There is no right to not be offended

I am writing to express my reaction to the columns authored by Chad Rhoades and Theju Jacob published in Tuesday’s edition of the Technician.

In the Freedom of Speech debate, people often misunderstand the definition and legal guarantees provided by federal laws and the United States Constitution.  The guarantee of law and jurisprudence is that government may not make laws restricting the freedom of speech or the press.  There is no regulation regarding the behavior of private organizations regarding the freedom of expression within the internal context of their operations.  Additionally, there is no “right to not be offended” by statements made in a public forum.

A common parallel stated in conversations regarding “acceptable” free expression is the firing of media personalities by their employers for making statements that contradict their employers’ interests.  However, this is not a relevant comparison when discussing free speech in a public forum.  These media personalities have access to mediums of broadcast (private company property) only as a component of their private employment — not as an individual right.  Accordingly, if a person violates their employment agreement, their employer is within its rights to terminate the employment of that individual.

Another common (but incorrect) leap of logic is that, since political-correctness is perceived as an advantageous stance in dialogue, all people should be required to adhere to the same standard of politically-correct ideas and methods of expression.  This is entirely contrary to the concept of free expression, as each person’s standards and perspectives naturally vary widely.  An idea or method of expression that one person finds to be “politically correct” may be intensively offensive to another person, and any attempt to establish such a standard would stifle individual expression.

A perspective becoming common is that statements made in the Free Expression Tunnel reflect poorly on the University as an institution.  Since the Tunnel is an unrestricted public forum, the assertion that opinions painted on its walls should reflect the views of anyone aside from their authors’ is invalid.  If approval were required for messages posted in the Tunnel, only then could the argument be made that those messages would reflect the views of the University.  However, since the ability to post messages is entirely unrestricted, messages painted have no bearing on the views of the University as a whole.

I understand that people may be offended by certain messages posted in the Free Expression Tunnel, and that everyone has a different perspective on what is “useful” and what is “garbage” in terms of postings made in the Tunnel.  However, the University is not a parental figure — nor should it be.  There is no right to not be offended by public discourse, nor should such a right exist.  To enforce such a concept would be to restrict the expression of a segment of the population whose opinions and perspectives are deemed controversial or offensive.  Additionally, to give in to this perspective would be accepting that people are so intolerant that they cannot respect perspectives contrary to their own.

As an exercise for the reader:  Envision a few concepts you consider to be “acceptable” versus “offensive”.  Now, consider that someone else may have exactly the opposite perspective of you regarding these issues.  Whose standard should be used to determine general acceptability versus offense?  Obviously, you would prefer your own standards — but so would the other person.  Why should society limit public expression using your personal standard versus the standard of someone else?

NCSU is a diverse community in terms of perspectives, interests, cultures, religions and preferences.  It would be impossible to design guidelines that establish acceptability and offensiveness that would be valid for everyone without totally eliminating expression.  This course of action is a slippery slope that would lead quickly to a new era of discrimination and restricted expression that allows only the most popular opinions and perspectives to be expressed.  This is the benefit of the unrestricted nature of the public forum — all views are welcomed with a foundation of acceptance for the right for all to express their opinions.

It is tragic that the increasingly-popular view among the campus community is that the Free Expression Tunnel is a blight on the reputation of the University.  Furthermore, it is a travesty that students are now calling for increased intervention and regulation of messages posted in public forums like the Tunnel.  I vigorously assert that the University should preserve the right for all individuals to express their own perspectives and opinions in unrestricted public forums, such as the Free Expression Tunnel.

Daniel Eckert

junior, computer engineering