In a single stroke, the author of the most recent Lariat editorial undermines his own premiss: Americans must learn to tolerate all religious views, except the intolerable, which should be stopped:

“His actions should be stopped before they mark the face of our foundationally tolerant country.”

My goal here isn’t to embarrass anyone by pointing out their incoherencies, and neither do I wish to defend Pastor Jones’ course of action as especially prudent. But there is a grim irony in seeing an editorial board use its first amendment liberties to advocate “stopping” someone else’s freedom of expression, as upsetting as that expression may be to some. To add insult to injury, the editorialist gives an unsettling nod in support of the heckler’s veto:

“Finally, Jones is putting Americans in danger. Fox News points out how extremist Muslim groups are handling the purposeful insult to the Quran — and it is not pretty. Riots are already taking place in the Middle East and individuals have already come forward stating intent to become martyrs for their cause.”

The idea that some speech can be so offensive, that it can cause people to break out in uncontrollable rage and violence–and is therefore reason enough to suppress it–flies in the face of the very American principles print media have so heavily relied on; principles which have been affirmed time and again by judicial precedent: Protect the speech, and restrain the violent.

Every class of citizen in the United States has, at some point or another, had to learn that living in a free society means relinquishing their “right” not to be offended. It used to be the case in Western culture, generally. Not so anymore.

Jones is certainly not faultless in this charade. But to call him “un-American” in this case shows a deep lack of self-awareness on the part of this editorial writer.

So here’s the question: Does the Lariat really think offensive speech, even if it provokes others to react in irrational rage, should be stopped?

I’m willing to post any response received.

Update: Someone pointed out to me “must” in the blog title is too strong a word for “should,” which is what’s actually quoted. I’ve adjusted the title for accuracy.