- The condition of being free of restraints.
- Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty.
- The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
This isn't a polite suggestion, it is the first thing guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. It is a right given to us by our own Constitution. So how can it be that some deserve this right and others should be censored? How can it be logical that one person or group's attempt to censor another be met with returned calls for censorship. It has been said that the best way to fight bad speech is through more speech. We can't solve arguments by simply muting our opposition. The best thing to do is to try convincing people to believe one thing over another because what one person believes as right may be wrong by others' standards.
I don't advocate restricting a group's right to protest, for example a gay rights protest. What I do advocate is attempts to persuade our elected representatives or the voting public that marriage is between a man and a woman, or whatever you may believe. There is always someone who thinks the opposite as yourself, so what makes you superior to another in saying that they shouldn't be allowed to speak their mind because you think they're wrong?
This brings me to my point; who made it that liberals are superior and should therefore be allowed to censor or suppress speech that they disagree with? This is the route dictators in the mold of Stalin, Hitler and Castro fight their opponents. If you disagree, you are shot. If you don't like it, you are shot. Or you're simply thrown in prison never to see the light of day again.
So liberals believe military recruiters shouldn't be allowed on campus. So what? Let them say it, but don't dare take their word for it. The recruiters don't put a gun to your head and say, "Join or Die!" It's your choice if you want to pay for your education through military service or by getting a job or just taking out loans. This doesn't change the fact that it's the protester's right to speak and the recruiter's right to recruit.
So a Christian believes that God created the heavens and the earth, and created man from dust and woman from a man's rib. Where's the proof that says the Big Bang created the planets and evolution created human beings? It takes just as much of a leap of faith to believe science as it does to believe religion. So why can't the two be taught side-by-side? Evolution along with intelligent design. If the student wants to believe one over the other, so be it, but what's the use in teaching one over the other and leaving them no choice?
If anti-war protesters can take to the streets and get in everyone's way trying to convince them that the United States is evil and that we're killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, then why can't an evangelist who isn't in anyone's way use horrifying but real pictures to convince pedestrians that abortion is evil? It's his or her right just as much as it is the anti-war crowd's.
I certainly don't believe that conservatives have never tried to censor liberals. That would be naive of me, but to suggest that we're as bad or worse than them is simply outrageous.