourself to criticism, slander, violence and the distortion of representation in the media. In other words, the same unjust and negative repercussion minorities dealt with in the past due to their differing beliefs from the majority of people have now reversed onto the majority. The term “politically incorrect” has stereotyped people in the same manner that the terms “faggot, baby killers, and the “N” word used to do and on occasion still do. Has our nation worked so hard to protect the rights of the minority to the detriment of the majority? Where is the justice?
Should our government not lift this veil of stereotyping as it did with the minority groups? Do not all individuals or groups, even conventional majorities; deserve the same freedom of speech? Should the “politically correct” individuals or groups fight for the same rights afforded themselves even though differing of opinions? How can we justify the stereotyping that promotes prejudice and discrimination directed now towards the politically incorrect people? We have no greater right to quiet their voices than the voices of the minorities. If an individual’s or group’s opinions/views entice violence, should the individual or group be stereotyped and silenced? We are to hold those who choose the path of violence accountable for their own actions whether considered “politically correct or incorrect.” We are not to silence the voice of opposition by popularity or majority vote. Our nation founded and prospered on the rhetorical abilities of great men and women, and yes, they sometimes enticed violence among individuals who chose that path. The protesters of the Vietnam War, women’s right to vote, abolishment of slavery, acceptance of homosexuality, and our independence from Britain could all be described as “politically incorrect” views. These views all started as minority views, and stereotyping was abundant, but their voices were heard, and all Americans today reap the benefits of the voices of the past.
The beliefs, values, and protests that have benefited our country and people have three things in common: logic, ethical appeal, and sufferance. In today’s society, the basis of quieting the politically incorrect voices centers solely on pathos. If not careful, we will create a nation of politically incorrect minorities, which will give rise to the reversal of prejudice and discrimination we have worked so hard to overcome. Permitting to some what is forbidden to others seems to relax discrimination and thus deny that it is ultimate evil. Our nation is a great defender of the oppressed minorities. Is it not better to remove the stereotyping associated with being “politically incorrect” and give all Americans freedom of speech without fear of unjust discriminations and repercussions?
Works CitedAbortion Doctor. 11 July 2000.
ABCNews.com. 10 Nov.2000 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/[-]world/DailyNews/[-]abortiondoctor000711.html.
“Brutality”. Newsweek. 23 Apr. 1999 : 6. CNN. 2 Oct. 2002.Hawkins, Danielle. Personal Interview. 12 Oct. 2002.
Hawkins, Rosie. Personal Interview. July 2000.
“Night Team”. WSET News. 24 Aug. 2002.“Perspectives”.Newsweek. 10 Oct. 2002. 7.“Rioting in LA”.
Newsweek. 1992 July 17. 8-10.“Rodney King”.
ABC News. 4 March 1991.
The Bill of Rights. 10 Oct. 2002. NARA Home Page. 5 Nov. 2002
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hll/[-]charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html.
“Violence”. Newsweek. 11 Sept. 2002: 23.“20/20”. ABC News. 9 Oct. 2002.
