God Bless Tim Hardaway. The former NBA All-Star put his foot in his mouth, and is paying a high personal price for it. But he sparked a debate that is an important one: are Americans ready to allow Political Correctness to trump Freedom?

In mid-February Tim Hardaway gave an interview at his home in Florida to a local CBS affiliate, in which he was asked to react to former NBA player John Amaechi’s having revealed a few days earlier that he is homosexual, and that he kept it under wraps all during his playing career. Hardaway gave a no-holds-barred opinion that he didn’t personally like gays, didn’t associate with them, and wouldn’t want one in the locker room. Immediately, gay rights organizations demanded an apology.

It is what happened next that is disturbing. The NBA picked up the PC mantra and banished Hardaway from scheduled appearances he was to make in conjunction with All-Star Weekend. He lost endorsement deals. He removed his own name from his car-wash business, fearing for the safety of his employees. Four days after the utterances, he succumbed to the vehement demands of the thought police, and issued a public apology. He told one interviewer,“It was like, you know, I had killed somebody . . . I never knew that this was going to escalate that high.”

There is no question that Hardaway lacks diplomacy. There is no question that his statements were offensive - even hurtful - to many. But in America, he has the right to his opinions and to voice them publicly. And the rush to silence him speaks of a larger problem that threatens to damage our social fabric and foundation of freedom. Worse, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of and disrespect for the principles upon which our society is based.

While some of us have some vague understanding that we somehow enjoy greater freedoms in the U.S. than in any other western nation, many an American might be surprised to learn that even our liberal neighbor to the north, Canada, limits free speech far beyond that which an American could comfortably tolerate. Bill-C250 (37th Canadian Parliament, 2nd session) makes criminal any speech which under fairly broad definition could be deemed “hate speech”. This includes speech made through electronic means such as telephone and radio.

The bill has become rather infamous amongst scholars of free speech. From the beginning, the well-intentioned legislation sent a chill through the conservative community, who argued that it would subject clergy who preached on the immorality of homosexuality to prosecution. The bill was subsequently amended to include a “not withstanding” clause which stated a religious exception. But the broad language of the amendment wasn’t adequate, and controversy grew. Over time, the bill has ended up protecting those who might be offended, rather than protecting freedom of unpopular expression - the hallmark of a free and vibrant society.

One controversy came in 2003 when a Saskatchewan man and a newspaper were both sued successfully, after the publication of a pro-Christian advertisement stating that homosexuality was condemned by the Bible. Three gay activists collected damages from both parties. Shortly after passage of the bill in the same year, a minister was sued for speaking out against radical Islam from the pulpit. He lost the appeal. Upon hearing the decision, one University of Western Ontario professor of constitutional law, Robert Martin, lamented, “Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated.

There is no question that freedom of speech in any country needs to have limits. In the U.S., limitations are specifically defined and revolve around the immediate public safety (see the “fighting words doctrine”). The law errs toward protecting speech - no matter how offensive, hateful, or ignorant - rather than protecting government ideology. In fact, as our laws read, speech cannot be limited simply because the government disagrees with the content. In this way, we protect the free exchange of ideas, and maintain the freedom-friendly ideology upon which we have built our free society. When we allow the government - or the more vocal activists - to intimidate into silence those who speak less popular ideas, we begin to turn our backs upon that which is American, that which is truly free. And we begin to allow the policing of thought as well as speech.

In January of 2007, an ex-terrorist spoke at an Ontario church against Islamic terror and radicalism. Lebanese native Zachariah Anani gave a talk entitled, “The Deadly Threat of Islam”, in which he spoke of having “killed hundreds of people in the name of Allah” before his conversion to Christianity. He explained how in his experience, Islamic doctrine advocated violence against “unbelievers” and how it posed a threat to the West.

The talk invited protestors outside the Campbell Baptist Church, and when Reverend Donald McKay learned that the church might be sued, and that Anani’s Canadian citizenship could be revoked, a second lecture was cancelled. And so Anani and McKay were intimidated into silence, for speaking about an unpopular subject. There were not silenced by the congregation, but by outsiders intent on punishing unpopular ideas, and controlling free expression. They used Bill-C250 to do it.

But could this happen in America? It’s a question we need to ask - we live in an era when it is essential to our safety that we raise unpopular ideas, such as the threat of militant Islam in our neighborhood mosques. Currently our laws allow us to express controversial views - but these laws are being challenged. For example the past two decades have seen the establishment of speech codes on American college campuses, prohibiting speech that shows bias on the basis of gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, etc. These well-meaning codes have repeatedly backfired, and thus far have been shot down in every resulting lawsuit. The Court basically says that the First Amendment - that is, the freedom of Americans to hold and express controversial ideas - trumps political correctness on college campuses. Thank goodness.

However, unchallenged speech codes continue to be implemented in schools and workplaces, and they continue to silence opinions that don’t agree with the mainstream - or at least with the most vocal activists. We may not like what Hardaway says about gays, but as Americans we must defend his right to say it. We must defend his right to think it. The fact that the NBA saw fit to punish him for his thinking should be alarming to all Americans. Some might argue that there are rules against such things as sexually harassing speech even in the workplace, that we need to limit speech in the context of employment. I would not argue. The difference is that Hardaway was not in the workplace, was not functioning as an active player of the NBA at the time of his comments. He was a private citizen, a retired player, simply expressing - however rudely - his concern that he doesn’t want to be ogled in the locker room by another guy. For this, he has been punished - not because he contributed to an uncomfortable atmosphere in a specific workplace, but because his speech - his very thoughts - were not in keeping with the reigning politically correct ideology. That is the shame of it.

Free discourse in our society is stimulated by controversial ideas; intellectual growth depends upon the spark ignited by opposing views, not by everyone agreeing to not offend. The thought that we all need to live never being offended is a bit silly. Given that the intellectual diversity and growth of our culture depends upon our willingness to tolerate that speech which we find most repugnant, perhaps Hardaway’s biggest mistake is not what he said - but that he apologized for thinking it.