In this instance, the American public is oppressed by this nebulous specter of public opinion and political correctness. Much, if not all, of it is borne out of emotion rather than logic, which is where we will fail as a society and a government.
How did you determine that “this instance” was an example of oppressive political correctness?
How do you identity oppressive political correctness as opposed to legitimate grievance?
Am I wrong to assume that you have a logic which separates one from the other?
I have my own opinions which I tend to arrive at by deliberation and observation. I have pulled my decision making down to a science because, again, I am not here to make up everyone else’s minds.
I would say something is an example of oppressive political correctness when it is demanded that people make a change because some other people are offended or shocked at a given event, statement or work. This demand may come from a small group, a large group, the government or an individual. Doesn’t really matter. Political correctness is intrinsically oppressive (or repressive) in that its intention is to limit speech or expression that is somehow deemed inequitable (or to foster the opposite speech or expression).
My personal baseline for decision making in this vein is how much the grievance group intends to restrict or curtail the freedom of the other group or of society as a whole.
In the case of the flag issue, some people may be calling to legislatively ban the flag (the uneducated or uninformed as you alluded to), legislatively restrict the use of the flag, disparage those who would display the flag or support the flag, or exert pressure on society to effectively ban/restrict/ostracize those who do not agree.
With the flag debate I have seen all of the above. Particularly when combined with a social media platform, it all smacks of a witch hunt to me. Much like a McCarthy-esque hunt for communists, it becomes a social hunt for those individuals, groups or businesses who disagree with the vocal minority or majority, whatever the case may be. Not to mention, that the flags and issues surrounding them have been around for years, but the urgency of the debate is quiet, if not altogether absent, until an event occurs to make it front page.
I would say something is an example of oppressive political correctness when it is demanded that people make a change because some other people are offended or shocked at a given event, statement or work. This demand may come from a small group, a large group, the government or an individual. Doesn’t really matter. Political correctness is intrinsically oppressive (or repressive) in that its intention is to limit speech or expression that is somehow deemed inequitable (or to foster the opposite speech or expression).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/arts/design/02portrait.html?_r=0
In the article linked above, the Catholic League was offended by David Wojnarowicz’s “A Fire in My Belly” being played (video art) within the Smithsonian Museum’s National Portrait Gallery because one segment of the footage showed ants walking over a crucifix. President of the Catholic League Bill Donohue decried the film as “hate speech”. According the Smithsonian, the work was about AIDS suffering in Latin America (most of the footage depicts cockfighting, lucha libre, matadors slaying bulls, etc.).
The Smithsonian Museum ultimately caved to pressure from the Catholic League as well as some members of the US House of Representatives and removed the artwork.
Is this an example of oppressive political correctness? Because it appears to meet your criteria.
I would say something is an example of oppressive political correctness when it is demanded that people make a change because some other people are offended or shocked at a given event, statement or work. This demand may come from a small group, a large group, the government or an individual. Doesn’t really matter. Political correctness is intrinsically oppressive (or repressive) in that its intention is to limit speech or expression that is somehow deemed inequitable (or to foster the opposite speech or expression).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/arts/design/02portrait.html?_r=0
In the article linked above, the Catholic League was offended by David Wojnarowicz’s “A Fire in My Belly” being played (video art) within the Smithsonian Museum’s National Portrait Gallery because one segment of the footage showed ants walking over a crucifix. President of the Catholic League Bill Donohue decried the film as “hate speech”. According the Smithsonian, the work was about AIDS suffering in Latin America (most of the footage depicts cockfighting, lucha libre, matadors slaying bulls, etc.).
The Smithsonian Museum ultimately caved to pressure from the Catholic League as well as some members of the US House of Representatives and removed the artwork.
Is this an example of oppressive political correctness? Because it appears to meet your criteria.
Sure. It pretty much fits my definition, though I would categorize this more as censorship, as they even say in the article. It becomes somewhat of a semantic argument, but the effect is the same.
A state flying a Confederate flag constitutes government speech. Artwork on display in state or federal museums likewise constitute government speech.
However, the very notion of “government speech” is relatively new within Constitutional law. Here are two examples:
In Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005) the Supreme Court ruled that the government had the right to use tax-payer money to promote beef consumption.
In Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum (2009) the Supreme Court ruled that the government could, as an exercise of speech, accept a Ten Commandments statue as a gift to be erected on government property, even if it chooses to reject gifts from other religious groups. Ironically, there are other Supreme Court cases where Ten Commandments displays have been deemed unconstitutional :lol:
Both of these examples demonstrate the awkward situations that arise now that the Supreme Court recognizes governments as entities which enjoy the freedom of speech. I am not sure that the founding fathers envisioned the government itself as a beneficiary of freedom of speech. In my opinion, the First Amendment applies first and foremost to individuals and the press.
Here is an article of why the flag was raised in 1961. Interesting read.
Enjoyed it. Thanks hkytown1.
A state flying a Confederate flag constitutes government speech. Artwork on display in state or federal museums likewise constitute government speech.
However, the very notion of “government speech” is relatively new within Constitutional law. Here are two examples:
In Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005) the Supreme Court ruled that the government had the right to use tax-payer money to promote beef consumption.
In Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum (2009) the Supreme Court ruled that the government could, as an exercise of speech, accept a Ten Commandments statue as a gift to be erected on government property, even if it chooses to reject gifts from other religious groups. Ironically, there are other Supreme Court cases where Ten Commandments displays have been deemed unconstitutional :lol:
Both of these examples demonstrate the awkward situations that arise now that the Supreme Court recognizes governments as entities which enjoy the freedom of speech. I am not sure that the founding fathers envisioned the government itself as a beneficiary of freedom of speech. In my opinion, the First Amendment applies first and foremost to individuals and the press.
Well said and good examples. I really did not even know that such a concept existed but it makes sense.
Thank you.
Someday government speech may become more distinctly regulated by law/jurisprudence than it is now. Different kinds of speech enjoy different levels of protection under US law (for example: commercial speech, satiric speech, student speech).
I understand the government must speak by necessity, but treating government speech like individual speech is problematic because the government’s voice is louder and more authoritative than any individual.
I understand the government must speak by necessity, but treating government speech like individual speech is problematic because the government’s voice is louder and more authoritative than any individual.
Agreed. Good distinction.
I see this issue as a state issue not federal.
@ABWorsham:
I see this issue as a state issue not federal.
The Supremacy Clause (US Constitution 6.2) and the Judiciary Act of 1789 make practically anything a potential federal issue.
If the state fails to settle the issue, I expect it will eventually be a court case and then eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court, with South Carolina arguing that a flag on state property constitutes protected government speech.
Incidentally, it’s also likely that South Carolina would win such a case, since the Supreme Court’s own precedents have only ever defended “government speech”.
Although it’s also possible that South Carolina’s government will decide to remove the flag before it even comes to that.
Although it’s also possible that South Carolina’s government will decide to remove the flag before it even comes to that.
I think this is more than likely going to happen. The states seem less afraid of the Feds than they are of public opinion.
I do hope that my future grandchildren get to grow up in the same great country I did.
These future grandchildren may have to grow up singing some national anthem that I do not yet know…
I would not like to tell these future grandchildren that my generation allowed a bunch of communist to chaotically divide yet another country as they took over. That would be a sorry excuse for them not growing up here in the USA.
BTW,
I sense very little love and a lot of finger pointing in the above posts.
The communists are very good at getting other peoples fingers pointed at each other’s throats.I don’t think the word “communist” means what you think it means.
I mean communist to be the same as Ronald Reagan.
In his eyes, our nation was supposed to be “as a city upon a hill”
This positions the USA to watch over and sound the alarm whenever tyranny threatens our security.
The communists can maneuver and manipulate other parts of the world more freely when our nation is distracted or weakened to the point of lethargy.
The understanding back then, was that communism was external to the USA. However, the sad reality now is that communists reside within our borders, and socialists (currently undeclared communists) act as about half of our elected government.
I would not like to tell these future grandchildren that my generation allowed a bunch of communist to chaotically divide yet another country as they took over. That would be a sorry excuse for them not growing up here in the USA.
Can you explain what these comments have to do with the Confederate flag?
The division of the USA is a grave matter.
Painful for the citizens in the 1860’s.
Painful for the free world in the 2010’s.
The former confederate flag is but one aspect of how the harmony of our union, is getting disrupted. A house divided, can soon crumble.
