The Right to Offend

 Back in the 1960s, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and people west of Manhattan lived in teepees, people on the Left used to say that while they did not like the things we said, they would defend to the death our right to say them.  That is because, being in the minority, as the Left still is, they recognized that free speech was as important to them as it was to the conservative majority.  50 years on, the Left has apparently changed its "mind."  Now they claim a right to not be offended by another's speech. Indeed the Left claims the right to shut down another's right to speak if that speech offends them, and to riot, burn, loot, and murder in the name of censorship.

Such are the arguments being batted about by Ed Brodow at the American Thinker today in an article entitled Alex Jones and the Right to Offend. Now, do not think that this is a defense of Alex Jones or his program Info Wars. I find Jones to be at best, irresponsible. Rather, what Brodow is saying is that anyone is free to take anything they want as offensive, but that is strictly a reaction and is in the person's control. You can take the things being said and ignore them. You can choose to counter them with your own argument. You do not have a right to be offended.

In a democratic republic, there can be no right not to be offended. If anyone can prohibit another person's speech because it's offensive, there is no limit to the restrictions that can be placed on free expression. As the late author Christopher Hitchens said, "[f]reedom of speech must include the license to offend."

Wherever it is sanctioned, the "right" not to be offended invalidates the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The difference between the U.S. and Cuba has to do with the right to say and think whatever you like even if someone is offended by it. "What protects people's rights to say things I find objectionable," Jodie Ginsburg wrote in The Guardian, "is precisely what protects my right to object."

"Nobody has the right to not be offended," said Salman Rushdie, the author targeted for murder by Islamic authorities who were offended by his novels. "That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people."

In a well publicized media interview, Canadian psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson was asked why his right to freedom of speech should take priority over a person's right not to be offended. "Because," he answered, "in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive." Then he added, "You're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth." The interviewer was stopped dead in her tracks by Peterson's astute reply.

The fact is that Alex Jones did not incite people to go out and harass the parents of Sandy Hook students. No matter how hateful and despicable his cockamamie theory was, Alex Jones is only responsible for what he said. The parents of the killed students should go after the actual people who sent death threats and harassed them. the harassers are responsible for their own reactions to what Jones said.