Okay. I’m baffled by this.
Recently I wrote an article concerning Barack Obama and the national security leaks of which I suspect him to be a willing participant. I believe leaking secret stuff gives aid and comfort to the enemy, puts the lives of Americans at risk and is, generally, a bad idea. In my article I called it treason and suggested that the perpetrators up to and including Obama himself be tried and executed if found guilty.
Then a woman suggested that I was “threatening” the President. Really? By expecting the most powerful man on the planet to uphold the laws as he has sworn to do, I am threatening him?
Wonder what he thinks about the coffee mug I bought my husband for Father’s Day?
I guess some folks consider disparaging remarks about Barack Obama to be hate speech. Sadly, like the concept of discrimination, hate speech is thoroughly misunderstood by the masses.
Discrimination and hate speech laws exist to protect people based upon very narrow set of guidelines. You can’t hire or fire somebody because of their race, religion, gender, disability, familial status or sexual orientation – that would be discrimination. The same is true of hate speech. Your free speech is still free speech and thoroughly acceptable unless or until it attacks somebody(s) on the basis of one of those qualities. So, I can say I loathe Barack Obama until the cows come home, just as long I don’t do so because of his skin color, his sexual orientation, his religion, his gender, his disability or his familial status.
We must work hard to safeguard the free speech of others. We’re not required to agree. We’re simply required to tolerate the words and opinions of others - even when that speech is what we consider to be tripe.
I tolerate your Obama bumper sticker. You tolerate my Mitt Romney t-shirt. When I sip from a coffee mug that calls Barack Obama Public Enemy #1, it’s merely me expressing my full and unequivocal disappointment in the man and his administration. I get to do that.
Don’t you just love America?!