Do You Understand Freedom of Speech?

Associated Content Provider, Sindy Lucas, wrote an honest, heartfelt op-ed piece concerning an op-ed piece by Kenneth Eng. In his article, Mr. Eng detailed why the Asian community should discriminate against people of the black race. I would have used the term "African-American" but neither Ms. Lucas nor Mr. Eng made a distinction.[1]

In Ms. Lucas' piece, she quoted a large section of Mr. Eng's op-ed. I don't know if there was more to Eng's position than what she quoted. However, the quote seemed to accurately represent his views.

Eng offers four reasons why blacks should be discriminated against. He provides some commentary along with his reasons. His position was indeed disgusting. It sounded childish, and, in my view, reflected a sophomoric position about people of the black race in general.

I agree with Ms. Lucas' statement:

"It is my opinion that this article is nothing more then the ignorant ramblings of a racist, narrow minded individual, but in the end it was Asian Week's decision to publish it."

Ms. Lucas communicated what appears to be a sincere belief that Eng is wrong. She went on to say:

"I understand the whole concept of freedom of speech. You're not always going to like or agree with what others have to say, but don't publications have a responsibility to their readers and the general public not to publish articles insult and degrade other races and cultures, even if it is an op/ed piece?"

I would suggest to you this is not Freedom of Speech.

In the Market Place of Ideas where the free exchange of ideas or ideology is allowed, truth is pitted against error. It is the place where assumptions are tested for their veracity or lack thereof. It is the place, the only place really, where error is exposed in favor of truth.

If what you believe is true, then it can withstand scrutiny in the free exchange of ideas in this Market Place.

If what you believe is false, when compared with and tested against the truth, then it is in this Market Place where you will learn this lesson.

Otherwise, all any of us holds as "truth" is nothing more than a set of assumptions and not truth.

Error will never be abandoned in favor of truth unless it is tested in the Market Place of Ideas.

What Ms. Lucas suggests is that we close the Market Place of Ideas to Mr. Eng.

As disgusting as Mr. Eng's position seems, it should be offered up as something examined and exposed in the Market Place of Ideas. Asian Week's decision to publish the article was the correct one. How else would the falseness of Mr. Eng's position be exposed?

What is alarming is that Ms. Lucas claims to understand the idea or concept of Freedom of Speech. Also, what she reported was:

"Asian American leaders have called on publication to end their relationship with Eng, as well as print an editorial refuting the article. They've also requested that the publication review their editorial policy."

If what you do is go about making sure no one publishes a dissenting view, you do not understand freedom of speech or freedom of expression.

If Lucas quoted Eng's piece correctly, he did not advocate killing or harming blacks. He wanted his readers to discriminate against them, whatever that was to mean. He was not advocating violence. He did not cross the line into illegality.

Again, I suggest that unless disgusting and dissenting views are allowed into the Market Place of Ideas, a position like Eng's will never get tested against that which is true.

Listen to these two quotes:

"[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-- that the best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment."[2]

And:

"[T]he peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."[3]

That, dear American, is the idea of Freedom of Speech!

Unless truth is allowed, in this Market Place of Ideas, to collide with error, you do not have Freedom of Speech but something entirely and horribly different.

[1] http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/163562/asianamerican_leaders_speak_out_against.html?post=true

[2] http://ezinearticles.com/?Guanajuato,-Mexico,-Marriage,-and-Freedom-of-Speech&id=464681

[3] http://ezinearticles.com/?Are-We-Really-Free?&id=466857