Following Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in the 2016 election, I concluded that an underrated aspect of his appeal was his vocal opposition to political correctness. In an article exploring this topic in the immediate aftermath of the election results, I observed that “political-correctness-run-amok and liberal overreach would lead to a counter-revolution if unchecked. That counter-revolution just happened.”
“There is a cost to depriving people of the freedom (in both the legal and social senses) to speak their mind,” I wrote. “The presidency just went to the guy whose main qualification, according to his supporters, is that he isn’t afraid to speak his.”
That parenthetical—”in both the legal and social senses”—is vital to understanding what we mean when we complain about political correctness run amok. The First Amendment vigorously protects controversial, confrontational, and, indeed, hateful speech, so it is somewhat uncommon for people to suffer genuine legal ramifications for said speech, although it does happen—particularly on university campuses. Organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and (less frequently these days) the American Civil Liberties Union exist to defend Americans whose First Amendment rights are challenged by the government.
Hellbound and Down 