Which is why I think bballfamily's earlier claims are illogical. An institution has the right to choose who does and who does speak on their grounds, whether it be Notre Dame or UNC.

 

If you are referring to Tancredo, he was actually speaking in a classroom when he was interrupted by a group students who did not want him to speak, because of his opposition to immigrants in this country illegally. If this is not what you were referring to, please clarify.

Although I feel sure all of you know what is meant when someone mentions "political correctness", some of you insisted on specific examples as part of your rebuttals.

 

I will refer you to the Miss California matter. It has received a lot of media attention since it was reported by Fox News. Now, even Matt Lauer of NBC has addressed it. this example is on point with my concerns and is, unfortunately, one of many examples of political correctness in the private sector (of course most never come to the attention of the general public.

What I read through out this thread seems like we are talking more about Political views and issues and not about Political Correctness.

 

PC is more about certain words used to describe a person or group of people or customs or religions or intelligence levels, etc...

 

Am I wrong?,(Usually) But it looks like apples and oranges.

I am going to disagree with you in a respectful and civil manner. There are many on this board that I disagree with and find the debate to be quite civil and I hope others agree. I disagree with virtually everything you post yet I don't hate you for having a differing opinion. I guess the question is why do you hate and distrust those that disagree with you?:confused:

 

My reference to "hate and distrust" are not really aimed at BGP posters although therre is a bit of animousity. My reference is to the general feeling in the country. Many people still hate and distrust Bush and his people. The venom is fueled nightly on MSNBC, etc. Also, many people hate and distrust the sitting president and his people. That is fueled by Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

 

My point is that the country is not coming together and it won't come together. The divide is only widening. Bush was partisan and his successor is equally as partisan. I think Bush that, overall, did much to divide the country and that seems to be intensifying since Bush left office.

 

How can anyone doubt it?

My reference to "hate and distrust" are not really aimed at BGP posters although therre is a bit of animousity. My reference is to the general feeling in the country. Many people still hate and distrust Bush and his people. The venom is fueled nightly on MSNBC, etc. Also, many people hate and distrust the sitting president and his people. That is fueled by Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

 

My point is that the country is not coming together and it won't come together. The divide is only widening. Bush was partisan and his successor is equally as partisan. I think Bush that, overall, did much to divide the country and that seems to be intensifying since Bush left office.

 

How can anyone doubt it?

 

When Bush 1st went to DC one of his first pieces of legislation was NO Child Left Behind, which was mainly written by T. Kennedy. Bush aslo invited Dems over for social time at the White House in his effort to set a new tone in DC, but backbiting started from the beginning. The division during the Bush years came from the invasion of Iraq. While there may have been true pacifist opposition to the war, Democractic leaders saw Bush as too popular. they proceeded to attack him because they wanted the White House back. The Dem leadership divided this coountry for political gain.

Personally, I think that the multiple definitions referenced by Clyde can be summed up in the two definitions that Habib touched upon.

 

"Political correctness" can mean refraining from using certain terms because they are offensive. This is good.

"Political correctness" can mean treating certain viewpoints as so radical and outlandish that they are entirely ignored to the point of silence. This is bad.

 

It is difficult to comprehend which one of these you are talking about, which is why we'd like examples.

 

I'd like to see some examples to get a clearer context about what you are saying here, but FWIW:

 

I agree with Habib in that it is government prosecutions that are troubling, whereas private ones do not bother me at all. As you mentioned earlier about people losing their jobs because of violating political correctness, would you prefer that the government tells a private company executive who they can and can not fire?

 

Yes, we have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that an employer should have to employ someone who is purposely disrespectful.

 

Read the last sentence of your second paragraph. Are you saying that the government doesn't tell private companies who they can hire and fire? You must not keep up with the news.

What I read through out this thread seems like we are talking more about Political views and issues and not about Political Correctness.

 

PC is more about certain words used to describe a person or group of people or customs or religions or intelligence levels, etc...

 

Am I wrong?,(Usually) But it looks like apples and oranges.

 

Political correctness saturates political views and issues. Ask Miss California.

 

It is really not "apples and oranges".

Although I feel sure all of you know what is meant when someone mentions "political correctness", some of you insisted on specific examples as part of your rebuttals.

 

I will refer you to the Miss California matter. It has received a lot of media attention since it was reported by Fox News. Now, even Matt Lauer of NBC has addressed it. this example is on point with my concerns and is, unfortunately, one of many examples of political correctness in the private sector (of course most never come to the attention of the general public.

Where does censorship fit in to this example?

My reference to "hate and distrust" are not really aimed at BGP posters although therre is a bit of animousity. My reference is to the general feeling in the country. Many people still hate and distrust Bush and his people. The venom is fueled nightly on MSNBC, etc. Also, many people hate and distrust the sitting president and his people. That is fueled by Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

 

My point is that the country is not coming together and it won't come together. The divide is only widening. Bush was partisan and his successor is equally as partisan. I think Bush that, overall, did much to divide the country and that seems to be intensifying since Bush left office.

 

How can anyone doubt it?

Agreed.

 

Look, I believe that political correctness can be bad in the sense that it stifles certain arguments. I also believe it can be good in that it tries to keep words and arguments from becoming downright offensive. But it isn't censorship.

I'm sorry, Wyrostek, I'm not following you here. What is a first amendment civil offense involving private parties? My understanding is that the first amendment applies to Congress and, through the 14th amdendment, to the state legislatures. I don't see how private parties come into the first amendment discussion.

 

The US Constitution doesn't just apply to congress. It applies to all of us who are citizens of this country. Each citizen is a private party. I', sure you don't mean to suggest that the First Amendment rights are not available to private parties. If one private party feels that his or her or its (ex: a corporation) rights under the First Amendment have been violated by another private party, certainly the allegedly injured private party can bring an action against the alleged offender.

Where does censorship fit in to this example?

 

Agreed.

 

Look, I believe that political correctness can be bad in the sense that it stifles certain arguments. I also believe it can be good in that it tries to keep words and arguments from becoming downright offensive. But it isn't censorship.

 

If one is punished in any way for lawfully using his right of free speech as provided by the First Amendment, he or she is being censored. Politically correct speech is a form of selective censorship in my opinion.

The US Constitution doesn't just apply to congress. It applies to all of us who are citizens of this country. Each citizen is a private party. I', sure you don't mean to suggest that the First Amendment rights are not available to private parties. If one private party feels that his or her or its (ex: a corporation) rights under the First Amendment have been violated by another private party, certainly the allegedly injured private party can bring an action against the alleged offender.

 

I don't think that's correct. The first amendment speech provision reads "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." I have never heard of one private party suing another with the first amendment as the crux of the case. The Bill of Rights is a series of protections from government action, not a string of civil causes of action. If your first amendment rights are violated, your opposition is the government, not another citizen.

I don't think that's correct. The first amendment speech provision reads "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." I have never heard of one private party suing another with the first amendment as the crux of the case. The Bill of Rights is a series of protections from government action, not a string of civil causes of action. If your first amendment rights are violated, your opposition is the government, not another citizen.

 

John works for a private company. Against John's will, his employer brings him in and strip searches him believing that John has hidden company confidential documents in his underwear. The company was mistaken. John's rights under the Fourth Amendment have been violated. John will sue the company for his damages.

 

Or, use a different example. John works for a private company that initiates a new policy after John has worked there for five years stating that employees are forbidden from participating in homosexual rights rallies. John does so and is fired. John will sue his employer because his First Amendment rights to free speech and free association have been unjustly violated.

 

The Bill of Rights sets forth many, but far from all, of your rights as a citizen. These are basic rights (depending, of course, on how they are interpreted by the courts). Those rights cannot be unduly violated by the government nor can they be unduly violated by the private sector.

Edited April 21, 200917 yr by Wyrostek

If one is punished in any way for lawfully using his right of free speech as provided by the First Amendment, he or she is being censored. Politically correct speech is a form of selective censorship in my opinion.

 

First, this is not meant to be confrontational.

 

How would the Dixie Chicks fit into this? The words of one member resulted in people to quit buying their music. Is this a form of punishment? Obviously, people that didn't like their music to begin with didn't punish, but many of those that did stopped supporting them.

 

Is this censorship? I don't see it as being much different than what Miss California said. Both stated a view that they believed in that made them unpopular with people that affected a portion of their future.

First, this is not meant to be confrontational.

 

How would the Dixie Chicks fit into this? The words of one member resulted in people to quit buying their music. Is this a form of punishment? Obviously, people that didn't like their music to begin with didn't punish, but many of those that did stopped supporting them.

 

Is this censorship? I don't see it as being much different than what Miss California said. Both stated a view that they believed in that made them unpopular with people that affected a portion of their future.

 

I wouldn't completely disagree. However, those who are a part of the free enterprise system run the risk of offending potential customers. The Dixie Chicks did so. Still, I find the treatment of Miss California to be far more heinous that the loss of customers by the Dixie Chicks. But, that is merely a personal observation based on the belief in civility. To me, economic attack is one matter and personal attack is quite another matter.

 

As an afterthought, I have aften heard that one is judged by those with whom he shares values. After actually seeing this bird, Perez Hilton, on television, I'm pleased that we do not share beliefs.

John works for a private company. Against John's will, his employer brings him in and strip searches him believing that John has hidden company confidential documents in his underwear. The company was mistaken. John's rights under the Fourth Amendment have been violated. John will sue the company for his damages.

 

Or, use a different example. John works for a private company that prohibits initiates a new policy after John has worked there for five years stating that employees are forbidden from participating in homosexual rights rallies. John does so and is fired. John will sue his employer because his First Amendment rights to free speech and free association have been unjustly violated.

 

The Bill of Rights sets forth many, but far from all, of your rights as a citizen. These are basic rights (depending, of course, on how they are interpreted by the courts). Those rights cannot be unduly violated by the government nor can they be unduly violated by the private sector.

 

There was a case almost a century ago about a policeman who was fired because he engaged in certain free speech that the department didn't like. The appeal went all the way to the supreme court. Oliver Wendell Holmes said of the case, "The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman." More recently, courts upheld firing policemen that were also members of the KKK because their membership in that organization undermined the legitimacy of the police department. And these are government employees, who are afforded FAR greater protection that private-sector employees.

 

Now in your second example, I have no doubt that the terminated employee would sue. And I'm sure that the EEOC would have a field day, but I really feel that case will fall under employment discrimination law and not under the first amendment.