Ben Carson on Freedom of Speech: How PC limits our First Amendment Rights (Meinders)

 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/18/carson-insidious-effects-of-political-correctness/?page=all)

       Dr. Ben Carson may be one of the leading Republican candidates in the upcoming 2016 presidential election—and he’s already mentioned some of his radical beliefs regarding First Amendment rights. Carson (the first doctor to successfully split conjoined twins) gave a speech at the President’s National Prayer Breakfast last year and forcefully challenged politically correct (or P.C) speech. Many of us at Saint Louis University seem to promote this type of P.C speech—and given our current situation, rightfully so—but Carson offers a particularly interesting opinion on the matter.

       Carson himself writes the article above—and while meant to critique Obama Care more than anything else, you get a good notion of his beliefs regarding freedom of speech.

Here are a few of his quotes:

1)   “Politically correct speech…is in place to ensure conformity to the prescribed expressions and lifestyles dictated by the elites.”

2)   “There are rewards of acceptance and praise for members of the “in crowd” as they attempt to silence or destroy any who dare think for themselves or express opposing views. Similarly, the purveyors of PC seize upon a word or phrase, which they emphasize in an attempt to divert attention away from the actual issue that doesn’t fit their narrative.”

3)   “This is sobering information, and those who want to fundamentally change America would much rather demonize someone who is exposing this agenda than engage in a conversation that they cannot win. Others join in the fray happily marching in lockstep with those who are attempting to convert our nation to something we won’t recognize, having no idea that they are being used.”

          Carson essentially believes that politically correct speech is a government tool used to shut down opposing ideas in order to promote government power. In all honesty, this does seem a bit like a radical conservative attempting to take down the leftist party. Interestingly, we are able apply this idea to a few free speech issues—particularly those regarding religion. In the case of Harper v. Poway (2004), a student was suspended for wearing a t-shirt opposing homosexuality on the school recognized “Day of Silence,” which allows students to promote LGBT rights by remaining silent throughout the day. The t-shirt states things like “I will not accept what God has condemned” and “Homosexuality is shameful.” Although his case was considered moot by the Supreme Court in 2007, after Harper already graduated—the 9^th Circuit court of Appeals ruled in favor of his punishment in 2004. The majority opinion (a 3-1 ruling) stated that the anti-homosexual messages could cause a “psychological injury.” However, Judge Kozinski’s dissenting opinion wrote that the student was “responding to others with whom he disagreed” and referenced a problem Judge Rosen mentioned in his opinion of Hansen v. Ann Arbor, stating, “Defendants can say with apparent sincerity that they were advancing the goal of promoting ‘acceptance and tolerance for minority points of view’ by their demonstrated intolerance for a viewpoint that was not consistent with their own…”

                  That isn’t where it stops either. Although no cases like this have truly won over like this in Supreme Court, many cases have been brought to national attention. The recent case of the cross at Ground Zero (American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey), shows that the American people are still struggling with this notion of tolerance. A group of Atheists argued that the cross should not be on display at the 9/11 Memorial because it does not represent those victims who do not hold religious belief.  Is the cross, accidently fused together under the Twin Towers in the chaos of 9/11, really offensive to atheist? How could it be? In reality, it seems more like a symbol of hope or a fascinating relic. Carson’s ideas are beginning to pose a lot of questions. In a way, PC speech seems to promote tolerance with intolerance. And if we can recall John Milton’s take on censorship—“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” In Carson’s opinion, P.C is a silencing instrument used to eliminate anyone who doesn’t believe in popular opinion—and he may be right.

Harper v. Poway: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2006/june06/student-rights.html

American Atheists v. Port Authority: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/cross-at-ground-zero-history-lesson-or-state-religion