Transphobic Bus Tour Incites War on Freedom of Speech
On March 22 and 23, a brightly colored bus began its nationwide tour in New York to spread its message of direct contempt with regards to transgendered individuals, and trans-rights. Following New York’s action in allowing citizens to use the restroom that they feel correctly identifies who they are gender-wise, New York was strategically picked as the starting point for this anti-trans tour. Although those who kickstarted this bus tour stated they did so with the intent to encourage and teach others to love the body they were biologically born with, their campaign was received as a hate message towards those of the LGBTQ community. In retaliation to the backlash from the LGBTQ, those in support of the anti-trans bus claimed that their opposition to issues surrounding the LGBTQ community, especially with regards to the transgender community, was merely an action of exercising their freedom of speech.
Although one might consider this entire ordeal to be a poor excuse for one’s decision to exercise their first amendment rights, I found it interesting to see the stark contrast on just what is deemed “going too far,” when it comes to others utilizing this constitutional right. For this situation in particular, it is clear to see that there is a very fine line drawn between the advocates of the LGBTQ community, and their conservative opposition. The battle between the two sides is quite evident when it comes to claims of freedom of speech. It almost appears as though one’s attempt at freedom of speech inherently offends the other, and vice versa. As a result, it is interesting to see how these two sides seem to both claim their first amendment right, while their beliefs are so divergent from each other, its difficult to even consider the two “equal” under the first amendment.
However, I feel as though is where the confusion surrounding parrhesiastic speech comes about. For although it might appear to be a simple concept to grasp with regards to one speaking their own truth and standing up to an oppressor. Yet, how does one react to parrhesiastic speech, when it starkly contrasts with your own parrhesiastic speech? Do the two cancel each other out? I suppose this complexity and uncertainty with regards to these contradicting viewpoints comes from one’s own internal belief of their own truth. Yet apart from this, one must also take into account for whom this truth is considered a ‘truth.’
However, although I thought this issue of the anti-transgender bus tour was an issue on the different outlets of utilizing the first amendment right, until I began discovering the aftermath of this ordeal. What first started out as what seemed to be a sort of ignorant action on behalf of a group of social conservatives, turned out to become quite an altercation with their opposition.
While the bus was parked in New York City, transgender rights advocates came and smashed the bus with hammers, and also grafittied messages calling for the immediate action of equal treatment of transgender individuals. Where has the freedom of expression gone, when now both sides are attacking each other? Upon discovering this outcome, I began to wonder if freedom of speech even exists at all anymore if the only way in which we can deal with aspects that offend or may go against what we hold as our personal truth is to deface and lash out violently against the opinion of the other. This is not the only circumstance in which we have witnessed the aggressive retaliation of two groups because of their differing opinions. In fact, this is a trend that has repeated across the history of the United States. The notion of being discomforted by the opinions of others is something that we as individuals struggle with on a day to day basis, so much so that in an effort to be “civil,” and to avoid conflict of any kind, most individuals would rather stay silent than risk opposition. As a result, I believe this further emphasizes the notion that freedom of speech is becoming a rather far-off and unattainable concept in the United States.
We live in a day and age where corporations have more control over what we say and see than we do, and I find that the hold on what is deemed to be satisfactory to say is becoming stronger and stronger, so much so that it has become apparent that one cannot fully speak their mind without receiving some sort of backlash and dismissal. Is this then the fate of being a parrhesiastic speaker in the current social climate? If so, then what is the point of even engaging in parrhesiastic speech in the first place?
I feel as though we are living in a very unstable time in this current social and political climate, and it is due in part to the fact that others are no longer tolerating the silencing of their voice by opposition. Yet, by what means has it taken for us to reach this breaking point? With the most recent presidential election, we have undoubtedly become apart of a very drastic change in a very short amount of time, and as a result, the demand for change has become more drastic. However, I feel as though this sense of chaos and uncertainty is causing us to draw some attention to very alarming facts that have gone unaddressed for many years — one of those being that our freedom of speech is no longer really considered a freedom, but a privilege, that a select few of the upperclass are free to exercise as they please, even if it causes emotional harm to others. However, fighting fire with fire certainly may not be the best way to combat this issue, for it completely undermines the whole point of parrhesiastic speech. Therefore, we are left with limited options; however as awareness of these types of scenarios continues to expand, so will the horizons with which we can combat the issues surrounding freedom of speech.
