Inmy opinion the sentiments of John Stuart Mill still apply in thisparticular case as the manner and nature in which that one personconducts himself is exclusive from his ideology. To begin with eachand every citizen of any given country has that privilege of bearingfundamental rights in which freedom of speech, opinion and conscienceare inclusive, again they not only casually bear the said rights butare at liberty to make claim of their rights whenever they feel likethey are in one way or another being infringed. That notwithstandingthe citizens on the other hand has some designated duties andobligations which they are bound to fulfill towards the state. Thetwo entities for them to co-exist need a tradeoff system whereby eachentity should perform or accomplish all it’s supposed to ensure theother entity does not complain of non-compliance (Clark 2007).
Thiscase presents a scenario where that one person is using maybederogatory language or behaving in a manner that is not expected ofhim. Either way the behavior of that one person is not supposed toinfluence his/her opinion (Clark 2007).That one person has a right tohis opinion regardless of the manner in which he may present it tothe people. None the less since if mankind are of a similar opinionwill silence him, it may happen in exclusive scenarios where that oneperson maybe claiming to hold the right opinion or which he thinks ismorally correct but the same opinion may not be a modest one for thegeneral public and thus it may fail to convince the masses thus beingrejected (Clark 2007).
Inreal life situation if an opinion is not popular among the peoplethen it is either not morally good or it may not be beneficial tothem. Hence the masses are justified to ignore/reject it as it doesnot best serve their interests (Weissberg 1998). The example of JoeWilson according to my opinion does not present any exclusivescenario as the manner in which he conducts himself by either usingderogatory speech or words which are not expected of him does notaffect his opinions and hence the same measure that are generallyused in the context of tolerance should be applied to this particularcase accordingly (Weissberg 1998).
Thefirst student’s answer focused on two primary elements the firstone is freedom of speech and again the limits in which these rightsneed to be enjoyed or rather consequences that should accompany them.I totally agree with this notion that as much as people may beagitating for equal and open rights the same should be safeguarded bydeveloping constraint within which these particular rights should beenjoyed and the consequences that will follow. On Joe Wilson’s caseI still concur with this answer in the sense that a person’sresponse should be exclusive from his behavior. Thus the opinion ofJoe needs to be given priority before ranting on the manner in whichhe conducted himself.
Thesecond answer is basically framed from a limits point of view in thatas much as people should be allowed to bear rights certain limitsneed to set to ensure no one takes advantage of the rights bestowedupon them. The idea is modest and I strongly concur with the same asthis will check on people who take advantage of situations for theirown selfish objectives in the name of their rights. However themanner and modality of choosing the limits for rights needs to bekeenly evaluated to again ensure no right is infringed in theprocess.
Weissberg, R. (1998). Political tolerance: Balancing community and diversity. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Clark, A. K., & University of California, Santa Barbara. (2007). Political tolerance over time and across individuals: An intra- and intergenerational analysis. Santa Barbara, Calif.: University of California, Santa Barbara.