But still has enough truth in it to be scary. Today's editorial in the Examiner is about the man who was fired from his political appointment to the Metro Board by Maryland Governor Bob Erhlich over remarks he had made about homosexuals.
WASHINGTON – Robert Smith, Roman Catholic and now-former Metro board member, believes homosexuality is a form of “deviancy.” Jim Graham, District of Columbia Council member, believes Smith’s beliefs are “ancient and archaic.” Graham’s views cost him nothing. Smith’s cost him his job.
Graham and Smith’s now-former boss, Maryland Gov. Bob Erhlich, should have said something like this: “I repudiate Smith’s views and find them disgusting, but it’s a free country and he can say whatever he thinks about any issue.” In a culture increasingly dominated by political correctness, however, such remarks would be derided.
So we have a fundamental issue: freedom of speech for Jim, but not for Bob. Thus the state of health of the First Amendment: You can say anything you want so long as it is politically correct. That’s the definition of “tolerance” practiced by officials like Graham, Erhlich and by many among America’s official and elite opinion-makers.
So, if we really are serious about “tolerance,” let’s admit that the words that come out of our mouths are simply how we share the thoughts in our brains with each other. It’s called “communication” and it is the very heart of democracy. So to be a truly “tolerant” democracy, all of our communications must be politically correct.
It goes on from there to describe tolerance (which is where it goes over the top, I think). While I don't actually think Smith's case actually is a freedom of speech issue because he was a political appointee, the issue this raises is important. It's the rewriting of the old "sicks and stones" rhyme that is troubling here, I think. Freedom of speech does not mean you are immune to being offended by someone else's speech. Nor should any be given that "protected status". If someone took offense to Smith's comments, I think the correct response would have been to raise the issue, but not start calling for someone to lose their job over it.
I think that's claiming a special status that you have no right to. Political correctness is untenable because of that.
