Thanks to Ed Fitzpatrick for letting me voice an oppositional opinion on the DePetro word-that-rhymes-with-S’mores controversy in his column, today. I’m more grateful, though, that he raised the free-speech question at all; it’s been discouraging not to see a broad media backlash against the boycotters whom I describe as unfit for public office.

(Of course, the media folks who would probably be among the most vocal in that regard have likely been instructed by the management at WPRO not to bring it up because they work there.)

Even without a “backlash,” though, a thorough discussion that takes seriously the notion that we’re in a delicate place, here, could provide Rhode Islanders some needed perspective. The more we look at political controversies, the more we can understand what’s really going on (or might be).

That leads to an elaboration on the point about the chilling effect of outrageous boycotts. In the column, I put it thus:

“It sends a signal down the line to talk show hosts — or me or you — that if you are thinking of saying anything close to the nebulous line of what’s not sayable, you might be better off softening your criticism or even going with a different topic altogether.”

The first part of the trick is to make words or entire topics impossible to discuss; that’s the chill. The second part is to cloak a political agenda behind the words. Whether the government should be forcing people to pay for others’ contraception, for example, is a legitimate policy question; whether we should conduct a War on Women is another. It’s acceptable to oppose redistributing money to able-bodied young adults; it’s not acceptable to be racist. Promoting as uniquely desirable the practice of a mother and father committing to raise their children together might still be allowed, but dehumanizing same-sex couples whose intimacies can never produce children is not.

In each of those examples and many more, the strategy of political correctness is to extend the chill of That Which Cannot Be Said to make reasonable arguments impossible if they can be painted with the smearing brush. If not just John DePetro, but his entire radio station, can be made to suffer for likening the behavior of union activists to prostitutes, then it begins to be an iffy thing to make any strong criticism touching on integrity or character.

Have union organizers deceived the public into promising unsustainable benefits? Have elected officials sold out their constituents for the benefit of special interests? Are the employees greedy for attacking those who shine a light on the scam? Are ordinary residents being transformed into a lower caste, to be abused for the benefit of insiders?

How dare you even ask.

The stigma only goes one way, naturally. Asserting the hatred, bigotry, greed, misogyny, and racism of people with whom the activists disagree will carry no such risk… at least it won’t until one doesn’t have to be a star on the top-ranking reality TV show in order to benefit from a backlash against the assault.