Editing Radio Shows to Adapt To Hate Crime Laws
I think Mbrandon raises a very interesting point. If the message is toned down a little bit, isn’t that a little better than not being able to get the message across at all? Incrementalism, in other words. I tend to favor incrementalism in many cases, and in this case it seems like a good tactic. My only concern would be that if one were incremental when it comes to this subject – freedom of speech – then it raises the possibility that one is playing by somebody’s else’s rules to begin with, which is something that we don’t want. But, do the ends justify the means? I think that’s something that we’ll definitely have to explore. ]
Wintery Knight was the first I think, to pick up on The LifesiteNews article on Focus on The Family’s approach to Canada’s hate crime laws. WK put it in the US context as an example of how they and others will probably have to adapt to the new US thought crimes legislation that is now law.
Here in Canada, The Lynch Mob was first off the mark with some comments, later linked by Blazing Cat Fur, where the sharp young author of the blog picked up on the Chill factor. Reminding us of J Ly’s moaning about reverse chill in the summer, which might have explained the cool summer we had in the east if it were true, he showed us the example with Focus on the Family that the chill of the HRCs is being felt across this land, and that explains the cool summer better, methinks.
BCF got a comment from one of his readers “rabbit”:
I can see two responses to this item.
The first is that hate-crime laws are having the desired effect and people are behaving more civilly to each other. The second is that only in oppressive states do people fear to speak their minds, and the fact that people feel freer in the U.S. than in Canada is shameful for us.
Progressive versus classic liberalism. Which way to go?
But, a comment from Revnant Dream to The Lynch Mob was also telling:
Christians are to be the salt of the Earth. Not the cowardly mice. Silent & almost invisible.
Time people stopped following Churchianity.
I do not know the minds of the folks at Focus, but can see a point they might have. IF they are able to get their message across by toning the rhetoric without diluting the message, is that more effective than spending the time that some Christians have spent in kangaroo court these last few years? Can you tone the rhetoric without diluting the message?
Jesse Ferreras also weighed in a bit with an interesting piece. His point is we don’t really know what Focus was saying in the original LifeSiteNews piece. Without specifics it is hard to know.
But, my question that I will work on later is do we have the wrong message?