I, like
every other person on this earth, have my own beliefs on controversial issues
facing the world. While my convictions
may be strong on certain issues, I wouldn’t dare to challenge another person’s
right to an opinion. Doing so would
inhibit freedom of speech, which in my opinion, is the cornerstone of societal understanding
and progression. This is why I was
shocked when the mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, issued a public letter to
Chick-fil-A a year ago, stating that the chain wasn’t welcome in the city, and
that he would personally make it very difficult for them to receive the permits
needed to operate in Boston. So much for
the idea of a free-market economy, and allowing consumers to decide where their
money goes. God forbid a private fast
food chain’s ownership doesn’t support gay marriage. Do you think the mayor’s letter to the chain
served its purpose in attempting to incentivize people to support gay
marriage? Absolutely not. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that it
polarized and enraged a large group of people who share similar views to those
held by the ownership of Chick-fil-A. Benjamin
Franklin once famously stated, “A man convinced against his will is of the same
opinion still.” Rather than stressing
tolerance and acceptance in the promotion of gay marriage, the mayor took a
major jab at a very large and successful restaurant chain because of their
ownership’s view on a controversial issue, deliberately impeding an
organization’s right to believe what they wish.
Less than
30 years ago, the Missouri branch of the KKK attempted to exercise their right
to broadcast their views on a public television station in Kansas City. Understandably enraged, the city council voted
to eliminate the public television station, so as to not have to worry about
any repercussions associated with selectively denying freedom of speech to a
single organization. Well, the
intentions of the city council were obvious enough to the Federal Court that
heard the case brought by the KKK against the city, and the issue was settled
out of court before the court even had to render an official decision. The public television station, thus, returned
to air and the KKK broadcasted only a single episode due to the Kansas City
population’s overwhelming support of racial equality, epitomized in their
election of a black mayor. When society
is able to formulate a dialogue around controversial issues, progress and
civility always succeed. When censorship
in any form attempts to rid an entire perspective from existence, we all lose,
with one side feeling marginalized, and the other robbed of democratic forum.
I support
the allowance of any man or woman to marry whomever they may choose, regardless
of their partner’s gender. Nonetheless,
I recognize that forcing my personal belief onto others will only lead to
animosity and divisiveness. John Adams
once ruled that, “Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.” A truer statement may have never been spoken,
but in order to have democracy, two (or more) sides must be able to engage in a
thoughtful and open debate without attacking the other’s right to an
opinion.
So you
may be wondering by now why I bring up this issue today, just about a year from
the time that Mr. Menino wrote his heated letter to the corporate leaders of
Chick-fil-A. Well it turns out that he’s
at it again, this time issuing a public letter to Rolling Stone Magazine,
criticizing their decision to put a picture of one of the Boston Marathon
bombers on the cover of the magazine’s most recent edition. Shortly after this letter came out, major
national retailers, including CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid and Kmart, said they
would not sell the magazine edition in their stores. This ladies and gentlemen is what censorship
looks like in the 21st century.
It’s actually quite sad too, because the underlying article appears to
have very big motives in analyzing the factors that may drive someone to extremism. While the aims of modern-day terrorists are
many, one major desire is the attempt to silence an opinion that the terrorist
organization vehemently opposes. How
ironic is it that we deem it necessary to censor an analysis of those who wish
to censor us? We can’t preach freedom of
choice and opinion if we are going to intentionally block those ideas that we
find distasteful or disagreeable. I
actually admire the Rolling Stone article’s purpose because I believe it asks a
formidable question that we all need to consider: What motivates one to
practice extremism, and how do we counteract the violence associated with this
dangerous idea? Ignoring the issue of
extremism altogether is certainly not the answer to combatting its vicious
effects. When we analyze the problem of
murders in our country, is it wise to simply invest all our resources in the
process of investigation and holding murderers accountable? Or is it beneficial to attack the problem at
its root, seeking to be proactive in the battle against murders? To express my point in an overtly colloquial
manner, all things happen for a reason (or many reasons). Happy people don’t kill other people, and
thus, it is important to engage in the process of analyzing why people think
and act in certain ways. If we want to
truly combat any issue, whether obesity, sexual assault, or terrorism, we have
to implant ourselves in the minds of the obese, the pedophile, and the
terrorist. Not to offer too much credit
to the magazine article, but I believe this conversation could serve as a major
catalyst to societal progression, contrary to the inhibitive qualities of censorship.
So Mr.
Menino, I sympathize with you in the devastating loss of three precious lives,
and the physical and emotional injury of countless others. But promoting the dismissal of a worthwhile
discussion will not repair any of the harm done by these two extremists. Quite to the contrary, your letter only
serves to enrage and marginalize. Rather
than promoting one-sidedness, let us promote openness and serious
dialogue. And let us remember that where
dialogue ends, conflict begins. For the danger lies not in the idea, but in the preemptive dismissal of said idea.
