The Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism on Free Speech
The Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism on Free Speech
By Denis MacEoin, The Gatestone Institute, June 19, 2016
One of the greatest achievements of the Enlightenment in Europe and the United States is the principle of free speech and reasoned criticism. Democracy is underpinned by it. Our courts and parliaments are built on it. Without it, scholars, journalists, and advocates would be trapped, as their ancestors had been, in a verbal prison. It is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, in the words :
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Without full freedom to express ourselves in speech or in print, none of us could criticize a religion, an ideology, a political party, a law, an academic theorem, or anything else we might feel to be misguided, flawed, or even dangerous. Through it, we are free to worship as we choose, to preach as we see fit, to stand up in a parliament to oppose the government, to satirize the pompous, to take elites down a peg or two, to raise the oppressed to dignity, or to say that anything is nonsense.
Sir Karl Popper, the philosopher, wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies in defence of democracy, freedom and free speech. In Popper's open society, all people have to be able to think and express themselves freely, without fear of punishment or censorship.
Closed societies are totalitarian and depend on claims to absolute truth. The citizen is not free to challenge the ideas of the state. Theocracies, including past and present Islamic states, rest for their authority on the rigid application of infallible scripture and divinely revealed laws.
The chief threat to free speech today comes from a combination of radical Islamic censorship and Western political correctness. Over the past century and more, Western societies have built up a consensus on the centrality of freedom of expression. We are allowed to criticize any political system or ideology we care to: capitalism, socialism, liberalism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism, even democracy itself. Not only that, but -- provided we do not use personalized hate speech or exhortations to violence -- we are free to call to account any religion from Christianity to Scientology, Judaism to any cult we choose. Some writers, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, have been uncensored in their condemnations of religion as such.
It can be hard for religious people to bear the harsher criticisms, and many individuals would like to close them down, but lack that power. Organizations such as Britain's National Secular Society (established in 1866) flourish and even advise governments.
It used to be possible to do this with Islam as well. In some measure it still is. But many Muslim bodies -- notably the 57-member-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) -- have been working hard for years to render Islam the only religion, political system and ideology in the world that may not be questioned with impunity. They have tried -- and are in many respects succeeding -- to ring-fence Islam as a creed beyond criticism, while reserving for themselves the right to condemn Christians, Jews, Hindus, democrats, liberals, women, gays, or anyone else in often vile, even violent language. Should anyone say anything that seems to them disrespectful of their faith, he or she will at once be declared an "Islamophobe."
I am not talking here about hate literature comparable to the ubiquitous anti-Semitic writing so freely available on the internet. Much milder things have fallen and continue to fall afoul of Islamic defensiveness. We know some of the more obvious: a novel, a bunch of cartoons, some films, some political speeches, and a few blogs which have resulted in savage floggings, imprisonment, torture, death threats and murders. There is plenty of vulgar anti-Muslim comment online, just as there is plenty of everything in the public arena. But Muslim sensibilities have become so tender now that even fair, balanced, and informed questions about Muhammad, his early followers, the Qur'an, various doctrines, aspects of Islamic history, the behaviour of some Muslims, even the outrages committed by them, are rejected as Islamophobic.
Politicians and the media rush to disavow any connection between jihadi violence and Islam, and hurry to protect Muslims from the anticipated anger that massacres might provoke. Officials are not wrong to urge against reprisals or hatred targeting ordinary, uninvolved Muslims. But many often seem too quick to avoid pinning blame on actual Islamic laws and doctrines that inspire the jihad attacks.
Just after the horrendous slaughter in a gay nightclub in Orlando on June 12, U.S. President Barack Obama made a speech in which he described the attack as an "act of hate" and an "act of terror". Not "Islamic terrorism" or even the misleading phrase "Islamist terrorism". Like almost every world leader, he declares, with gross inaccuracy, that "Islam is a religion of peace". It is politically expedient to deny the very real connection to jihad violence in the Qur'an, the Traditions ( ahadith ), shari'a law, and the entire course of Islamic history. Obama and many others simply deny themselves the right to state what is true, partly for political reasons, but probably more out of fear of offending Muslims in general, and Muslim clerics and leaders in particular. We know only too well how angry many Muslims can become at even the lightest perceived offence.
The list of threats, attacks, and murders carried out to avenge perceived irreverence towards Islam, Muhammad, the Qur'an or other symbols of Islam is now long. Even the mildest complaints from Muslim organizations can result in the banning or non-publication of books, distancing from authors, condemnations of alleged "Islamophobes" by declared supporters of free speech, the cancellation of lectures, arrests, and prosecutions of men and women for "crimes" that were not crimes at all. There are trials, fines and sentencings for advocates of an accurate and honest portrayal of Islam, its sources, and its history.
Danish author Lars Hedegaard suffered an attack on his life and lives in a secret location. Kurt Westergaard , a Danish cartoonist, suffered an axe attack that failed, and is under permanent protection by the security services. In 2009, in Austria, the politician Susanne Winter was found guilty of "anti-Muslim incitement," for saying, "In today's system, the Prophet Mohammad would be considered a child-molester," and that Islam "should be thrown back where it came from, behind the Mediterranean." She was fined 24,000 euros ($31,000) and given a three-month suspended sentence. The phrase "child molester" was based on the fact, recorded by Muslim biographers, that Muhammad had sexual relations with his new wife A'isha when she was nine years old.
In 2011, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff , a former Austrian diplomat and teacher, was put on trial for "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," found guilty twice, and ordered to pay a fine or face 60 days in prison. Some of her comments may have seemed extreme and fit for criticism, but the court's failure to engage with her historically accurate charge that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl and continued to have sex with her until she turned eighteen, regarding her criticism of it as somehow defamatory, and the judge's decision to punish her for saying something that can be found in Islamic sources, illustrates the betrayal of Western values of free speech in defence of something we would normally penalize.
The stories of the bounty placed on Salman Rushdie's head by the Ayatollah Khomeini, the threats and attacks against the artists who drew the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, or the murderous assault on the editorial team at Charlie Hebdo on January 7, 2015 are well known. Accustomed to free speech, open blasphemy, and satire, at home with irreverence for individuals and institutions, and assured of the legality of those freedoms -- threats and attacks like those terrify us. Or should.
But even more terrifying is the way in which so many politically correct Western writers and politicians have turned their backs on our most basic values. There are many instances, but the most disturbing has to be the reaction of Pen International, the internationally acclaimed defender of free speech everywhere, to Charlie Hebdo . PEN International is known worldwide as an association of writers. Together they work tirelessly for the freedom of authors from imprisonment, torture, or other restrictions on their freedom to write honestly and controversially. In 2015, PEN's American Center planned to present its annual Freedom of Expression Award during its May 5 gala to Charlie Hebdo . The award was to be handed to Gerard Biart, the publication's editor-in-chief, and to Jean-Baptiste Thorat, a staff member who arrived late on the day when Muslim radicals slaughtered twelve of his colleagues. This is the sort of thing PEN does well: upholding everyone's right to speak out even when offence is taken.
When, however, this was announced, six PEN members , almost predictably, condemned the decision to give the award to Charlie Hebdo, and refused to attend the gala. Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi exercised their right to double standards by blaming Charlie Hebdo for its offensiveness. Kushner expressed her discomfort with the magazine's "cultural intolerance." Does that mean that PEN should never have supported Salman Rushdie for having offended millions of Muslims just to express his feelings about Islam?
Peter Carey expressed his support, not for the satirists, but for the Muslim minority in France, speaking of "PEN's seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation, which does not recognize its moral obligation to a large and disempowered segment of their population." We never heard Carey speaking out when a young Jewish man, Ilan Halimi , was tortured to death for weeks in France, or when Jews in Toulouse were shot and killed. He seems to be saying that the French government should shut up any writer or artist who offends the extreme sensitivities of a small percent of its population.
Teju Cole remarked, in the wake of the killings, that Charlie Hebdo claimed to offend all parties but had recently "gone specifically for racist and Islamophobic provocations." But Islam is not a race, and the magazine has never been racist, so why charge that in response to the sort of free speech PEN has always worked hard to advance?
A sensible and nuanced rebuttal of these charges came from Salman Rushdie himself, a former president of PEN:
"If PEN as a free speech organization can't defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organization is not worth the name. What I would say to both Peter and Michael and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them."
Those six later morphed into something like one hundred and forty-five. By April 30, Carey and the others were joined by another one hundred and thirty-nine members who signed a protest petition. Writers, some distinguished, some obscure, had taken up their pens to defy the principle of free speech in an organization dedicated to free speech -- many of whom live in a land that protects free speech in its First Amendment precisely for their benefit.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation had succeeded in winning a UN Human Rights Council resolution (16/18, 2010) that makes "defamation of religion" (read: blasphemy in the eyes of its followers) a crime. But the OIC knows full well that only Muslims are likely to use Western laws to deny free speech about their own faith. Five years later, in December 2015, the US Congress introduced House Resolution 569 , intended to combat hate speech and other crimes. Insofar as it addresses matters of genuine concern to us all, it seems beyond reproach. But it contains an oddity. It singles out Muslims for protection three times. It does not mention any other faith community.
The greatest defence of our democracy, our freedom, our openness to political and religious debate, and our longing to live in Popper's open society without hindrance -- namely freedom of expression -- is now under serious threat. The West survived the totalitarianism of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union without any loss of our freedoms. But today, a new enemy has arisen, global in its reach, more and more often militant in its expression, rooted in 1.6 billion people, seated at the UN and other international bodies, and already partially cowing us into submission to its repressive prejudices. Since the edict against Salman Rushdie, there is no way of calculating how many books have been shelved, how many television documentaries have never been aired, how many film scripts have been tossed in the waste bin, how many conferences have been cancelled or torn down, or how many killers are waiting in the wings for the next book, or poem, or song or sport that will transgress the strictures of Islamic law and doctrine.
Denis MacEoin PhD is a specialist in Islamic affairs. He is currently writing a study of concerns about Islam in the Western world.
Tags
Who is online
692 visitors
The First Amendment vs Political Correctness
And the winner is..............?
Once again Buzz, who has his tender feelings hurt when it is pointed out to him that he constantly seeds anti-Muslim articles, seeds an anti-Muslim article. It is almost comical.
You remind me of this part of the article.
Muslim sensibilities have become so tender now that even fair, balanced, and informed questions about Muhammad, his early followers, the Qur'an, various doctrines, aspects of Islamic history, the behaviour of some Muslims, even the outrages committed by them, are rejected as Islamophobic.
When someone writes about Muhammad being a "pedophile" , what is the purpose of such writing Dean?
It has been repeatedly pointed out to Buzz that his source is an islamophobic organization, but his loyalty is to the anti-muslim viewpoint, and thus he does not care about the source.
Muhammad was a pedophile.
yes dean by todays standards , definitions and laws , he would be.
thank whom ever the old saying old enough to bleed is old enough to breed isn't commonly held as the litmus test today by so called civilized societies , they take into account how long it actually takes to mature mentally not just physically.
There's no historical argument to refute that truth.
"It has been repeatedly pointed out to Buzz that his source is an islamophobic organization, but his loyalty is to the anti-muslim viewpoint, and thus he does not care about the source."
In JR's opinion Gatestone is an anti-Muslim source, whereas most of the articles I have posted from that source have been written by Muslims. So John doesn't feel that Muslims have the right to criticize Islam. Actually that's right because by criticizing Islam Muslim authors put themselves in the same situation as Salmann Rushdie. John is more Muslim than the Muslim authors because he will defend Islam even in the face of the criticisms Muslim authors produce.
John, who has used rense.com as a source in the past, is no more than a hypocrite to accuse me of using a biased source. I did not concern myself with the source in posting this article, I concerned myself with the issue, which is forced censorship of criticism of Islam and its practices. Criticizing such censorship is censorship in itself, and in this regard, john is the Censor-in-Chief on this site. So much for free speech, eh John?
Buzz, do the sources you seed from normally criticize radical Muslims, or all Muslims?
I don't think I am wrong to post articles that have been written by Muslims about Islam, even though you are so devoted to criticizing ANYONE who criticizes Islam. I look to the issue and the factual evidence backing the opinions. You cherry pick something in an article to disparage the whole article, or simply blindly criticize the source. You ignore the fact that I have also posted articles that are positive about Muslims, to the extent of not even commenting on them, probably because if you did not totally ignore them it would defeat your criticism of me as being a die-hard Islamophobe.
If you want me to live up to your criticism of me, then I'll start posting articles by the bane of your life, Pamela Geller. I would have considered them too extreme, but after all if I am such an Islamophobe why shouldn't I post her articles? They would give you a field day disputing them, and maybe bring to the attention of the NT public information, including actual facts, that the mainstream press, in its sheepish political correctness, refuses to publish.
"Once again Buzz, who has his tender feelings hurt when it is pointed out to him that he constantly seeds anti-Muslim articles, seeds an anti-Muslim article. It is almost comical."
Once again, JohnRussell takes on the duty of an Islamist censor, not just to censor what I post (notwithstanding I have been posting articles that take both sides of Muslim issues) but to do so in an ad hominem insulting manner, i.e. a personal attack on me. By doing so he has proven time and again the whole gist of this article, which is critical of the fact that although we praise free speech, we are forced to curtail free speech when the topic is Islam.
Nowhere did the author write that Muhammad was a pedophile. What he did was provide some history of that accusation, even indicating that Muslims themselves have made the accusation, and refers to cases where persons who criticized Muhammad as being a pedophile were charged with an offence. He used that as an example for the whole issue of Islamic fundamentalist censorship and its effect on free speech which is the gist of the article.
Glory, glory hallelujah, JohnRussell is my censor,
Anchored in Islam, he shall not be moved
Just like a tree that's planted by the waters
John shall not be moved
"Some of her comments may have seemed extreme and fit for criticism, but the court's failure to engage with her historically accurate charge that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl and continued to have sex with her until she turned eighteen, regarding her criticism of it as somehow defamatory"
W riting about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, the Orientalist scholar W Montgomery Watt wrote: "Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned as Muhammad." His quote seems all the more poignant in light of the Islamophobic film Innocence of Muslims, which has sparked riots from Yemen to Libya and which, among other slanders, depicts Muhammad as a paedophile.
This claim is a recurring one among critics of Islam , so its foundation deserves close scrutiny.
Critics allege that Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad, himself in his 50s, and only nine when the marriage was consummated. They base this on a saying attributed to Aisha herself (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234), and the debate on this issue is further complicated by the fact that some Muslims believe this to be a historically accurate account. Although most Muslims would not consider marrying off their nine-year-old daughters, those who accept this saying argue that since the Qur'an states that marriage is void unless entered into by consenting adults, Aisha must have entered puberty early.
They point out that, in seventh-century Arabia, adulthood was defined as the onset of puberty. (This much is true, and was also the case in Europe: five centuries after Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, 33-year-old King John of England married 12-year-old Isabella of Angoulême.) Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha's age at marriage.
According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was six at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of Aisha's age as given in the saying. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What's more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being six.
In addition, some modern Muslim scholars have more recently cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha's young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the prophet) is considered secondary to the Qur'an. While the Qur'an is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha's age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to 19.
Because of this, it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was. What we do know is what the Qur'an says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse. As the living embodiment of Islam, Muhammad's actions reflect the Qur'an's teachings on marriage, even if the actions of some Muslim regimes and individuals do not.
Sadly, in many countries, the imperatives motivating the marriage of young girls are typically economic. In others, they are political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia have both sought to use the saying concerning Aisha's age as a justification for lowering the legal age of marriage tells us a great deal about the patriarchal and oppressive nature of those regimes, and nothing about Muhammad, or the essential nature of Islam. The stridency of those who lend credence to these literalist interpretations by concurring with their warped view of Islam does not help those Muslims who seek to challenge these aberrations.
The Islamophobic depiction of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as motivated by misplaced desire fits within a broader Orientalist depiction of Muhammad as a philanderer. This idea dates back to the crusades. According to the academic Kecia Ali: "Accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet's character and, by extension, on the authenticity of Islam."
Since the early Christians heralded Christ as a model of celibate virtue, Muhammad – who had married several times – was deemed to be driven by sinful lust. This portrayal ignored the fact that before his marriage to Aisha, Muhammad had been married to Khadija, a powerful businesswoman 15 years his senior, for 25 years. When she died, he was devastated and friends encouraged him to remarry. A female acquaintance suggested Aisha, a bright and vivacious character.
Aisha's union would also have cemented Muhammad's longstanding friendship with her father, Abu Bakr. As was the tradition in Arabia (and still is in some parts of the world today), marriage typically served a social and political function – a way of uniting tribes, resolving feuds, caring for widows and orphans, and generally strengthening bonds in a highly unstable and changing political environment. Of the women Muhammad married, the majority were widows. To consider the marriages of the prophet outside of these calculations is profoundly ahistorical.
What the records are clear on is that Muhammad and Aisha had a loving and egalitarian relationship, which set the standard for reciprocity, tenderness and respect enjoined by the Qur'an. Insights into their relationship, such as the fact they liked to drink out of the same cup or race one another, are indicative of a deep connection which belies any misrepresentation of their relationship.
To paint Aisha as a victim is completely at odds with her persona. She was certainly no wallflower. During a controversial battle in Muslim history, she emerged riding a camel to lead the troops. She was known for her assertive temperament and mischievous sense of humour – with Muhammad sometimes bearing the brunt of the jokes. During his lifetime, he established her authority by telling Muslims to consult her in his absence; after his death, she went to be become one of the most prolific and distinguished scholars of her time.
A stateswoman, scholar, mufti, and judge, Aisha combined spirituality, activism and knowledge and remains a role model for many Muslim women today. The gulf between her true legacy and her depiction in Islamophobic materials is not merely historically inaccurate, it is an insult to the memory of a pioneering woman.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
Way to miss the point, John. I assume you do it on purpose.
There is no proof that Muhammad was a pedophile, since it is a modern terminology. If marriage to young girls was the accepted practice at the time, his 'pedophilia' may have been a norm. Since pedophilia is considered a personality DISORDER, by definition it cannot be conformed to a norm.
Whether or not M was a pedophile is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is CENSORSHIP, i.e. the limits on free speech should anyone be critical of Islam. Deny THAT, John.
In fact you react so strongly when I post an article that you consider Islamophobic, you yourself have become an Islamic fundamentalist censor, have you not. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and issue a fatwa against me, Mr. censor.
John is dodging the real issue using deflection, Buzz. He has no counter arguments.
Buzz, you want to post things that denigrate Muslims.
Gatestone does not distinguish between "radical Islam" and Islam. To Gatestone all of it is no good.
You have a right to post it and others have a right to point out it is anti-Muslim.
If pointing out and speaking of the problems that could arise because a religions teaching is denigrating to it , then it might be time for that religion to reassess its teaching . haven't met or seen a religion yet that doesn't have issues that conflict with society at large. I am sure I am now considered an islamaphobe for pointing out some factual issues .
Well said. If Christians were as sensitive and intolerant as mainstream muslims, there would be daily riots and violence in the west.
EXCELLENT article, Buzz! It's on point, and the only defense that the pro-censorship left can muster is ad hominem attacks on the author and the seeder.
Come on Buzz.
Making a case that one of the signs of just how bad Islamic based governments are is by pointing out how they try to control their citizens freedom of access to information & the sharing of ideals over public outlets, by someone that's living a very happy life in a governmental system that maintains a very similar strangle hold over their own citizens freedom of speech?
Really?
Go after their treatment of homosexuals. Hell our laws stopped killing ours gays back in the early 1800's, we stopped putting them in jail in the 1970's and now we've even recently reached the point that we can't spit on them when they come in to ask for help with their weddings. When Oh When will those fuxing Islamist catch up to we, the enlightened?
Go after their treatment of women. Hell we gave married women the right to own their own property all the way back in the 1830, we gave them a voice in their own government all the way back in the 1920's, and more than half the country will agree it's time for the first American Women President this year. When Oh When will those fuxing Islamist catch up to we, the enlightened?
Woo. Guess I need another cup of coffee. (smile)
"Come on Buzz.
Making a case that one of the signs of just how bad Islamic based governments are is by pointing out how they try to control their citizens freedom of access to information & the sharing of ideals over public outlets, by someone that's living a very happy life in a governmental system that maintains a very similar strangle hold over their own citizens freedom of speech?
Really?"
So you too have found a method to criticize and in essence censor what I posted by indicating (softly) that I am a hypocrite? I guess I cannot post a criticism of anything that is also common where I live? Well, okay, I guess I can't say anything about pollution then either, nor can I say anything about human rights, nor can I say anything about non-democratic political systems, nor gun control.....Tell me, AK, should I run my intended articles past you for your approval before I post them?
Maybe I should just stick to classic movies and photography - at least I don't get shot at for those.
By the way, AK, I don't really care what Islamist fundamentalists do in their own Muslim countries, as long as they don't try to carry out their own form of censorship in non-Muslim countries. In other words, don't bring their own form of censorship to Western "free speech" countries.
So you too have found a method to criticize and in essence censor what I posted by indicating (softly) that I am a hypocrite?
Buzz you're doing that thing again. That thing where you hear words never spoken.
I saw no hypocrisy in your seed, just a bit of delicious irony that tickled my sense of humor enough that it stirred me out of my more usual "Boo Radley" life style.
I expect seeds here that boil down to "Muuslem's bad because_________", (pretty standard fare lately), and I usually just watch them play out but your choice of "The First Amendment vs Political Correctness And the winner is..............?" being seeded from China was just too delicious to ignore.
My wife would often exclaim, "You've got a WARPED sense of humor!", guess she was correct, as usual. (smile)
It's OK, AK, you can laugh at me. I've got broad shoulders. LOL
Buzz , very thought provoking article . I wouldn't say its defamatory or that the source doesn't have a kernel of truth in it .
The premise of the article I take away is religious freedom vs what exactly the 1st amendment allows is a religion truly free to exercise everything it wishes to teach, or are there certainly limitations ? I say there are , that societal non secular law must be adhered to even at the risk of encroaching on religious teachings and doctrine , hence my thought that fundamentalist islam is not compatable with the US in general or the laws there of .
All religions should have to follow the same non secular laws of the country they are in like those laws or not , and there should be no, absolutely no special hall pass for any religion .
Mark, do you not mean "secular" rather than "non-secular"?
what I mean is non religion dictated laws or rules , secular law to me is religious law unless I have the definition wrong. which could be the case as well.
it never hurts to ask what someone means.
"... secular law to me is religious law unless I have the definition wrong. which could be the case as well."
To end your confusion with this:
DICTIONARY.COM
secular
thanks buzz , glad you asked what I meant and cleared things up.
Free speech is a constitutional right and cannot be abridged even if it's offensive. Political correctness is a personal choice and should be left that way.