 |
| NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick |
The BBC News article "Colin Kaepernick protest: Trump tells NFL player to quit US" (2016) reports on the continuing controversy surrounding the decision of NFL player Colin Kaepernick to refuse to stand as demanded by the US tradition that shows respect to the flag and nation at the start of every football games. According to the article, there are supporters and critics of the player's expression of his opinion about racial problems in the US, both among the general public and Kaepernick's NFL colleagues, with the latest outrage coming from US Republican presidential nomiee Donald Trump, who has said that "it's a terrible thing, and you know, maybe he should find a country that works better for him."
_______________________________________
My Yes/No question is:
Do you agree with the US Constitution's strong free speech protection?
My answer is:
Yes, absolutely.
As I was enjoying my morning drug dose, this story caught my eye as a useful example of some points that are important to academic work that connect with the survey did last week on facts, opinion, true and false, and with the subsequent discussion on Friday. First, I can understand that Kaepernick's action is deeply offensive to many Americans. I can also understand why Aristotle, who was certainly a highly intelligent person and factually well-informed, would think that the Earth was at the centre of the universe, and that everything literally revolved around us. Aristotle's evidence and reasoning also make it understandable and reasonable that every educated person in the Western world would think the same for then next 2,000 years. But Aristotle and his followers were all wrong in their beliefs about material universe.
I can also understand why most human beings across the history of human cultures have thought that slavery was morally OK, being natural and even ordained by god or their preferred religion. That many, perhaps a majority, of Americans still held such a belief at that time was at least a contributing factor to the bloody American Civil War that raged from 1861 to 1865. But these pro-slavery groups were all wrong in their moral beliefs. As we often see, majority opinion, however understandable and seemingly reasonable, is not a reliable to right or wrong, whether in science or on ethics.
 |
| Some American Christians expressing their hateful opinions |
Obama is right to disagree with Trump, saying that the White House "disagreed with Mr Kaepernick's protest but that he had a right to express his views" ("Colin Kaepernick Protest," 2016).
___________
Reference
Colin Kaepernick protest: Trump tells NFL player to quit US. (2016, August 31). BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37223377
Free speach is one of the controversial topic right now. And, I also believe of freedom in expression. But how about the speach that may lead people to violent and killing each other? This maybe extreme case that happen in this world right now. In. my opinion, this kind of speach should be banned; however, this contradict with my previous stand because I agree on free speach. But, I don't want to live with people who are mislead and went to war against the humanity.
ReplyDeleteFree speech is a controversial and sensitive issue in many country, especially in Thailand. Thailand calls itself as a democratic country, but there are several elements that make it not quite democratic. The most important thing that the government derives from its citizens is the right to expression. Not to talk about the agreement or the disagreement on the topic, even the peaceful public gatherings are practically prohibited by the authorities who act himself as a law.
ReplyDeleteI agree that freedom of speech should be legally protected by the constitution. Things and topics should be criticized either in the positive or negative ways, but the criticism should based on the fact and information, not just only a hate speech which create nothing useful.
I agree that hate speech is hateful, but I don't think that is a good enough reason to ban it. That solution to hate speech seems to me too extreme, like chopping heads off to stop people from smoking cigarettes. Unfortunately, I think that democratic principle does require that the law protect even hate speech of the awful Christian type in my example: the Westboro Baptist Church in the US, and also the vile speech of politicians and religious leaders who, for example, blame women when they get raped saying that "they asked for it," or that they deserved it as punishment from god or karma.
DeleteI like Phu and Pun's idea. In fact, I'm not interested in about politics and other issues which are dangerous to discuss, especially in Thailand now. Because I think it's not relevant in my life, and I would like to live as peaceful. However, everyone should can express their opinions to the public but in the correct way which can avoid from violences. I like N'Phu's question that how limits can we express our minds which are acceptable? This topic make me think about my university which has a traditionall football with Chulalongkorn University in every year. My university, as many people know, they have parody models which are related the political issues. But some of them are not allowed to perform in the ceremony by soilders. That's why I can not understand, and it makes me to don't like to talk about it.
ReplyDeleteAre the Thai soldiers right or wrong to stop university students peacefully expressing their honest opinions at a sporting event?
Delete