In the wake of the suspension of Phil Robertson, star of "Duck Dynasty" reality TV show in the US for airing virulently homophobic views by his sponsor A&E TV, some conservative commentators( bloggers and Twitter) have argued that he has a "right to free speech" based on his religious beliefs.
Personally I think this argument is BALONEY- and amounts to "free speech for me but not thee". As followers of my blog will know, I was kicked off a Catholic website some years back for referring to the US military generically as a bunch of knuckle dragging borderline psychopaths with an inveterate taste for blood. Now I am prepared to stand by my comments( even if they do sound rather intemperate in retrospect no matter how high the cost to me- I was simply repeating a Vietnam War era trope), but I am tempted to ask- where was my "free speech" rights( although a UK citizen, the site in quest was hosted in the US and so arguably came under the US Constitution's "First Amendment" rights)?
To quote the late US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Nobody has the right to shout falsely"Fire!" in a crowded theatre!"- freedom of expression, like any other freedom, is not an absolute right- Her Majesty's government has refused entry to known "Islamist" hate preachers as well as "shock jocks" like Michael "Whiner" Savage and Islamophobes like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.
Let's see- my own comments about the US military- although admittedly offensive to some, are enough to have me kicked off a Catholic website, even though they do NOT advocate violence- but Robertson's comments about gays should be defended on "religious grounds".
Terry
Log in to comment