Why I Left Facebook (For Good, This Time)

Many people cast the entirety of the blame for the deterioration of civil discourse at Trump's feet, because he was just so abrasive. I could see the writing on the (Facebook) wall well before he was elected, though. Maybe it's the degradation of churches and other organizations as pillars of the community where people would gather and interact over shared morals and beliefs. Perhaps it was decades of government schooling providing the bare minimum in education that established an American people incapable of critically assessing the veracity of claims. The underlying cause(s) can be debated at another time (hopefully); for now, we're stuck with an unthinking populace that accepts the narrative that best conforms to their worldview.

We were treated to more than three years of Democrats complaining about a stolen election in 2016, including a two-year investigation into Russian interference that proved nothing. In the midst of this, social media company presidents and CEOs were called before Congress to testify about how their platforms might have contributed to the spread of "misinformation", which is funny Orwellian term that simply means "anything that those in power don't agree with". As a result, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other companies with a massive market share over the dissemination of information in our over-connected society began to employ fact-checking on posts, and cracking down more seriously on problematic accounts that allegedly violated an ever-changing Terms of Service agreement. 

In the past two years alone, these dogmatic employees of the Internet's Records Department of the Ministry of Truth diligently fact check and bury such stories as: 

• Any post that included the name of the alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella used to justify the impeachment against President Trump;
• A New York Post op-ed on the Chinese Communist Party's complicity in releasing Sars-COV-2 on the world;
  
• A woman tased for not wearing a mask at an outdoor high school football game (fact-checkers claim she was tased for refusing to exit the stadium, where she was trespassing--for refusing to wear a mask);
• A New York Post expose on Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden's relationship with Ukraine;
  
• Dozens of articles, videos, and links to evidence suggesting fraud in the 2020 presidential election received "misinformation" and "manipulated media" flags ; and
  
• Myriad articles and videos related to the risks surrounding COVID-19 or the inefficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions promulgated by state and local governments.

Note that many of these issues were welcomed in the sphere of public discourse until they suddenly were not. Trump's dealings with Ukraine were the justification for his first impeachment, but Biden's dealings through his son were buried. The efficacy of mandatory mask-wearing and harsh lockdowns were the source of rigorous scientific study in years past, but everything prior to 2020 has been declared junk science. Now, following the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, everything that happened throughout the summer of 2020, when cities were literally on fire (mine included), has been memory-holed in favor of a narrative that right-wing extremists tried to overthrow the government.

This Medium article talks about Facebook's efforts in trying to fact-check users' postings. But my question is, why is it Facebook's responsibility to moderate its users interactions on the platform? In fact, so doing should open it up to liability under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Under that provision, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's primer on Section 230,

This legal and policy framework has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users. Given the sheer size of user-generated websites (for example, Facebook alone has more than 1 billion users, and YouTube users upload 100 hours of video every minute), it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site.

And yet, following the 2016 election, Section 230 has been used to shield content platforms from liability when they moderate, block, or otherwise alter user-generated content. In other words, they have ceased being platforms and become publishers in those moments, and they do not apply this rigor neutrally or universally. Further, because "Big Tech" only instituted these policies in response to Congressional action following Trump's election in 2016, there is a legitimate argument that these private companies are still violating the First Amendment. This Wall Street Journal opinion (behind a paywall) provides some background on U.S. case law that could support such an argument:

Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”

Such threats have worked. In September 2019, the day before another congressional grilling was to begin, Facebook announced important new restrictions on “hate speech.” It’s no accident that big tech took its most aggressive steps against Mr. Trump just as Democrats were poised to take control of the White House and Senate. Prominent Democrats promptly voiced approval of big tech’s actions, which Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal expressly attributed to “a shift in the political winds.” (emphasis added)

Now that I've laid out the 30,000-foot view of the landscape, let me explain how this affected my decision to leave Facebook. I was one of the early adopters of Facebook, back when a university email address was still a requirement to join.

Twelve of my fifteen-plus years on the social networking site were enjoyable. I managed a few different Groups that were fun and full of laughs. I enjoyed sharing numerous inside jokes with friends, and there was even a time when I began a "Poke-for-prayers" campaign using Facebook's (formerly more prominent) "Poke" feature, which allowed a user to let another user know he or she was being thought about. Though many may have disagreed with my takes on hot issues of the day and even some of my noncontroversial positions, I often looked forward to seeing the notification bell lit up and a post garner so many responses. The "marketplace of ideas" seemed to be thriving.

Facebook has gone through many changes over the years, and that has made it a bit difficult to look up old posts. Although I have matured as a Christian husband (and now father), which hopefully has been reflected in my discourse in recent years, I would like to think that my ideas and arguments made over the last decade and a half have been intellectually consistent. At least the occasional Facebook Memories highlights of old "debates" make me think I continue to argue for liberty and against government overreach.

For example, when I became politically aware in the second term of George W. Bush's presidency I was introduced to libertarianism through Reason.com's blog, Hit&Run. The blog offered quick snippets and myriad examples of government abuses and intrusions into individuals' day-to-day lives. Coupling this exposure with my own experiences in quasi-capitalist, quasi-socialist Japan, as well as the stories I heard from my dad operating his own vending machine business, it became clear early in my adulthood that government can only ratchet one way: toward increasing regulations that protect powerful interests.

Now, many would think this provides a lot of common ground with people across the political spectrum, or with those who are politically apathetic. If we have identified the culprit, then we can work toward a solution, right? Well, Barack Obama's presidency shattered any hope of that possibility, as millions of his supporters suddenly forgot about the antiwar positions they held during Bush's presidency. Similarly, even the socialists who vehemently decry "money in politics" and "powerful interest groups" had little to say when President Obama signed his massive omnibus bailouts for favored industries or boosted insurance company coffers by requiring millions of previously uninsured (by choice) Americans to pony up and start contributing premiums. I was in that latter camp for a number of years, where it simply didn't make financial sense in my mid to late-20s to carry insurance for the 1-2 times per year I went to the doctor.

But after the 2016 election, something "broke" in a lot of people. Reasoned discourse was no longer tolerable, let alone encouraged. Emotions ruled the day. Even the writers at Reason, where I had cut my political chops, had gone off the deep end. Many declared ahead of the election that supporting Hillary Clinton--a deeply-entrenched participant in the DC "swamp" that so many admit exists--was far superior to the firebrand candidacy of Donald Trump. 

I tried to take a break at the onset of COVID-19, and it was actually nice. I knew that I would disagree with most of what was being posted. Too many people, in my opinion, have been overly supportive of government efforts to fundamentally alter our lives because of a virus that cannot be controlled. Yet as the lockdowns dragged on despite ever-increasing evidence that they do not work, I convinced myself that I could not stay silent. As many were expressing outrage toward "systemic racism" they believed existed in American institutions, I reactivated my Facebook account to try to be a voice of reason amidst all the chaos.

Boy, was that a miscalculation on my part! If I thought Trump's presidency broke some people's sanity, COVID-19 shattered it. Any attempt to point out that individuals should have the sole authority to assess risks for themselves without the government ordering them how to behave--after all, are we citizens or children??--was roundly shouted down as uncaring, unloving, and unAmerican. Because I've seen that mask-wearing compliance was over 85% in the country, I posted a straw poll to ascertain people's reasons for doing so since prior to COVID-19 such non-pharmaceutical interventions were not proven effective. The responses varied, but those who felt most justified in their moral superiority used it as an opportunity to say I was "spreading misinformation" and attack my sources. I should take this opportunity to mention that my sources were systematic reviews of randomized control trials, the gold standard for research, and the CDC's own website stating that masks add no significant protection.

Debate is important and healthy for a just and fair society. An important element of debate, however, is intellectual honesty. When my Facebook acquaintances (I struggle to call many of them "friends" at this point) discount sources as not credible rather than address my central argument, and make moral accusations like "that's not very Christian of you", they display intellectual dishonesty and care only about winning the argument, or more accurately, claiming moral superiority for their position. This is not healthy debate; it's shouting down an opponent. And it shows that we're not a free society where ideas can be openly discussed no matter how controversial they might be.

In addition to the platform no longer meeting my desire for healthy debate, I could tell that it was tempting me to sin by lashing out in anger at comments that were angrily directed at me, or leading me to critique posts not directed at me for being wrong. If I wasn't giving way to anger I was seeking out conflict, both of which are called out as sinful works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). Romans 12:1 instructs me to "present [my body] as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is [my] reasonable service" (KJV, emphasis added). Verse 2 warns that I should not "conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of [my] mind" (NIV). Both of these verses emphasize the importance of keeping the mind, the reasoning faculty or intellect, focused on "the things of heaven, not the things of earth" (Col. 3:2 NLT). The sin nature relies on our emotions to dislodge us from framing our minds on the things of God--His character, promises for believers, or our position in the risen Christ--and the world system likewise tempts us through distraction and by fomenting conflict where there needn't be any. Whether intentionally designed to antagonize the sin nature or not, Facebook and other social media websites' algorithms operate to keep us engaged with their platforms.

Not everyone is susceptible to the same temptations, though everyone's sin nature does operate in the same manner. My wife, for example, can easily scroll through her Facebook feed for 30 minutes without raising an eyebrow or becoming annoyed at what other people are posting, as I might. She is still engaging, however, and at times unconsciously. So even where her emotions are kept in check, she can still be dislodged from the correct framing of her mind due to the distraction of social media. We both recognize that danger, and have taken steps to correct it. For me, that means leaving social media altogether.

So I thank God for revealing through COVID-19, the BLM riots, and the 2020 presidential election the lies and manipulation as well as the distracting nature of both traditional news media and social media. I pray for my fellow citizens and especially that the leaders in my city, state, and country will repent of their unbelief and see the glory of an awesome and unchanging God. Through repentance they might see the folly of their ways and allow God's people to live quiet and peaceable lives (1 Tim. 2:1-2). Until then I find comfort in knowing that I have been chosen by a loving and gracious God to be with him in eternity (Rom. 8:18-30), and he gives me strength and encouragement through His Spirit and in the name of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:15-17, 2 Thess. 2:13-17).

I do want to stay in touch with people. Feel free to reach out via Facebook messenger over the next month if you want to share contact information, and I hope to post more frequently here whenever particular thoughts come to me.

A Pyrrhic Undefeated Season

My alma mater, the University of Central Florida, had an undefeated regular season, won its conference championship in double overtime, and sits at #12 in the CFP rankings. (No love for a non-P5 team; bah-humbug!) Amidst all of the celebrating, however, our head coach got plucked away by Nebraska, so a lot of alumni are lamenting that loss, while others are cursing him because of the unfortunate timing of the news of his departure dropping while we were still in playing Memphis.

But there's a far more shocking story to come out of UCF than the loss of our head coach and his staff. Donald De La Haye lost his football scholarship because the NCAA forced him into a take-it-or-leave-it situation: continue making YouTube videos that have generated some money for him, or play football. The option to do both was not on the table because it threatened the cartel the NCAA has over the monetization of its slaves... er, student athletes.

So naturally, I posted that article to the Facebook page that discusses all things UCF athletics. And although there was some mild support for my post or sympathy for the player, most of the reactions fell in the range of "don't bring down our high" to "he traded his free speech for a scholarship"; as if a constitutionally protected freedom could be bartered in such a way. I believe that the university has not only the moral obligation to reinstate De La Haye's scholarship and stand up for him against the NCAA, but also a constitutional duty to do so as a public university. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not shed their right to freedom of speech simply because they have entered the schoolhouse doors. 

Contract law contains the doctrine of "unconscionability." This doctrine allows courts to render a contract unenforceable because the terms of the contract so overwhelmingly favor one party over the other that it shocks the conscience. One of the key factors of unconscionability is whether one party had vastly superior bargaining position. UCF, acting as a proxy for the the NCAA's regulations, stood atop a mountain of bargaining power compared to De La Haye, a kid born in Costa Rica who was sending some of the revenue from his YouTube channel to help family there. The NCAA's restrictions on monetizing videos based on an athlete's "reputation, prestige, or ability" forced De La Haye to sign away his right to express himself in his role as a football player when he accepted a scholarship to play for UCF. Forcing De La Haye to sign away a constitutionally-protected right so he could receive a monetary stipend and tuition--things he earned by his athletic prowess--strikes me as a grossly unequal exchange. Meanwhile, UCF and the NCAA continue to make money off the blood, sweat, and backs of men and women in athletic programs around the country.

As it turns out, De La Haye decided to leave college football behind him and continue his endeavors with his YouTube channel, Deestroying. But it never should have come to him being forced to choose one over the other. Stories like his are the reason my university will never receive a dime from me. True story: I quit my Chicago-area alumni chapter board this past summer because the school forced me to contribute financially despite the hours I volunteered to promote its brand and image. And I told them that I have serious misgivings about donating money to a public university that does not value free speech.

Not a dime. The only financial gift I've ever made to UCF, which the alumni association found "unacceptable." 

UCF's 1400 acre campus has only nine designated "Free Assembly Areas" that people must meet in if they want to hold political rallies or events (University Regulations, UCF-4.2093(12)). The university has also codified into its campus regulations the constitutionally suspect "fighting words" doctrine (UCF-4.2093(6)(f)) as well as the heckler's veto (4.2093(8-9)). The former has been drastically limited by Supreme Court cases National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011), to the point the doctrine is almost meaningless. (Consider, for a moment, that the very statements Walter Chaplinsky yelled at his arresting police officer in the "fighting words" case were "You are . . . a damned Fascist," something we hear regularly these days.) And the heckler's veto has no place on a public university campus that purports to value integrity, scholarship, and community.

Overall, reading De La Haye's story yesterday amidst the conference championship left a sour taste in my mouth. Sure, the school will get some recognition for the victories its football team had this season. But in putting its fealty to the almighty NCAA above the rights of its students, I can't help but feel that this 12-0 season deserves an asterisk next to it.

Debate Comes in Threes: A Primer on Abortion, Climate Change, and Incitement

In the news this week arose three topics in particular that both sides speak about as if there only is one side to the argument. My goal is to address each as succinctly as possible and hopefully show why each topic is not as cut-and-dry as many assume. I admit that I am not immune from speaking in absolutes about these topics, but if we acknowledge the nuances that define the arguments, we can work towards greater liberty for all.

Some people may argue that I have simplified these topics too much. But if an argument cannot be boiled down to a core axiom, then the entire argument falls apart by relying on a faulty premise. If I have misstated the central tenet of any argument, however, please feel free to correct me so that the discussion can be advanced.

FIRST: Abortion

This topic is one ripe for ideological differences, and it all comes down to a philosophical question: when does life begin, or better yet, when is a person a person?

The "pro-life" side provides a spectrum for when life begins, but it's all centered around protection of the unborn fetus. Whether "life begins at conception," life begins when there's a beating heart and other recognizable organs, or using some measure of viability--that is, the point at which a fetus could survive outside the mother--the pro-life side defends the right to life of this thing that cannot speak for itself.

The "pro-choice" side argues on behalf of the woman carrying this fetus to term. They, too, can fall along a spectrum--anywhere from saying the fetus is a part of the woman until birth, to the more extreme view that a fetus is a parasite living off the woman for nine months--but they come together to defend a woman's right to choose what she can do with her own body.

Because there is no empirical way to determine when a human being, fetus or no, obtains personhood--and thus, the rights to life and liberty that come with it--the debate often ends in a stalemate. Neither side is necessarily wrong; it just seems that they are talking past each other.

SECOND: Climate Change

The debate on climate change is a bit more difficult to nail down, mostly because it seems the boundaries of the debate continue to shift. The two sides to this, as I see them, are those who believe that humans have a direct effect on the earth's climate and action must be taken to reduce that effect, and those who think action is unnecessary. The latter includes people who outright deny the existence of humanity's effect on the environment.

But make no mistake: this is a debate about action, and typically, government action. Excluding for the purposes of this discussion those who outright deny climate change--because I'd rather not get into Newton's Third Law--the debate appears to center around a question of degree. (No pun intended!) The earth's climate is changing, but is it changing at a rate or pace that requires drastic action?

The proponents of government intervention argue that it is, and if we want to preserve this earth for future generations we must take steps beyond simple precautions now. They point to changes in temperature, global weather phenomena, increased wildfires and flooding, among other measurable data points as evidence that the situation is getting worse.

Opponents argue that the temperature fluctuations and other phenomena are natural and outside the statistical margin of error, or observational error. In other words, if the earth has been around for millions or billions of years but we've only been taking accurate temperature readings for the last two hundred or so, the sample size is very small and the margin of error is higher.

Complicating this debate is an insistence by proponents that "the science is settled," an interesting way of concluding an argument when science is supposed to be a never-ending search for answers. Because a vast majority of climate scientists (somewhere around 97%) fall on the side of calling for immediate action, many believe the debate should be over. But the debate roars on in other forums--along with the remaining ~3% of scientists--over precisely how much action is needed and how to implement such actions.

THIRD: Incitement

This is by far the area that interests me the most, so I will try my best to remain neutral in describing this debate. Two separate instances this week of a white nationalist, Richard Spencer, being punched by someone because of the message he promotes catapulted this topic into the news.

Free speech proponents argue that no matter Spencer's rhetoric, he should not be subjected to violent reactions. They take to heart Voltaire's directive: "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." The principles of free speech embodied in the First Amendment apply to popular and unpopular speech alike.

In contrast, Spencer's opponents say that his ideas are violent and he is the initial aggressor because of his views on white supremacy and nationalism. Because Spencer advocates for the elimination of certain people from American society, he is inciting violence and poses a direct threat to people who belong to those threatened groups. Many point to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany to justify the preemptive strike: if people fought back against Hitler's rhetoric sooner things might not have gone as far as they did.

This debate about incitement--and it's not just the one surrounding Spencer--is particularly interesting because the proponents and opponents can often switch sides depending on the identity of the speaker and his or her message. In 2015 and 2016, the Black Lives Matter movement marched and protested throughout the country. While most of the demonstrations were peaceful, a few erupted into riots. BLM opponents blamed the movement's rhetoric and anti-police sentiments for inciting violence.

CONCLUSION

As a society we face many issues that will divide us morally, ideologically, and politically. When we are absolutely certain there is only one answer to our problems, we must be able to remove the blinders we put on and see things from the other side's perspective. Only after we explore the premises of both our own arguments and our opponents' can we understand how deep the problem runs. At that point, we can work towards a solution that expands everyone's liberty.

"Can We Hear the N-Word One Day and Not Get Upset?"

I start this post by admitting that I will never know what it is like to be a black person. I was born white, I am white, and I will always be white. If that admission causes you to not want to read any further, that is on you. I do, however, know what it's like to be a human being, to be a part of the economy, of society. My skin color does not define who I am anymore than it defines the person to my left or to my right. A person is defined by his beliefs, by the way he lives and interacts with the world around him.

But growing up, I have often wondered why the word nigger is so taboo. It is, after all, just a word. While other words (e.g., fuck, kike, cunt, Jap) are considered--shall we say--less than ideal in the public forum, they are never met with the same amount of vitriol as when someone utters the word nigger.

The word is not off limits to everyone; those within a group tend use it freely, or it's derivation nigga, as a term of endearment, while those without are immediately condemned for using said word, often regardless of the context. That's not to say that every time the word is used by a non-group member it is completely neutral, as Michael Richards and countless others have proven in the past. Still, we do not see a mass movement by all Buddhists to prevent non-Buddhists from saying nirvana. Perhaps an odd example, but it does illustrate that there is a group of insiders who have a better understanding of a word than those on the outside.

There is a history of oppression with the word nigger, so it does make sense that there will be some who remain sensitive to hearing it said. But the outrage generated by the use of this one word has grown so great over the last 15 or 20 years that even similar sounding words with long-standing usage are becoming more or less taboo. In 1999, a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was offended by her professor's use of the word niggardly (meaning extremely stingy or reluctant to give or spend) while discussing Chaucer. Chaucer, as in the author of The Canterbury Tales, who lived in the 14th century and used that and other words in their original meaning (I recall at least one classmate in English class who would involuntarily gag when reading across the word cunt) regularly.

We are told that it is racist for a white person to say nigger. And yet it seems far more racist to automatically assume an entire group of people will be offended by a word's usage (and thereby banning it, censoring it, or casting out all who use it), then to actually just say or write nigger. In the former example, you are treating hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of individuals as a uniform block who can only feel one way when they hear a word, and in the latter you--an individual--are interacting with other individuals and do not know how they will react. Much like a declaration that someone is renouncing their religion, or coming out of the closet, or starting a new career, there will be those who are shocked or bewildered by such news, those who are indifferent, and those who are pleased, among any number of additional reactions.

Ultimately, the use of the word nigger boils down to whether one's right to free speech (highly valued in this country) overpowers one's perceived right to not be offended. The latter simply does not exist; for if it did, there would be no shortage of harassment lawsuits claiming so-and-so had offended such-and-such. Unfortunately, while the lawsuits are kept more or less in check, that does not mean that people are completely free to say what they would like. Some people still like to believe that their feelings are more important than open discussion or freedom of speech. Going back to the example of the use of the word niggardly at UW-Madison, that was the brunt of the argument made by the Amelia Rideau, the offended student. From Reason Magazine:

"I was in tears, shaking," [Rideau] told the faculty. "It's not up to the rest of the class to decide whether my feelings are valid." Rideau's plea was a reality check. If the proper use of a Chaucerian term while teaching The Canterbury Tales could be construed as harassment of a student who did not know the word's spelling or meaning, then the code was teaching some interesting expectations indeed. Many "abolitionists," as they now were called, believe that Rideau's speech, widely reported, was the turning point, setting the stage both for greater attendance at the March meeting and for the final vote. John Sharpless, a history professor, asked, "What other words are to be purged from our language? Thespian?"

Free speech is one of the foundations of liberty. This does not mean one is totally free from judgment, but it should mean that if we truly value free speech then we will not allow someone's thoughts or ideas to be suppressed just because they contain offensive language or words. Punishing someone for something they said is no different than punishing someone for the way they look, and isn't that the mentality that we have been trying to break away from as a country for the last 50 years?

"I'm Gonna Kill You!"

Are threats permissible under freedom of speech? The law says they are not. Should they be, though?

Here is a quick anecdote to open up the debate. An upset customer calls into work and is extremely unhappy with the service he has received. In the midst of his anger, he threatens to shoot up the whole company. His threat is taken literally, the police are called, and the man is investigated by the authorities. The police find a semi-automatic pistol and a rifle and confiscate both as evidence.

Now, if someone makes a threat--especially against one's life--I think it should be taken seriously. But I don't think one should forfeit other rights they possess because a moment of anger overcame him. In the example above, should the man have to give up any guns he has because the language he used in the threat indicates he will use them? In America, we have the right to keep and bear arms. We also have the right to free speech. Is there a point at which one supersedes the other? If you use a gun to commit murder, that does not take away your right to free speech. So why should the reverse be true?

What if the threat did not involve the use of a weapon? Let's say our exemplar simply screams "I'm gonna kill you!" Is the threat treated the same way? Does the manner in which one threatens make a difference?

Here is another example, and this one is considered protected free speech under the 1st Amendment. A group of anti-war protesters are holding a rally in the capital. The leader of the country continues to fight a war that many feel is unjust. Some of the protesters have pictures of the leader with slashes through them, and others burn effigies of the leader.

The latter example is protected because a leader is considered a symbol of government. But in reality, what is the difference between an angry customer threatening the company he feels did a disservice to him and protesters acting out against a government of which they disapprove? I suppose it all just depends on the party being threatened.

I am more inclined to side with the 1st Amendment, which reads "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". Call me a traditionalist, but prosecuting threats or the yelling of "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (as the other typically unprotected speech example goes) is an infringement of the 1st Amendment, which clearly states NO LAW. I hope that we never live in the world envisioned in the movie Minority Report, where people are prosecuted for future crimes. Wait until they act, then prosecute the individual.

Speech cannot be a crime.

That's Racist?

I think that in writing this post I may have missed the mark a little. I'm not saying people can't be prejudiced, that they can't offend with their words and actions. I am saying that on the receiving end of said words, people are too quick to cry "RACISM." It's exactly like The Boy Who Cried Wolf. When every offense is punctuated by the thought that it was racist simply because it was offensive, it undermines the times when someone is legitimately wronged based on the color of their skin.

I apparently wrote this article a day and a half too soon, as LeBron James and his manager have come out and said themselves that they think the hate against James has a racial undertone to it.

While I disagree with many that racism is a complex issue, I unfortunately over-simplified the discussion by using a dictionary definition of the word in my last post. I don't think prejudiced thought is gone from our society; in fact, I said the opposite, in that people will always have a prejudice because there's something innately human about finding flaws in others to make ourselves look better. People will always be biased about something. However, I don't think the collective racism that was standard throughout the founding of our country up to the 1970s or so exists anymore.

Let me reiterate: the Ku Klux Klan and other white-supremacy groups may still meet in backwoods fire departments, and the Black Panthers may hold gatherings in their houses. But those are the principles that our country was founded on. No, not that clandestine groups can plot destruction against others, but that people of like mind may freely assemble, may speak freely, and may express their own ideas as they wish. But the second they infringe on the rights of others--say, attacking someone on their way home from school--then they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Despite what a misguided majority of the American people believe, there is no "right to not be offended." In fact, I'm probably offending people at this moment by writing this blog post. And I hope that I am, because it means that A) I still live in a country where I can express myself freely; and 2) you still live in a country where you have the freedom to read this (or not) and disagree with me (or not). People will say offensive things... it's their right to speak freely. You can try to not listen, which is not always easy in this Information-overload era we live in. But rather than screaming "Racist!" and demanding certain types of speech be regulated, why not join in the discussion and try to change these people's minds and then their tongues?

But allow me to go back to something I mentioned earlier--racism is not a complex issue. To me, a complex issue is something that has many levels which are in turn difficult to define, not unlike the dream navigation that took place in the recent movie Inception. But what about this idea we call racism? Well, to my child-like mind it seems to only have 2 layers, or faces really. Something is either racist, or it's not (and most often it's not).

When regarding a "racist" action or comment, there are only two options: YES or NO? Up or Down? Black or White? Was it racist, or wasn't it? Again, I think the reason many people get so worked up over things they think are racist is because they confuse offending someone with racism.

Don Imus was fired from his job for calling the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hoes" on his radio show. It was an inappropriate comment made about a team that did very well in the NCAA tournament, and it was perfectly within CBS's right as his employer to fire him. But the outrage towards Don Imus went completely overboard. I think context says a good deal about someone's mindset as well, and Don Imus is a radio personality not unlike Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge, but with far less popularity. Therefore, when he calls a bunch of college girls "nappy-headed hoes," it is in very poor taste, but nothing out of the ordinary for him and his ilk.

Another story involves Michael Richards and his "comedic" tirade at a stand-up show. This is one of those cases that is harder to argue about because of the specific word that Richards used. But again, I think context plays a larger part in this. The man is doing stand-up and bombing, so when he gets heckled by some members of the audience he tries to go after them to jump-start his act. I'm not excusing his actions, but it's not as if he's throwing these epithets at some church-going grandmother that only asked him if he'd like some tea. In other words, it was a rant made in extemely poor taste but he was going after shock laughs, and the outrage towards him was overblown.

I suppose my rants on racism are really more of a problem with the push onslaught of political correctness in our country. Everyone has to fit under a singular label--i.e. Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative, white/black--and those who don't are thrown into any pile anyways. Someone always has to be the blame for something, and it's generally easier to blame an individual by the group to which they officially or unofficially belong. As racist speech is often the type that is most often cited as needing to be regulated, I am therefore quick to defend those accused of being racist and point out the flaws of calling someone racist. I think more discussion, and less reactionary yelling, is the only thing that will solve this issue.

Even more so now, in the Age of the Internet, cries of racism should ring hollow. Who is the person behind the comment? Do they even really feel that way, or are they being sarcastic? The truth is it doesn't matter. Who cares what they say? You can either choose to let it affect you or you can be the bigger person and move on with life. You can fuel the idiotic fire of people like Don Imus, Michael Richards, and Mark Williams by falling for their race-baiting, or you can say, "You know what? I'm not who they say I am. I'm (insert name here) and I won't be affected by what others think of me."