THE SLOW, PAINFUL DEATH OF FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA

In 1993, Marco Brambilla directed “Demolition Man”, a film starring Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes.  The plot was built around a non-conforming police officer (Sylvester Stallone) who was jailed because his violent actions in an attempt to capture an evil criminal (Wesley Snipes) caused the death of innocent hostages.  In 1996, both were found guilty of their crimes and frozen in a Cryo-prison.  Snipes was unfrozen in the year 2032 to attend his parole hearing and easily escaped his captors because the world into which he was awakened was devoid of bad language, thoughts and deeds, leaving his jailers unequipped to recapture him without the help of Sylvester Stallone, the violent, foul mouth police officer who captured Snipes in the first place.  Law enforcement officials insisted that Stallone abide by the rules of their “Politically Correct” society in his attempt to capture Snipes, but when that approach failed, Stallone reverted back to his rogue ways, much to the shock and dismay of everyone around him. During his pursuit of Snipes, Stallone revealed that the leader of the new politically correct world, Dr. Cocteau had helped Snipes to escape in order to advance his own agenda.  Stallone ultimately kills both Snipes and Cocteau and proceeds to educated the population about the joys of living in a more free and diverse society.

When the movie debuted the concept of “thought police” was a tongue in cheek commentary on an America which was beginning to show signs of hypersensitivity toward words, but twenty-two years later, the movie seems to have been prophetic.

On October 21, 2015, Peter Hasson, a Texas Campus Correspondent for Campus Reform wrote a story entitled,“UWM SAYS POLITICALLY CORRECT IS NOLONGER POLITICALLY CORRECT”.  The article was about the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) Inclusive Excellence Center’s “Just Words” campaign designed to “raise awareness of micro-aggressions and their impact”.  In the article, Hasson highlights the fact that the “Just Words” Campaign wants students to stop using words such as “thug, whore and lame” and phrases such as “third world country” and “politically correct” (among others) in conversation because those words and phrases are micro-aggressions which could offend certain people.

On their website, the staff of the Inclusive Excellence Center state, “Through Just Words? and “Just Words??”, we seek to raise awareness of micro-aggressions, their impact, provide an insight into their meaning…”

As part of the “Just Words?” introduction the staff asks participants to consider targeted phrases and contemplate, “Are they really only words, so they carry no weight or added meaning? Are they said from a place of respect or belief in fairness, will it aid in creating a just culture?”

As an American writer and a political commentator, I appreciate every word in the English language and the meaning behind them whether aggressive or not.  I celebrate the fact that I live in a country where I can type those words into sentences and sentences into paragraphs which express my point of view on issues which I feel are important to me, then share those thoughts with others who may or may not agree.  I revel in the fact that there are people in the world who don’t think as I think; who don’t speak as I speak; who don’t believe as I believe and I want them to share their thoughts with me because, through that discourse and exchange of ideas, my world will grow and theirs may as well.

Yes, words have meanings and when strung together into a sentence and delivered by a human being, the thought might make some people uncomfortable, but should that be a reason for not sharing a thought? Should we make “thought police” a real and tangible thing?  Have we done so already?

If we allow our society to suppress free thought and speech because it might be offensive and create a society where everyone is “politically correct” do we run the risk of retarding our artistic ability, our right to worship freely and our growth as individuals?

In a world where college campuses are asking students to measure their words to be sure they, “are said from a place of respect or belief in fairness,” I wonder if Susan B. Anthony and the suffragette movement would feel free to protest against the then common belief that women should not have the right to vote?  Or if Frederick Douglass would have thought it fair to publicly state at a July 4th celebration, “Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world."

As part of their mission to mold our youth into “fair and just” individuals, UWM encourages a frank and open discussion about words, phrases and their micro-aggressive meanings.  I can’t help but wonder whether the director of UWM’s Inclusive Excellence Center, Warren Scherer (@warrenascherer) was practicing “Just Words?” when he tweeted at Governor Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) on October 13, 2015, “fuck every fiber of your being…”.

As presented by “Demolition Man” and demonstrated by Scherer, the problem with surrendering to the “thought police” is that you can never be certain of the motives behind the person in charge.