SCHOLAR: FREDOM OF SPEECH

Crime can be defined as any violation of law and it is contrasted against deviance in that sense.  Society through structural functionalism creates a culture from consensus.  Justice defends the current social structure of the society in order to protect and serve the people through the rule of law.  The use of language in our society has been attacked through multiple institutions.  There are modern examples of the implication of the attack on freedom of speech.  Not only are there those implications, those that were subdued remain in suffering as a consequence. Free speech is something all of us have taken for granted.  We need to speak up not for those that are too wary but those that are unheeded for if we don’t we risk the very fabric of our free and independent society, democracy. 

The origin of the labelling of crime originates from Babylon where they had an organized method in order to classify actions as such.  This method has been since expanded in multiple societies.  As civilization got more sophisticated, they then moved on to metaphysics which is where law emerged.  Through the enlightenment the free thinkers progressed society with great upheaval from authorities such as the church.  These thinkers challenged conventional ideologies at that time wherein they were prosecuted for their beliefs.  They were essentially deviants who were committing heretics.  Today, crime is handled in a methodic civilized way.  We in the west, no longer torture these criminals in such explicit ways as the iron maiden or the thumb screw.  Those are now considered violations of human rights.  Although crime and deviance are commonly associated or linked to one another, not all deviance is a crime and vise versa.  

Science and logic allowed society to methodically analyze crime and its reasons.  Through the concept of mens rea and acteus reus, we have therefore made extensive progress in our analysis of crime.  Mens rea can be described as the intent.  And actus reus literally is latin for the, “evil,” act.  Notice that the word, “evil,” is used as it is a direct link to the origin of former authority, the church.  The modern Criminologist uses the scientific method to analyze and evaluate crime.  They use both primary and secondary resources to identify causation.  Theories are developed in order to explain crime.  These are then applied to current crimes wherein innovations such as restorative justice use reintegrative shaming to promote communitarianism and interdependence within the society.

Through the consensus theory society subscribes to social norms.  This is a theory which attempts to explain social control over a population.  Social control is maintained through cohesion wherein laws serve to protect those in power.  Some criminologist argue that there is an ongoing conflict within our society where those who own the means of production take advantage of those that sell their labor in the labor market.  Regardless, both that are involved play a role in production wherein goods and services are sold in the factors market.  As you can see, this system operates accordingly where each is codependent on the other for maintenance.  This is explained through the concept of structural functionalism where society is considered a, “machine.”  This, “machine,” operates to serve the people and itself wherein those that are in power seek its continuity because they benefit from this status quo.  This is done through political socialization wherein parties that represent the government segment the population and target their supporters in order to be able to create consensus, thus the maintenance of this, “machine.

As structural functionalism provides a conceptualized explanation of the society, it is really important to understand what actually maintains this structure.  The idea of the rule of law is really the foundation of every contemporary society.  This prevents arbitrary execution of power or its abuse.  It serves to protect the people, yet it maintains the government structure.  Moreover, democracy allows consensus to be focused wherein people vote to have their rights represented in this state, “machine.” Our legal structure also serves to protect utilitarian values wherein the majority of the people are represented as such.  As you can see, the very nature of western society is built on these principles and therefore, is constantly being challenged.  One of the threats to this fair and equitable system is in disguise and its allure is to promote consensus through its appeal of the masses.

What is the purpose of communication?  Who does communication represent?  These are the types of questions we must ask ourselves in order to promote the progression of this societal, “machine.” In recent times there has been a rise in our culture with pertinence to political correctness.  People are being oppressed by a disguised, “tyrant.”  This, “tyrant,” is described in the writings of Karl Marx.  The, “tyrant,” in question serves to replace western freedom and equity with itself, communism or socialism.  This system has mass appeal because the majority of the people do not own the means of production.  This is a system where the common people seek to overthrow the societal, “machine,” referred to as capitalism.  It fails to recognize competition and seeks to shut down communication to save the, “feelings,” of people.  In our attempt of political correctness, we have essentially stopped the passion in our communications.  The fore-fathers would shed tears in their eyes if they ever were alive today because the free market they struggled so hard to create is slowly disintegrating to socialism.  Our free and independent society is being compromised in favor of saving our feelings.  The passion in our communications has been labeled as, “hate speech.”  This sensitivity in modern communications has caused many people to limit their divulgence of information which therefore prevents competition.  This limit in competition has potentially caused macroscopic effects which are contrary to adversarial innovation.  In societies attempt to, “shut down,” offensive communication in favor of, “feelings,” it has implicated the competitive nature of what our society communication is built upon, freedom of speech.  

In economics there is the idea of competition.  This competition allows for the greatest products to be released and or marketed.  It enables people to be innovative and think outside of the box.  If competition was removed, societal progress would be implicated.  The repercussions are damning as societal progress would stop and would function as a monopoly which would reduce societal efficiency.  On the other hand, if there is too much competition it would make a market that is too difficult to proliferate thus isolating people.  If we look at free speech with this lens, it becomes obvious that competition is being censored.  This is the fundamental premise of how the left lures people to support its, “machine.”  The censorship of free speech prevents people from communicating which then may potentially inhibit societal progress.  With consideration of the foregoing however, when contrasted against the USA’s first amendment we can see that their people have the ability to speak their mind without any government intervention.  Yes, of course we must operate in a civil manner but in Canada, censorship has caused a political system of oppression.  In Canada’s attempt to save the feelings of people whom they label as victims, they have essentially condemned and victimized the opposing side which today remains oppressed.  This clearly removes these people’s equity as they are unable to speak their mind.  This shut down of communication prevents critical communication from being conveyed which therefore potentially prevents societal progress.  I believe there is a time and place for every type of communication and, “locker room talk,” should not be shut down but rather analyzed.  A recent example of this distain towards this type of banter is with president Donald Trump.  He constantly gets criticized for his rash comments.  However, in my opinion his platform appeals to the common person, as that is the way people communicate and that I feel is the reason he won his election.  Another example is Rodrigo Duterte.  This president talks in a manner that is very offensive at times however, this is the type of communication that commoners don’t like to admit that they engage in but they do.  These people are protecting the freedom of speech that western society has worked so hard for.  Censorship is causing a society where people are in fear of communicating their opinion.  A more practical example is when a man took his dog to the veterinarian and wrote a negative review on yelp about the service he had received. The clinic then sued him because his opinion was not favorable.  Is this the society we want?  Are we so lost that we allow our feelings to supersede logic and free thought?  Who is the victim here?  

This upbringing or development of this type of power can be seen in regimes such as the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba.  In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin.  In China, Mau Zedong. In North Korea, the Kim’s.  In Cuba, Castro.  The people in these nations are extremely complacent and they are prevented from speaking against the government which therefore, creates or maintains their tyrannical political system.  From their perspective the victimizer is those that have the consensus as international relations prevents their communities from moving forward.  The victims here are the society and those that that are in the hot seat of censorship.  These are the people that get oppressed and forgotten.  They get forgotten because the concept of the victim encourages people to have empathy for those that are directly percieved to being victimized while neglecting to give equity to the other party.  This other party is often disintgratevely shamed for their initial insinuating comments and is then denied equity through censorship.  Although I argue this, it is also necessary to understand the opposition.  These can be examples such as in Germany, Hitler and Italy, Mussolini with the forgoing known to use slurs in his political discourse. These are the people that are attacked in favor of saving the feelings of another.  We in western society must therefore critically analyze our communication.  We must realize that indeed there is a time and place for all forms of communication.  It is important to not be lured by the left as their appeal will be the down fall of what all western civilizations have been fighting for, freedom, independence and democracy.  

In Canada forms of freedom of speech are being attacked and labelled as a crime.  Society through the consensus of saving people’s feelings is commencing the foundation of a socialist regime.  Equity is the casualty of this development.  Justice needs to reevaluate this concept of censorship as people are unfairly being oppressed.  The contemporary examples herein provide an explanation on the destruction of freedom of speech.  Those nations that have been silenced should be enough to cause an alarm. Freedom, independence and democracy are concepts that the west has promoted.  If society is to progress we must ask ourselves, are our feelings worth the sacrifice of equity?