Thursday, 22 January 2009
-
Allowing Others Freedom of Speech (Even Neo-Nazis)
by mr pine
Would you ever name your child Adolf Hitler? How about accepting advertising from a website that promotes extramarital affairs? Probably not, but would you deny the right for someone else to do so? Ah, there's the rub.If you haven't heard the stories, I'll summarize.
In New Jersey, the Division of Youth and Family Services took custody of three children named Adolf Hitler, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation, and Honszlynn Hinler (Himmler?) from their home. The family made headlines a month ago when a local supermarket refused to put young Adolf's name on a birthday cake. The DYFS claims that they did not remove the children because of their names. But there has since been a tidal wave of uproar over the parents' choice of names.
The other story is about how the NFL refused to run an ad in their stadium program for a website (purposely left out site address) that is a resource for married people who want to have affairs to meet up. Their tagline is "life is short, have an affair." The site has since gotten plenty of free airtime on various talk shows and news organizations.
In this country one of the most sacred of rights is the right to free speech... no matter whom it offends. I'm sure there are things that offend a whole lot of people like the things above, but they are protected by the Bill of Rights.
There are many times when Christians are offended by how some people choose to exercise this right. For example, I remember quite a few years back there was someone who made a piece of "art" that he entitled "Piss Christ" that was a photograph depicting a crucifix in a cup of his urine.
Yes, it angered me that someone took an image of the God I love in the very act that gave me salvation and defiled it in the name of art. But what angered me more was how he likely knew how inflammatory it would be and used it to advance his name. And we helped him do it.
It's not that I think that Christians don't have a right to be offended. We should be deeply repulsed by the state of the world and should act to right real wrongs. But there are times when by being offended and expressing how offended we are just because we are, we become pawns for the offenders.
I'm sure the parents who named their child "Hitler" did it to make a point. Now that it's national news, they did. The website that was refused by the NFL is now getting priceless free advertising in the media (and I suppose this entry to an extent).
My point is, not only are there much greater things wrong in this world than what some wahoo names their kid, what depraved websites are out there, or what someone considers art to evoke action from Christians, but also that we have to be careful not to actually help their cause by elevating it unnecessarily because our sensibilities were violated. In the same way that they have freedom to express themselves, we have the freedom to ignore them and in that way silence them.
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
















Comments (49)
Yep...
Well the Hitler thing, idk, because that is the Government. Seems wrong, but we don't know that the kids were taken just because of the names. But the NFL is a private organization, so they have a 1st Amendment right to not run the ad, that's their free speech, in that case it isn't a free speech issue at all. It's business that happens every day I am sure.
from what i understand about the hitler kid, both parents were unemployed, on welfare and other public assistance and their house was damn near uninhabitable. the website, i know exactly which one you are talking about. If i run a privately owned website and that trash wants to run their ad on it, i have every right to say NO.
One principal that this country was founded upon was freedom of speech. Websites and parents have this freedom just as much as the media. It's a shame that the media doesn't elevate good news to such a degree. I don't like some things in this world, but I would not want my right to speak out for my beliefs taken away.
I'm a strong advocate of free speech, not matter the content or how much a I disagree with it (I may allow for some exceptions like libel and slander, however, but I would keep any exceptions minimal and specific). Basically, if you think your ideas are right, you have nothing to worry about in a free society. While the opposition also has the right to voice their opinions, you also have the right to debunk or refute them, or just to ignore them.
I always find it funny how, on the blogs that talk about purity and abstinence, the ads for extra marital affairs appear. I've seen them on Revelife countless times. You have to wonder about the kind of people who subscribe to those sites, though. If they are the kind of people who obviously don't cherish commitment...why would they get married in the first place???
And for the kid named Hitler...well, yay for the parents for having strong beliefs, but I personally don't think it's fair to force their kid to take one for their cause. Little Adolf could grow up and disagree with the views of his parents, but his name will brand him forever. That's unfortunate. I hope they don't choose to send him to public school, he probably wouldn't make it out alive!
im proud of the nfl.
i saw the link to that site on a youtube video.. i was so offended
"Do whatever you want" is such a terrible foundation for a society.
In the case of the kids, it seems cruel to name them that because of the reaction they're going to get from other people. It's like setting the kid up to fail. Not to mention self-fulfilling prophesies.
With the website, it wasn't that the NFL said they couldn't have their site, just that they wouldn't advertise it. Which I think involves the NFLs freedom of speech: their freedom not to speak about things.
The crucifix in a cup of urine - I remember hearing about that after the fact. I wasn't even offended, I was just like "how childish," because it seemed like they just wanted attention. Like the kid who throws a fit at the store.
I'm really not usually offended by things nonChristians do *shrugs.* It's the Christians who offend me, because they're representing Christ.
Ya' know, they say that silence is golden...
Here's where I blogged about Lil Hitler. I won't comment on that here.
As for the web ad: hell, I never pay attention to them anyways. Who does? I don't care. I don't support it, and neither should the superbowl. Free speech, insofar as advertisement can be titled "speech," is limited by the market. Paying to speak means that you can refuse the money. It's not really "free speech" because it was never free. The website has a right to exist, but the rest of us have a right to refuse that they ever spend their advertising budget anywhere except racist websites and porn blogs.
As for "Piss Christ":
"it angered me that someone took an image of the God I love in the very
act that gave me salvation and defiled it in the name of art."
I have to ask you first, what was the first commandment? Who were the first to die on behalf of that commandment and why? You should know that. If you like the Cross, fine whatever, but let the emotional attachment go. I'm pretty sure emotional attachment to such images is the reason why it said "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God." It's like an emotional affair.
I sincerely believe that God wouldn't appreciate the symbology. How many people would want to be buried wearing the bullet they were shot with? If Jesus didn't take the cross with him on his resurrection, he probably wouldn't want you to wear it.
But don't mind me, I'm really not all that religious. It's just a thought. Consider it.
not really a issue for the NFL is it they own the progarm and can do what they want. Think they have a duty of care towards that progarm that it doesnt offend the masses and i beleive a lot of famillies go to games. As for the kids well the names are that names, considering the links they have then yes bloody stupid names but hey remember some from the 60's. the kids will proberly change them soon as they are old enough to know just what they are. Am offended on a daily basis but thats life and live and let live .. like you said causing uproar feeds it and makes it big.
and to be fair from the big country that talks money thats just what it is, no matter what progarm or web site it is if it'll make money it'll advertise it
I'm a firm supporter of people's freedoms. You can name your kid Adolf. A store can refuse to serve you because of that (or for any reason they want, no matter how close-minded).
A company can encourage gross immorality. The NFL can reject or accept their request for advertising on their programming.
People can profane any and all religious figures.
So long as they are not harming others, it's fair game.
Part of our freedom is the freedom to be idiots. So long as your idiocy doesn't interfere with others, you've got the green light. Christians often fret about hate speech being applied to preachers condemning homosexuality or kids not being allowed to do whatever in schools. We want freedom.
To have freedom yourselves, you have to allow others to have it as well. So get some thick skin, learn to ignore stuff, and enjoy liberty (before the gov't takes more of it away).
That's the thing about freedom. It's not your freedom that's hard to swallow, it's others'. That said, the NFL has the right to turn down advertisers. As to the NJ issue, I'd be very surprised if there were not other issues at play. You have to present a very persuasive case to remove children from their biological parents.
A related freedom is that of religion. An acquaintance at church was railing a while ago against Catholics and about the need to expel Muslims from the US... but ironically, he has the freedom to worship as he does because of a group of people who left Europe to find a place where they would be free to worship as they saw fit. We don't have a "Christian nation". We have a nation that allows freedom of worship.
Freedom is a messy business. Some limits on it are appropriate: prevention of suicide, restriction of pornography and vulgarity in the open media, traffic rules, building codes. There are issues of responsibility that go along with freedom.
People are free to say as they wish, but that does not mean they are given the right to be protected from consequences.
Oy vey!
This is an issue I have thought about for a long time... because if we squeltch the freedom of others, we may one day find ourselves on the other side with no freedom to speak either.
I agree... the only reason people do things like use their children for their own political reasons (not just the hitler naming but the guy that went around his wife to name his kid after palin/mccain) is that people respond to it. Radio shows interview them, people blog about them (like here... ooh... can't say you "ignored them today" dear blog writer), people talk about them, news shows mention them. We create and breed the very problems we dislike.
The problem isn't defining freedom. The problem is defining speech.
I completely agree with what you said about how the more people make a big deal out of something that offends them, the more exposure that thing gets. It's one of the things that bugs me most about Christian radio, specifically when a new book/movie has come out - the talk show hosts and guests expend so much energy complaining about the offensiveness that all it does is make people want to go read/see it to see what all the hubbabaloo is about, when they could so easily instead extoll the virtues of GOOD books/movies instead, and help the sales on those.
@WasaiWarrior@xanga - wow good one. i agree!
@Doubledb@xanga - Hey, so does that mean I can go on your Xanga page and post ads for gay extramarital incestuous sex as long as I pay you, and you have no right to refuse? Awesome.
Web pages are kind of like billboards. Or someone's front yard. It isn't a public space in the same respect that, say, a park is. It's more like your front yard and your neighbors front yard. You could post a McCain/Obama sign in your front yard, no problem. However, if you tried putting it in your neighbor's front yard, they have every right to say "Um. No." Because it's their space that they paid for.
So people assume that the kid was named Hitler because he would grow up to hate Jewish people instead of being named after one of the greatest public speakers in history. Looking only at that you think its pretty ridiculous because after all it IS just a name. Only the ignorant would associate a child with such a horrible man by name alone. I have relatives named after various Egyptian pharaohs in the past (well Arabic renditions of them) and they're not being harassed for their names because of what those kings did in the past. The only thing that disturbs me about that story is how the father had a Nazi tattoo or something? And had pro Nazism things hanging on the wall? Yeah that's a bit crazy.
The point is is that people are offensive. But then again people are too sensitive as well. Christians are very offensive and very sensitive to other offenses just like a lot of people are. The whole putting Jesus in urine thing seemed more disgusting to me than blasphemous. What Jesus symbolizes to him isn't reliant on what Jesus symbolizes to you, and you choosing to be offended when it has nothing to do with you just shows that you're incapable of seeing that other people have differing views than yourself. And it would be utterly self centered and arrogant to think that people who view Jesus in a negative light are only doing it to rile Christians.
In short, get over yourselves and let people say what they want.
The offensive can only make you stronger.
@misswonderj@xanga - I think when one of the other kids is named "Aryan Nation Campbell" (or whatever the last name is) it's pretty blood obvious what they were doing. And really, Himmler wasn't really a brilliant public speaker, either.
i'm not easily offended. but, there's a difference between speaking your mind and enforcing your beliefs on others. nothing disgusts me more when Christians cite free speech as justification of banning same-sex marriage.