REDEMPTION? BOOYEAH!

I had the opportunity to sit in on a "discussion" about the cartoon incident and issues of journalistic freedom. I say "discussion" because it didn't seem like there was much discussing going on ... its really sad, but I feel like people showed up just to air their views about why they thought that the uproar about the cartoons was absurd. It bothers me when people come to events with their minds made up about how they feel, and use the forum to say how they feel - potentially influencing people that may have come to form an impression about the issue. There were two speakers, on was a student of Human Rights Law of Middle Eastern descent from NY, and the other was a local political cartoonist. What annoyed me a little (MT got VERY annoyed) was that the man passed around print outs of the cartoons ... which I thought was in VERY poor taste. But when I heard what he had to say, and the positive responses that he was getting ... I just felt incredibly beaten down. The number of people in the world that just refuse to allow different perspectives to enter their minds just BLOWS my MIND. I truly believe, that if people just took a little bit of time to figure out WHY people respond to certain stimuli - they will gain a better understanding of the issue.

I'm not going to go off on another rant about freedom of speech, and my naive theories of responsibility - if you so choose, you may read it here - MY purpose in this particular post is to point out that even the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes that there are certain limitations on free speech ... check THIS out!

Excerpted from Justice, Steven's opinion -

"The right to free speech, of course, includes the right to attempt to persuade others to change their views, and may not be curtailed simply because the speaker's message may be offensive to his audience. But the protection afforded to offensive messages does not always embrace offensive speech that is so intrusive that the unwilling audience cannot avoid it.

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 487 (1988). Indeed, "it may not be the content of the speech, as much as the deliberate 'verbal or visual assault,' that justifies proscription." Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 210-211, n. 6 (1975) (citation and brackets omitted). "

-- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 716