O P I N I O N
NOT THAT PROFOUND
By Nathan Graziano
Some of you might be put off by the fact that I am a pug and don’t speak in the traditional human sense. I don’t utilize my mouth and tongue and lips to form phonemes then words as a mode of communication.
But that is not to say I don’t have thoughts. I’m writing this column for that Gray-Haired Goober, and writing—you all should know—is refined thinking.
Believe me, when the two Golden Retrievers who live up the street from me have the audacity to walk past my house with their owners, I would love to be able to throw open the living room window and yell, “Begone, knaves!”
Instead, I bark unintelligibly behind the glass where no one, save the Blonde Woman and the Gray-Haired Goober, can hear me. The anatomy of my species, particularly my flattened face, limits me.
I’ve recently noticed a troublesome trend that seems to be limiting my human friends’ speech in the United States of America as well. Largely, it seems to be the suppression of their First Amendment rights.
I’ve noticed that late night comedians are being called out for comedy that is critical of certain people of a certain political persuasion and a certain president who seems to be vying for the role of a king.
We’ve seen this before when people tried to silence and censor the likes of comedians, such as Lenny Bruce and George Carlin and Andrew Dice Clay. Whether or not you personally find the comedy amusing or offensive sits beside the point: To draw lines around the content that a comedian can or cannot cover is to hobble the art form.
Personally, I’ve never been a big fan of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, but that is “for me to poop on,” not the government to dictate.
There has also been a perturbing trend of citizens scouring other people’s social media posts—particularly teachers and people working in public positions—looking for comments they can use to decimate their careers.
Again, why are people being punished for their opinions? How can you, humans, reconcile this with your First Amendment rights?
The point of the First Amendment is not to manufacture a consensus, rather it is the exact opposite. The amendment is in place to make open dissent possible and to encourage healthy discourse among the citizens.
If you find something someone else says offensive, move on from them, but do not try to punish or muzzle them. If someone says something that is factually inaccurate—as long as it is not slanderous or libelous—correct them and, again, move on.
For example, any of you are free to speak out against cheese, which I happen to love more than anything in our ephemeral world. You can hate cheese, call it unhealthy for pugs, and I can disagree, but we never need to speak a harsh word to each other. We can disagree, respectfully.
Do you see how easy that is?
Without free speech, you all exist on a leash, and take it from me, it is extremely restrictive to exist on a leash. Come on, humans. Do better.
Buster the Existential Pug would appreciate cheese for his efforts here. However, feedback would also be nice. Send c/o the Gray-Haired Goober, grazio5@yahoo.com