This is an excerpt from my forthcoming Ideas Afoot (Bromley Street Press)

One

To think, to speak, to be

Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the right of every Man, as far as by iy, he does not hurt or controul the right of Another. And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it needs to know.
- Benjamin Franklin / New-England Courant "Silence Dogood No. 8" July 9, 1792

Intolerance is abloom. Its breast heaves with smug delusion of moral superiority.

It prizes feelings over facts. For that reason, it is nonintellectual.

Traditionally, the understanding among inquisitive thinkers who sought discussion of existential matters was that one could transcend immediate circumstance. Obviously, none could offer first-hand insights into experiences they had not lived. But it was agreed that by incorporating diverse testimonies into their general world knowledge, they were better able to reason and speak universally. 

But in the hearts of intolerance shield bearers, none but members of Community X can speak about Community X. 

Not long ago, many held fast to the noble ideal enunciated by Voltaire biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

But those today jutting jaws under the intolerance banner have no such respect for opinion diversity. 

It is possible to completely support others' rights without sharing their every philosophy or agreeing with each decision they make. But to many today, embracing others' beliefs is a necessary component of  supporting their rights. That is an illogical 
formulation, but it is the one rallied 'round by vociferous hectors. 

Intolerance despises philosophical difference. It lashes out with claw and fang at the least hint of variance.

The wretch fancies itself sophisticated. But rational observers recognize crush-throat bigotry when it blusters around the corner.

Reflect on the bilious notion that it is acceptable to verbally bully and smear those expressing contrary opinions. (Doubtless, such actions are perpetrated as much to gild the culprit in the gazes of fellow Political Correctness bladesmen as anything else.)

Some who falsely hurl epithets surely do wrong with the dirty hope of stifling conversations. No one wants to be identified as a bigot. And some innocent persons, fearing negative social branding, retreat into silence rather than contest ideas. 

Totalitarians love quiescence. It makes domination easier.

A person once challenged my defending white supremacists' free speech rights, noting that I also criticize NFL players' National Anthem kneeling. The revolting implication was that I somehow sympathized with the content of supremacist speech.

Rather than marshal exonerative evidence, I'll simply borrow a line from Christopher Hitchens: "That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Persons who would seriously examine bigotry and expunge it from our shared American culture must acknowledge that some differences of opinion are legitimate. No one owns the issues involved, nor is it reasonable to denounce as haters all who see matters differently.  

Support for the liberty of a speaker does not equate to endorsement of thoughts they might voice.

The difference between one's own time and that of one's employer is also important, here. Street demonstrators, pamphleteers, and online agitators are at liberty to spend personal time in pursuits of their choosing and to utter views, whether fine or foul.

But during an on-the-clock event, professional athletes are bound by employers' standards. And this hardly applies exclusively to football players. An office supply store clerk, for example, cannot reasonably claim First Amendment protection for spontaneous cash register-situation renderings of entire Gilbert and Sullivan operas.

Horn-blaring attempts to disrupt public events, and college student petitionary efforts to pressure universities into withdrawing speaking invitations, fall into the fascistic category. So do the endeavors of pressure groups who deluge broadcasters and advertisers with demands, not that additional perspectives be featured, but that disobliging voices be stifled. 

The wonderful First Amendment, though, is not conducive to their repression impulse. It does not protect only speech pleasant to our hearing. And no right to not be offended by others' opinions exists. 

Historically, the Constitution's protection of speech proved of incalculable benefit to persons challenging injustices.

There is no need to unfurl a list of once-unpopular ideas that eventually bettered America. Nor must a thought offer that potential to merit legal safeguarding. 

Great minds have long deliberated over the rights of the individual in society. American judicial and legislative efforts have proceeded from the foundation of the Constitution, a remarkable document that altered the course of history.

The freedoms to consider what seems most likely and that best reflects one's values, and to give public utterance to those perceptions, are treasures no good man would seek to deny his fellows.

Still, the shadow of a scimitar wielded by waspish doctrinaires has today fallen across liberty's throat. 

So enthralled are some by imaginings of an enforced utopia that they overlook the obvious: Might does not make right. And there can always be a bigger group in the offing. 


*****