A couple years ago, a controversial painting was displayed at our nation's capitol. The painting portrayed police officers as animals. When a congressman dared to take down the painting, a debate over freedom of speech emerged.
An argument can certainly be made that the display of this painting represented support from Congress. This effectively attached the offended congressman to the painting. In many ways, this dispute came down to whether or not someone can be forced to make a statement he doesn't believe. Questions can be made regarding how the painting was removed since one congressman is not representative of Congress as a whole.
What came next was truly absurd. Many liberals argued that the painting had to go back up to respect freedom of speech. Although I am looking primarily at freedom of speech from an ethical perspective, they brought up the Constitution. Personally, I do not believe that either perspective should ever be viewed as a mandate for someone to say something he doesn't believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment