However, with the ‘watering down’ of the understanding of the Amendment to include naked bodies, violence and sexual situations on your TV screen, movies, recordings etc., this of necessity also cheapened the ORIGINAL meaning; that is, protecting one’s right to oppose government or cultural institutions. Ergo, this kind of speech was seen to have no greater value than the use of cuss words on television.

As a result, when the ‘politically correct’ movement appeared, ‘free speech’ was ripe for an attack. Using the understanding of ‘can’t we all get along’, ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ (how I HATE that word!), people were criticized and even punished for their speech and, consequentially, their thoughts and opinions if they were considered belligerant or ‘hateful’. This same mind set even moved into the area of criminal justice and crimes were no longer judged by their nature, but by the possible motive of the criminal; that is, a crime against a person of a particular racial group or who had certain sexual preferences became a ‘hate’ crime and therefore of a more serious nature than if that same person had been just another member of ‘the majority’. Big Brother was everywhere, telling people what they could and couldn’t say and especially in public places (like the internet).

Indeed, I don’t see how ANYONE can be surprised when the force of law is brought against someone who has uttered (or written) a sentiment that can be taken as ‘intolerant’ or ‘hateful’ – which I’m sure is the way that this ‘blogger’s’ comment is being categorized. It is wise in these days wherein ‘free speech’ is limited to those sentiments encouraged by the prevailing Spirit of the Age but disappears entirely when it runs counter thereto, that one watches very carefully what one commits to paper – or to a blog.

V. P.