directed at religious and racial groups should not be allowed. Thirty five per cent of people surveyed believed that offensive religious speech categorically should not be allowed and thirty nine per cent believed that offensive racial speech categorically should not be allowed. I believe that we all should respect one another and that calling people names based on their beliefs or their race is a disgusting thing, yet I believe it is dangerous to ban what is commonly called “offensive” speech. The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to say what they want, therefore self-censorship and thinking before we speak is the best way to avoid offending someone. Some people do not care about offending people and therefore will face the consequences of saying offensive things. The government should not be the one to legislate what is “offensive” or not, especially due to the large political division within our country. Additionally, marginalized groups and people have begun reclaiming previously offensive words. For example, American author Nancy Mairs has reclaimed the word “crippled.” In an essay entitled “On Being a Cripple,” Mairs, who has battled multiple sclerosis for years, declares “I am a cripple… whatever you call me, I remain crippled. .” Mairs even takes offense with other words used to describe her, words such as “differently abled” which she describes as “pure verbal garbage designed to describe anyone… [and] no one.” This divide creates tension between people who deem this description more “politically correct” and the actual people who are being described. Ironically, “differently abled” appears on a banned words list for being offensive, further demonstrating that there is very little consistency within groups regarding what words are truly offensive or not. As we have progressed in society, we have learned from our past actions, both as a country and as a society. We have begun to understand that words hold great power and that power is bestowed on each and every one of us. I firmly believe that this
power should continue to rest solely in our hands as individuals, and that all involvement of outside parties to regulate speech should be seen as an infringement of our First Amendment right. While I believe these groups, who argue in defense of Politically Correct speech guidelines or requirements come from a place of compassion, I believe opening the gate to limiting “offensive” speech via legislature is a dangerous practice, which can lead to censorship of whatever the people in charge deem worthy of censorship. This is why I believe the campaign to promote the use of “PC” terminology has only further divided the country as opposed to bringing us together.
By MaryTherese Ryan
22