Last night I gave Edward a hard time for justifying the attacks on free speech by the Obama administration symbolized best by the writer of the script of “Innocence of Muslims” being picked up in the middle of night for a “voluntary” interview concerning possible parole violations. Edward conflated the making of the video with yelling “Fire!” in a theater claiming, apparently not being able to discern between planned violence and panic due the fear of burning to death, the outcome is the same. But, I find apologists for acts of censure and intimidation in order to smother free speech offensive and dangerous. Offensive because it goes against my strongly held belief system, more strongly held than my religious beliefs, more sacred. Dangerous because apologies and justifications enable tyrants to exercise ever more tyranny.
Free speech is sacred. Throughout history the one thing that could get you beheaded or imprisoned as quickly as trying to kill the king is speaking your mind when your mind doesn’t fit the accepted version of things.
A couple of commenters at Atlhouse made excellent points:
MarkW –
Fifty years ago, the ‘wrong’ kind of free speech ’caused’ violent reaction by the KKK. Would you have favored limiting pro-Civil Rights speech that might have ’caused’ violent reactions by southern racists in the 60′s? Would you EVER IN A MILLION YEARS have described civil rights activists as having ’caused’ or being in any way responsible for KKK violence!?
Rescinding free speech rights on topics which could lead to violence allows the violent to censor speech. Not only is this inappropriate, over the long term it would increase violence as everyone learned such a reaction would have the desired result.
Is it possible to have freedom of religion without freedom of speech? If you can’t openly express your religious ideals, do you have freedom of religion? Do we have freedom in elections is we can’t openly and fully express our ideas, concerns and observations?
Why do people want to limit freedom of speech? Because free and open expression is so powerful. As Voltaire said, the pen is mightier than the sword. Or Victor Hugo, “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”
That is why lefties don’t want corporations involved in political discourse. They don’t want ideas, powerful or otherwise, out there that run contrary to their beliefs. They want to control people by having as great a monopoly on speech as possible. Cowards also want suppression of speech, no challenge to their ideas, a false feeling of security, supposedly less violence because of less offending of violent people.
That is why the radical Muslims get so upset about “blasphemy.” It draws into question their beliefs. It asserts that something else is greater and more important than Mohammed.
But, true belief, true virtue comes from freely holding beliefs and and voluntarily taking actions, not from coercion or enforced ignorance. Great changes come from hearing new ideas, expressing and exchanging ideas, or being mocked.
Freedom of speech stands more sacred than any god. Without it, no god can be properly worshiped, adored or followed and no society can thrive.
I have to assume that you are not deliberately obfuscating. Therefore, I will again attempt to clarify. I asked a question. I did not posit that my reason in asking the question was to support limiting speech such as in the movie. You assumed that I did intend to support such limitation. Apparently, you still continue to do so despite my statement, “Dad, Your insistence on resorting to insult and argumentative positioning in pretty much all discussions really complicates the process of civil discussion. If you have ever read any of my entries regarding speech in the past, you should be aware that I advocate full and unrestricted speech with the limitation of that speech specifically advocating violence against others or the classic example of the crowded theater shout of “fire.” I find the Canadian “anti hate speech” laws to be abominable and a threat to continued freedom in that nation. I could go on but it should be clear that I do not support limited speech. “”
Calm down and consider discussing the concept outside of the matrix of religion (i.e., Freedom of speech stands more sacred than any god”). Freedom of speech and related activities such as art, public demonstration in support of positions, etc is a foundation of the US system. Do not assume that someone posing a question is automatically your enemy. And, for crying out loud do not think that every issue facing the world must be painted on a canvas of evil leftists and beneficent rightists.
I mention political speech and where do I mention beneficent rightists? I’m not a rightist although you may try to fit everything into that little black and white world. Here’s a post from 7 years ago where I say Bush will go down as a failure.
It’s quite simple, Obama, a lefty, is president. Due to the power that comes with that office, he’s the greatest threat to our freedom, etc. I’m a libertarian, if you want to reduce it to one word. I love freedom. Really love it. It seems abundantly obvious that I’m willing to tolerate more than you and many others in order for us all to have freedom.
More than anything else, politicians want power. With few exception, such as Ron Paul, they want to use that power to control us, take our money, make us behave as they see fit. I’m against that.
with the limitation of that speech specifically advocating violence against others or the classic example of the crowded theater shout of “fire.”
That example is not an example of violence. That you don’t see that draws into question your overall judgement. There was nothing in that movie that advocated violence against others. It simply mocked Islam and Mohammed. The other problem with your “advocating violence” canard is that it is open to interpretation and, as the commenter I quoted above says, it “allows the violent to censor speech. ” Plus, it’s quite clear from events over the past couple of decades with false accusations of racism, etc that the Democrats love to suppress free speech and will perpetrate lies and other misbehavior to do so. The blaming of the movie for this radical Muslim violence is a lie.
While your heart may be in the right place, your level of understanding is shallow. You demonstrated this before by claiming CNN was unbiased. I do remember some of what you’ve written.
I realize that your decision to consider your interpretation of free speech as a matter of faith means it unlikely that you might consider reading what others say. After all, faith is never to be questioned. However, you may wish to consider reading this discussion of free speech by Volokh, http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/1/essays/140/freedom-of-speech-and-of-the-press . It is a well thought out and dispassionate review of the issue and even includes a discussion of difference in interpretation by Supreme Court justices Thomas and Scalia. The article includes a list of specific instances in which speech is rightfully constrained.
It would appear that you are unable to tolerate any deviation from your rigidly fixed viewpoint. This goes to the extent that even posing a rhetorical question is interpreted by you as an attack on that viewpoint. That being the case, discussion is pretty much impossible. As to my heart and its placement or depth, they are not subject to your concerns nor interpretation. The purpose of discussion is for persons to exchange ideas not insults or silly trollisms.
In closing, I must confess to not recalling having commented on CNN. I watch it so rarely that am surprised that I would have commented one way or the other. Perhaps you could remind me of the location of that comment or are you confusing me with someone else?
It might appear that I asked my question in the wrong venue. Here is an excellent piece addressing that issue and arriving at what I consider to be the correct answer, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/17/free_speech_in_the_age_of_youube
Minor quibble. I much prefer sacred would be used in its religious context. I think free speech is an important right, one of our freedoms worth fighting and dying for, but not sacred. I have great faith in Christianity. It prospered when people were put to death for even talking about it. It outlasted Communism. I think it will survive. It’s greatest risk is not lack of free speech, but its being co-opted into a major political party. I think it would be fair to say that Catholicism’s darkest days were when it functioned as both religion and government, even worse than the modern day priest abuse issues.
“That is why lefties don’t want corporations involved in political discourse.”
We grant corporations unique legal protections. Corporate officers are shielded from the financial implications of their decisions. At worst, they can be fired, though in reality that usually means a golden parachute. In a partnership, the partners can be held personally liable and their personal assets lost. Under these conditions, I think letting corporations engage in political speech is a set up for further rent seeking and pushing our policies towards crony capitalism. Further, I am bothered by the insistence that corporate donations to political causes should be kept secret. Free speech does not mean that you get to shovel money to your candidate in secret so that they can pass legislation favorable to your business once elected. Those donations should be out in the open.
” the writer of the script of “Innocence of Muslims” being picked up in the middle of night ”
I was mostly reading foreign policy and am reading a book on health care for a review, but I went back and looked at this again. There are multiple versions about what really happened. In one version, the Ap figured out who he was, In another some govt guy gave out his name. In one version the brownshirt thugs came at midnight for him. In another, since the place was swarmed with reporters, they waited until midnight when fewer were around so that they could more safely transport him. At any rate, he has already made his film. If they wanted to suppress his free speech, they should have done it before his film was made. This mostly seems like partisan sniping. The film is still up. The guy is not in jail. However, on the foreign policy front, I think they had to talk with this guy. How did he get the money to make this film just out of jail? How did he get it up on the net? Who helped him? The rumors of Israelis financing it make little sense. I would be most interested to see if some Salafist group financed this so that they could have a cause to provoke rioting.
Steve
“We grant corporations unique legal protections. Corporate officers are shielded from the financial implications of their decisions. At worst, they can be fired, though in reality that usually means a golden parachute. In a partnership, the partners can be held personally liable and their personal assets lost. Under these conditions, I think letting corporations engage in political speech is a set up for further rent seeking and pushing our policies towards crony capitalism.”
CEOs are hired folks, just like any workers hired by any company. Crony capitalism does not result from too much free speech, it results from too much government power. Moreover, by your logic, union bosses are also protected from financial implications of their decisions. Some unions even use government power to collect their dues.
Last but not least, even individuals have special protections in bankrupcies. Does it mean no one can be allowed free speech?