Two items of relevance before we can hop off the free-speech bandwagon (I have one in the queue for tomorrow as well). First, you should read the interview in Christianity Today with Kirsten Powers, who’s not only a Christian but a correspondent for Fox News. How screwed up is it when someone with those credentials has the right attitude on free speech and someone who works for the American Humanist Association (see below) gets it wrong? Well, Powers is also a Democrat and a free-speech advocate, and has just published a book called The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. The title is right on the mark, and with her background Powers is really going to rile up the Left. There’s nothing more telling than the cognitive dissonance we see among Liberals when their professed concern for the underdog collides noisily with their professed concern for free speech. What you get is lip service to the latter and genuine osculation of the former.
It’s bizarre when I find myself agreeing with a person like Powers, but in the whole interview the only thing I find dubious is her claim that Christians are being muzzled—a familiar and insupportable claim from the Right. However, look at these other excerpts from her interview:
Our conception of free speech in this country comes directly, indisputably, from liberals. We would not understand free speech the way we do today if not for—and I’m sorry to say, conservatives who don’t want to hear it—the American Civil Liberties Union, and liberal Supreme Court justices who charted the course of expanding the view of the First Amendment, and activists during the Vietnam War. So this is a core part of American liberalism. So we have people who call themselves liberals on the Left of the political spectrum, acting in complete contradiction of their values and the arguments that underlie them.
In the book I reference Steven Pinker, a psychologist at Harvard and somewhat of a libertarian. He says that you can’t have knowledge where disagreement and dissent are not possible. That should be intuitively obvious; otherwise you get groupthink. But the illiberal Left is circumventing that process: “We’ve already decided what’s true, and if you dissent from that, we’re going to treat you as someone who deserves to be punished and lose their job or be expelled or get a bad grade.” The loss is that we all lose information and knowledge. Research doesn’t get done because people are afraid of reaching the wrong conclusions, or they’re never there in the first place because they can’t even get hired.
Liberal theorists came up with the correct theory that you can’t have real knowledge without diversity; you have to have different people coming with different ideas. If you have such a homogenous group racially or gender-wise, [the illiberal Left] would be alarmed. They argue that you need to have people of different cultures and people of different experiences and people of different genders because that brings a robust diversity to education. Today it’s, “Let’s get a bunch of people with different skin colors and different genders and different socioeconomic backgrounds who all think the exact same way.” And what they’re doing is intellectually rigorous?
And doesn’t the following excerpt remind you of anyone—or perhaps of a group of people?:
But what struck me while writing the book is that the illiberal Left reminds me of religious zealots, except of a secular religion. The average religious person has their beliefs, but they’re not trying to get people fired who don’t have their beliefs. But zealots do do that. It’s not enough for them to believe it; they can’t tolerate other people who don’t believe what they believe, and they have this absolute certainty that they’re right. It’s self-sanctifying. They have to establish that they are morally superior to people who disagree with them. It’s social signaling: “My identity comes from the fact that I’m pro-gay marriage and pro-choice and believe in climate change and oppose charter schools.”
There’s nothing wrong with believing those things. It’s the need to de-legitimize anybody who doesn’t believe them, that puts them in a different category.
What strikes me about the liberalism of today’s students versus that of my generation (here’s the Old Geezer talking) is that we didn’t have the Internet, so we couldn’t just sit behind our keyboards and demonize our opponents. Any activism had to involve actually getting out and doing stuff: leafletting, demonstrating, doing sit-ins, and the like. In fact, I feel bad now that I spend most of my time writing about social change and not time doing stuff to change society. At any rate, the illiberal Left that Powers chastises is substituting the policing of language for the changing of a culture. The notion that the former causes the latter has yet to be demonstrated.
*******
On the other hand, we have a true member of the illiberal Left, Matthew Bulger, chewing out Pamela Geller and the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists for stirring the pot and, in fact, supposedly making things worse in the guise of promoting free speech. The scary thing is that Bulger is the legislative associate for the American Humanist Association, and wrote his screed, “Artistic activism or disguised discrimination?“, at The Humanist.com. It’s the usual mealymouthed lip service to free speech followed by the big BUT conveying that we should be very judicious about how we use it. A sample:
The right to criticize and even publicly lampoon important religious teachings and figures is receiving a robust public defense because many Americans rightly see attempts to limit free speech and satire, whether by the government or by fellow citizens, as undemocratic and dangerous. Still, concerns about the increasing ostracism of marginalized communities like Muslim Americans and how that social exclusion may simply breed more religious extremismhave raised fair questions about how far speech can or should go.
Do these events further free speech? Or do they just serve as an outlet for some to express Islamophobia and create propaganda for Islamists who can use the drawings to convince vulnerable Muslim Americans of their isolation from society and of the appeal of fundamentalist religion and its sense of community?
It’s clear where the answer lies for Bulger. We should simply shut the hell up and stop antagonizing Muslims, for in the end that just makes things worse for everyone. Here’s the big BUT:
The question is not whether these events should be allowed to exist, but whether or not the free speech advocacy community should utilize them in their valiant effort to protect one of the most essential human rights. It’s highly doubtful that the press surrounding these events and the occasional yet horrific attacks on its organizers do enough to promote the idea that no one or no thing is safe from the pen. More often, it just alienates the large number of progressive Americans and moderate Muslims who support free speech but oppose the race-baiting and Islamophobia that can be present at the events and in related media.
Well, perhaps these events might motivate the large number of Muslims said to support free speech to get off their duffs, disavow the terrorists, and actually do something about defending free speech. Granted, many American Muslims did just that after the Texas attacks, but would they have done so had not two of their coreligionists tried to commit murder? In my view Geller, however odious you find her, did the right thing by having an exhibit of Muhammad drawings, for it made American Muslims sit up and realize that they had better say something to decry this violence. And once they say that, it’s hard to take it back.
Bulger goes on. I’ve put his lip service in bold, and his big BUT in italics:
As a humanist, the freedom of speech, and even the freedom to cause offense or insult to religious Americans who hear my sincere criticisms of their religious beliefs, is a crucial right that I will always work to defend. But humanists also place a lot of value in being reasonable and pursuing ideas which will leave a tangible and positive impact. While there are claims that “Draw Mohammad” events further the freedom of speech, the proof just isn’t there. Our rights are no more secure than before these events started, and the only noticeable change in our society since they began is more violence and discrimination.
This is reprehensible nonsense. What Bulger is arguing here is that the way we must make our freedom of speech more secure is not to use it, at least not when it riles up people. But that’s precisely when free speech is most needed. As Powers said, “Liberal theorists came up with the correct theory that you can’t have real knowledge without diversity; you have to have different people coming with different ideas.” One of those ideas is that much of the religious ideology of Islam, including its murderous response to mockery, is to be publicly decried. Presumably Bulger wouldn’t have a problem with “sincere criticism” of Christianity. But when it’s sincere criticism of Islam—and that is surely what Charlie Hebdo, and even Geller, were trying to do—then we’d better shut up because our precious necks are on the line.
Shame on the American Humanist Association for promoting such censorship.
I am not so sure it is a left/right issue. I know those in academia might notice more of the chilling of free speech coming from liberals.
But I’d invite you to ask, say, an atheist who serves in the military or in corporate America about free speech in those settings.
It appears to me that what is really going on is that those who feel as if they have some power really don’t tolerate disagreement all that well. 🙂
So, yes, she has a valid point, but I’d also say something about “glass houses” too.
sub
Sub.
subsume
█
Many Christian support free speech insofar as they support criticism of Islam. When I mention people like Raif Badawi I get overwhelming sympathy from Christians about his cause. Never mind that he might support secular causes, their motivation to support him comes from their desire to have Islam reformed (or in some cases privately wish for its demise).
Sub
Sigh…
The answer to this complaint is in Frum’s Atlantic article:
I think that sums it up in total.
I’m likely in the minority here, because my view is that if the “Draw Muhammed” contest was indeed ONLY organized BECAUSE a pro-Islam event had been held there earlier in the year, then it WASN’T about anything as noble as free speech, but rather a poorly-veiled justification for thumbing noses at Muslims.
And to what end? Solidarity with Charlie Hebdo? No; Charlie Hebdo was in the business of pointed editorial criticism and social commentary, with many targets beyond Things That Piss Off Muslims. One cartoonist’s perspective makes a statement; this was more akin to a mob lynching. I’m a raving anti-theist, but even I know the difference between making a point and being a bully.
No, to me the “Draw Muhammed” event appeared as little more than a gaggle of indignant, adolescent rednecks using the veneer of constitutional authority as a means to ‘legally’ flip Muslims the bird. In some circles they’d call that hate speech.
And a contest of WHAT, exactly? Whose pen and ink makes the best mockery of some religious idol? To what end? THAT’S furthering ‘free speech’?? It doesn’t compute.
(And with that many SWAT members hired for guarding the event, really, does ANY OF US have any illusions about what the organizers’ intent was?)
Consider: The Westboro Baptist Church picketing funerals with “God hates fags” signs is also free speech, but any REASONABLE person would agree that it’s noxious, provocative, completely unnecessary and ultimately unproductive. And there’s the rub. For if such unproductive behavior is defended under the banner of free speech, but does nothing to further free speech itself, just one group’s misguided theocentricism, then what ‘knowledge’ is learned? That mean words can hurt?
So I don’t buy the argument that this is furthering free speech. Go ahead and take a stand against extremist Islamism—or ANY religion; I do—but we shouldn’t be patting ourselves on the backs that events like this are about Defending Free Speech. In the minds of many, this only tightens the grip of xenophobia; hardly productive and, like the Westboro Baptist Church, hardly anything we should aspire to.
Lastly, in response to Kirsten Powers’ quote:
“There’s nothing wrong with believing those things. It’s the need to de-legitimize anybody who doesn’t believe them, that puts them in a different category.”
It seems remarkable to me that the subtext has gone unanswered here: Christianity was built on the systematic de-legitimization of non-Christians: Find Jesus or be eternally damned. In its best light it’s hate speech wrapped in allegory, based on the ignorant, superstitious attitudes of largely illiterate primitives. So to de-legitimize a non-Christian—or worse, an atheist—while championing such insufferably wrong-headed folklore, is the very rationale by which one must erect a threshold for Acceptable Intellectual Standards and expose those who would attempt to. Faith is one thing, but influencing public policy—policies that impact lives in ways those primitives could never have foreseen—using faith is another entirely.
This is the age of information; it’s time to act like it. Call out the charlatans.
What if I announce that I’m visualizing a drawing of The Prophet in my mind. Is that alright?
“(And with that many SWAT members hired for guarding the event, really, does ANY OF US have any illusions about what the organizers’ intent was?)”
Words fail. The man who wears a seat-belt wants to crash; the woman who caries mace wants to be mugged; the cyclist who wears a helmet …
But those analogies are too kind. Most readers here can supply their own.
I’m not sure if you’re missing the poster’s point or not, since your analogies actually are not good ones at all. She (?) seems to be saying the event organizers had the motive of provoking violence. I have no idea if that’s true or not, but it seems plausible, and many have so claimed. But none of your analogies have an (err) analogous motive.
Delphin’s point is that protecting yourself from possible harm does not mean you intend to be or are inviting harm.
“…does not mean you intend to be *harmed* or are…”
Truthfully, I am mostly indifferent about the legitimization of free speech. Some of its good, some of its bad.
I do enjoy, however, how Westboro has a humiliating effect on other Christians. Their actions make many of the Christians that I know ashamed of their unavoidable link to that organization.
Further, I never heard of Hebdo until the events of Paris. Nothing they have done, that I am aware of offends me. Its art, not free speech; bare that redefinition in mind.
Almost all the problems associated with remedies to free speech limitations come from people’s personal religious and/or sexual insecurities.
Are you saying that art is not entitled to free-speech protection? That it lies outside the scope of the First Amendment, so that government can prescribe standards of orthodoxy for art and censor art that it deems unorthodox?
You don’t like the reason they held the Draw Muhammed contest, so what. You’re more concerned over the presence of a SWAT team than why they needed a SWAT team? Think that through for a minute.
Flipping the bird isn’t hate speech; in fact I was flipping you off as I read your comment.
The WBC are a bunch of obnoxious asshats, again, so what?
Who ae you to tell me what I can say?
You want me to call out the charlatans, ok, I’m calling you out. You are no advocate of enlightenment, democracy or free speech.
Actually, Paul, I don’t think your criticism to “calling out” is warranted. Nowhere does emlyna say the Draw Mohammed crowd was not in their right to hold the event. I did not see where she says what they can and cannot say. And I see no reason for us to believe that she is not a advocate of enlightenment, democracy, *and* free speech. If you see it, show us where. She (?) is criticizing the Draw crowd for their apparently shallow motives and views. That’s very much in the spirit of free speech. Sorry if you don’t like it. Sounds like you need a safe space.
His/her whole note is one big, BUT …
Absolutely.
And yet the winning cartoon has been roundly praised, including by our host. I thought it made an excellent point – one that’s germane to this discussion.
Funny thing, it’s not that easy to find.
To paraphrase your own question, who are you to tell emlyna what emlyna can say?
At least neither of you called for action based on your impressions of someone else’s intent, and I agree whole-heartedly with all but the last paragraph of your comment.
You aren’t getting it. No justification should be required in order to thumb ones nose at Muslims or any other category of people. That is the whole point of free speech. You may think it gauche, nekulturny or just plain assholish. And telling people you think so, that too should not require any justification.
Victim blaming, there is no justification for that.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Well put. If I am an anti-islam troll do I deserve to eat lead for dinner? Tell me it ain’t so.
So-called “hate speech” is protected by the US Constitution.
In a free society, you are allowed to hate people.
And other people are allowed to broadcast this, criticize and make fun of you if they wish.
The cure for bad speech is more good speech, not censorship.
Are you suggesting that people shouldn’t be able to have a “drawn Mohammad contest”? Why? Who gets to decide (for everyone) what is offensive and needs to be censored? Must we pander to the tender feeling possible offense from the most sensitive person on the planet?
Or should we just say to them: Don’t look at the damned pictures!
Next to last paragraph had some gibberish, apologies.
S/B: Must we pander to the tender possible offended feelings of the most sensitive person on the planet?
More good speech – yes.
Expressing hatred of a group of people is not hate speech.
Hate speech is inciting violence against a group of people.
Drawing Mohammed is not hate speech, screaming “death to the infidels” is.
Well-summarized.
“One cartoonist’s perspective makes a statement; this was more akin to a mob lynching.”
That’s just stupid.
You are equating drawing pictures with kidnapping and murder. That is simply clueless.
You are suggesting that people in the US (and other western nations) STFU so as not to offend Muslims. We are not drinking that Koolaid.
Who decides what is offensive? You? Muslim gunmen? And why?
When freedoms are threatened, and if you don’t see that the “Danish cartoons incident”, Theo van Gogh’s murder, the murder of atheist bloggers around the world, the Charlie Hebdo murders, the attack in Copenhagen this year, and the Draw Muhammad Contest attack, not to mention the attempts at establishing world-wide blasphemy laws in the UN (lead by, you guessed it, Muslim nations) are a serious attack on the freedom of speech, you are not paying attention. The entire point of these attacks is to silence criticism of Islam.
In a situation like that, vigorous defiance of such silencing is exactly what is needed.
As Sam Harris said very well:
Very well said!
Ludicrous. This hyperbole does not help you, it hinders you. In any case, so what?
Going by this statement alone it would appear that you have no idea what bullying is. To characterize this cartoon contest as bullying is absolutely ridiculous.
Except for expressing your dislike, again hyperbolically, non sequitur.
Obviously to ridicule the religion of Islam. Which is eminently worthy of ridicule, though it doesn’t matter in the slightest if it is or not. And the cartoon contest furthers free speech by visibly practicing it when people like you, and much worse than you, are trying like hell to shut down free speech in these circumstances.
So what? Do you really think that your typical free speech advocate thinks Westboro’s behavior is just swell? Or are you bragging about your ethical superiority? Regarding the last part I bolded, says who? You? How do you know? Why should anybody take your word for it? Their behavior may have been productive in the advance of our society toward that day when being gay is of no consequence. I could give several examples why there is good reason to suppose so and provide sources to support them.
1) Actually, yes, when there are people arguing as you are counterarguments such as Jerry’s are absolutely appropriate.
2) The most egregious instance of back-patting I have seen here is by you in your comment here.
3)An expectation that events like this work to Defend Free Speech is, again, completely missing the point. The concept of free speech includes no such requirements or expectations.
I am calling it like it is. Your opinion regarding the ethics of any instance of free speech has nothing to do with whether or not that instance of free speech is legitimate. If, as appears to be the case, you are in favor of restricting free speech so the Westboro assholes wouldn’t be permitted their God Hates Fags demostrations, and people couldn’t have deity cartoon contests for the purpose of ridiculing religion, then you are shooting our collective foot and I hope like hell you don’t get your way.
Well said, and I agree.
Your comment is so good – I hope you don’t mean it to be an explanation of why the “Draw Muhammed” people need to be silenced, but to point out that their motives are despicable.
I think that discussion of this issue conflates several issues. Freedom of speech (certainly by individuals) is essentially an absolute, as long as it does not put people in real danger. As such, Pam Geller’s little lovefest is protected speech. There was no exhortation to go out and torch a mosque. Was this a thoughtful exercise, meant to call attention to the absurdity or a religious tenet or a protest against the suggestion that everyone must abide by someone else’s religious belief? Or was it, as @emilya suggests, ‘..flipping off Muslims’? It would appear that the latter is closer to the truth. So Ms. Geller has less than the loftiest motives. There seems to be general agreement on that point, but the question is whether her motives should lead to prior restraint (or post hoc punishment) for her actions. I think the consensus on this bl_g at least, is no.
One can certainly debate whether her methods are the most effective means to move Islam one more step towards modernity (note that local Muslim organizations had decided to ignore the event). Perhaps not, but those are matters for debate, not censorship.
Perhaps the most worrisome (from an ethical point of view) part of your post is the suggestion that Geller deliberately sought to provoke violence. Note that there is a difference between preparing for the possibility (having security guards seems a reasonable precaution) and planning to maximize the possibility. The latter seems unethical to me as it puts the lives of the guards and the wackos who might attack at risk. But this would be a difficult to prove, unless you had evidence that planners had said that they hoped the event would be attacked and that they could off a couple of believers. Certainly, we have an obligation to consider such risks when making comments that might provoke violence, but that obligation does not extend to self censorship. We are not responsible for other people’s bizarre behavior.
Irony: I have family members who fought to guarantee Matthew Bulger the right to offend me by saying my freedom of speech should be limited so as not to offend.
No, it wasn’t. No amount of speech, no number of cartoons, no matter how offensive in some people’s eyes, is akin to a mob grabbing a person, tying a rope around his neck, and hanging him from a tree until he dies. People mindlessly equating speech with violence is part of the problem.
(This was meant to be a reply to emlyna’s comment.)
So free speech is only acceptable if it “furthers free speech”? Isn’t that a tautology? Or free speech is only acceptable if it also “reasonable and pursuing ideas which will leave a tangible and positive impact”? Those aren’t objective qualifiers. They would also render free speech simply authority approved speech (presumably some higher liberal authority in this case).
How do people write this stuff without recognizing the immediate contradictions? Free speech is truly a binary concept: you either have it or you don’t. The content of the speech is completely irrelevant, as well as its aims (with the possible exception of inciting to violence).
Yes, the nub of the confusion in Bolgers’ article is the phrase “furthers free speech”.
There is no “furthering” of free speech, except to defend it, even if the speakers are offensive/childish or whatever.
The notion that the _speech itself_ should be judged as to purity of purpose, or intelligence, or strategic value, is utterly missing the point of free speech in the first place.
“My identity comes from the fact that I’m pro-gay marriage and pro-choice and believe in climate change and oppose charter schools.”
The problem with this kind of sloppy thinking is the conflation of matters of opinion (pro-gay, pro-choice are questions concerning values and comprehend legitimate differences of opinion) and matters of science. There is an empirical “right” view of global warming and the efficacy and effects of charter schools that has nothing to do with personal opinion. I am frequently frustrated in discussion with my dad (who labels himself “conservative”) at his seeming inability to make this distinction. His view, there is no “Truth” and everything is simply a matter of opinion, is insupportable, but seems a popular ‘conservative’ position. My identity includes discerning a fundamental difference between fact and opinion. I don’t insist on the superiority of my opinion, but I do insist that some views are demonstrably wrong and are not properly matters of opinion at all.
“His view, there is no “Truth” and everything is simply a matter of opinion, is insupportable, but seems a popular ‘conservative’ position.”
Yeah, except when it comes to the things they claim to know for sure, like religious beliefs, etc.
Seems like it would be pretty to knock that down with reductio ad absurdum. Ask him if gravity is “just an opinion” or the heliocentric solar system, or the germ theory of disease, or engineering methods and statistics.
I think the big issue here is: is the conservative opinion based in a reasonable level of scientific understanding? Some may not have the basic idea of science as a mode or perspective on life, the universe, and everything else. Without a solid grounding in the philosophical approach that science offers, its benefits can be easily lost.
I was going to say the same thing – my “belief” in climate change doesn’t derive from my values, it derives from my understanding of the greenhouse effect and measurements of receding glaciers, melting sea ice, rising sea levels driven mostly by thermal expansion, a cooling stratosphere, changing carbon isotopic ratios, etc. …
However, it should be admitted that for many “liberals”, belief in climate is a matter of identity politics. You have probably cringed a little bit when you hear people supporting the your “side” who are as transparently ignorant of the facts as the people they oppose. It is a bit of a predicament: lots of people are not equipped by training to rationally evaluate the facts so they are forced to rely on authority. That includes myself when I move out of an area of my expertise.
I hate to see Pam Geller’s group and Charlie Hebdo put in the same category. They share some of the same people calling for their censorship and (while noting they’re in different countries under different laws) nevertheless represent forms of protected speech, but that’s where the similarity ends.
Charlie Hebdo, understood in context, is a voice for liberal humanist values (however perhaps insensitively expressed) and opposition to bigotry. Geller represents straight-up ethnic/religious hatred – for her and her group, all Muslims are suspect at best, and even the most moderate, most explicitly anti-fundamentalist Muslims are actually harboring a hidden agenda. The Islamic world is the enemy, and Muslims in the west are a fifth column.
I look at someone like Geller the way I look at the American Nazi Party or Westboro Baptist. Allowing them to speak freely and even march through a community like Skokie or demonstrate at a funeral is part of free speech, but it doesn’t mean they contribute anything of positive value. Charlie Hebdo, on the other hand, even at its most imperfect is making a valuable contribution to the marketplace of ideas.
In light of events, I have to respectfully disagree. I know almost nothing of Geller except from the few TV interviews I’ve seen linked to here at WEIT. From that, and the events of the last week, it seems here “stunt” has produced some serious reflection about Islam by both the general public and Islamic Americans about free speech and Islam. I don’t know for sure if that was Geller’s intent, but it certainly was the result. And, if you have an alternative system of laws that would work better than that, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Geller’s history is well-known, and I suggest searching around a bit on the topic. Cathy Young, hardly a rabid multiculturalist, just did a pretty good article on Geller and company, and I suggest having a look at it.
“And, if you have an alternative system of laws that would work better than that, I’d be interested in your thoughts.”
Boy, you must have really misread my post, because I did not suggest altering US free speech laws at all. I’m in full agreement with the Supreme Court’s National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie decision, in case that wasn’t clear. That does not mean I think that neo-Nazis, Westboro Baptist, or Geller’s group are undeserving of severe criticism and censure, which is, after all, part of the exercise of free speech too.
Very well said. While Pam Geller might wish to be compared with Charlie Hebdo, I very much doubt if Charlie Hebdo would want to be compared with Pam Geller.
“you must have really misread my post”
Sorry if I misread you, but I am trying to emphasis my perspective. I don’t question that Geller may have a shady past. I just don’t think it’s relevant to the current situation. She now comes across as a staunch defender of free speech and I think the cartoon contest had salutary effects. In the current atmosphere of “free speech, butism”, this is greatly welcomed by me.
While I think Gellers right to free speech should be protected, I think calling her a “defender of free speech” or a “free speech advocate” is inaccurate. She has no record of defending any free speech but that of those she agrees with. That’s not a defender of free speech, that’s an exerciser of free speech.
A defender of free speech defends the right to speak of ANY view, even views they disagree with.
The reason Geller has the right to free speech is because OTHER free speech advocates (such as the ACLU) have fought for that right.
Confusion of the ideas of “free speech advocacy” and “free speech exercising” permeates much of the discussion around this issue (see Bolger’s article).
“What Bulger is arguing here is that the way we must make our freedom of speech more secure is not to use it, at least not when it riles up people. But that’s precisely when free speech is most needed.”
Exactly. Protecting Freedom of Speech is not required for non-controversial speech. What does he not get about this simple principle?
Gosh! Idiots!
Perhaps gradually we will get the idea that, in matters of human rights, intellectual integrity, and ethical coherence, it is not a struggle between “liberals” and “conservatives.”
It is, rather, between liberals and bigots (on the toleration and openness axis). It’s between conservatives and radicals (on the factual and tactical self-discipline axis). Or to parse it more closely, between conservative liberals and radical bigots, whether found on the political left, right, or in-between.
Imo too many, including the illiberal left, are simply failing to understand the concept of freedom of speech. They are putting caveats on it, where none should exist. There is no such thing as “good free speech” and “bad free speech”, there’s just free speech.
I don’t like Geller, and personally I have no doubt that her motives were far more about antagonizing Muslims than striking a blow for freedom of speech. However, my opinion is of her motives, even assuming I’m accurate, is entirely irrelevant. The point is she has the right to express herself freely. Her speech shouldn’t be limited because I think she’s a (insert expletive here).
Geller did not directly encourage anyone to commit violence or engage in any other criminal act. If people decided to do that because of her contest, that’s on them.
The author has possibly intellectually accepted that people in the class [other] coould be in the class [American], but I don’t think he has accepted it emotionally.
Here is a bitter pill to swallow : people can be at least as capable as you, and more experienced, and they can differ with you. And they might be wrong. Or they might be right. And either way, you’re going to have to live with it.
Being human sucks, doesn’t it? IT would be so much better to have a universe full of my minions. Unless you like an argment.
Minions are awesome.
Unless they’re a minyan.
Indeed! A dreadfully boring time with a number of sanctimonious sycophants? Definitely not awesome.
I am happy that ProfCC is getting up in arms about this. Freedom of expression is precisely what the USA was founded upon, and it has come to this. The postmodern, liberal, multicultural, identity-honoring, AND sensitive academic left is the clear target, but of course we know that issues like this are never simple. Polarization is the order of the day, and it is also a clear sign of failure to understand the complexity of the issues. It’s easier to take sides. But it’s taking sides that kills discourse.
I think the whole desire to label the Muslim community (or any other) as a single disenfranchised minority is extremely undesirable Firstly because the “Muslim community” is made up of millions of individuals, many of whom may not want victim status thrust upon them by white liberals (they might think it patronising, and they’d be correct).
Secondly because they are minorities within minorities who are disenfranchised because they are not part of the ascendant group within the minority. When Western liberals make up their minds to defend the Muslim community from criticism and satire, what they are actually defending is the orthodoxy which is imposed by the most powerful group within that community. They become the allies of the oppressors of gays, women, atheists, and others who do not conform to Muslim orthodoxy. To speak out on behalf of these people is therefore considered beyond the pale, and those who do so are liable to be denounced as cultural imperialists or racists.
+1
On being “judicious” in using free speech: That is a bunch of crock. Why? OK, say A says something that offends B. It may or may not have been intended. B has a couple of options short of physical violence. He could insult A, tell A he is offended by the remark, demand a retraction, etc. But B could also ask A a few questions to try to clear up what was behind the remark. By NOT behaving the way A expects him to behave, B has begun to short-circuit the cycle of tit-for-tat and actually turn it into something from which both can learn.
The media have certainly encouraged by example the confrontational approach, which comes to no conclusions and merely ruffles feathers.
But to put limits on freedom of speech merely to prevent hurt feelings, marginalization, disrespect of “identity,” etc., solves nothing because it never provides even the opportunity for reasoned dialogue, which is the essential reason for free speech in the first place!
This urge to political correctness and intolerance of criticism (presumably because some people find it uncomfortable) is eerily similar to pre-Hitler Germany where hate speech laws were first introduced. The same liberal bent to create and then believe uncritically a narrative that then affords accommodationism and apologetics of anti-rights ideology heightened status and privilege in contrast to those nasty and brutish Others who provoke – usually motivated we are told repeatedly by various intolerant phobias – is exactly how fundamental freedoms shared by all are first hollowed out in the name of social good and then dismembered in the name of social order.
According to Bulger, his own statement about condemning speech can be evaluated as to whether it furthers free speech. In his view, who should arbitrate whether he should say this as opposed to whether he can say it? And if he shouldn’t say it, then why is he?
“…we didn’t have the Internet,…” but we did have talk radio! I spent/wasted hundreds of hours in those years on talk radio. I was the resident liberal student on KTRG in Honolulu back around 1967-68, and spent way too much time in later years calling in to vent wherever I happened to be living.
I believe in rooting, and fighting, for the underdog, and intend to keep doing so until my dying day. I also believe that neither Muslims nor anybody else should suffer legal discrimination. I also avoid, or try to (mostly), giving offense for offense sake (though I don’t give a good goddam if anyone takes offense at something I’ve said for what I alone deem to be a legitimate reason).
What I don’t believe in is forcing my personal standards of speech on anyone else. And I certainly don’t believe that anyone who fails abide by those standards should be punished (other than by my personal disapproval). But what I object to most strenuously of all is having any viewpoint, along any vector, on any issue, censored by any government, for any reason. Ever.
Here’s a good discussion of the victimhood and silencing memes that Kirsten, Fox News, and the religious right are pushing as it relates to LGBT rights.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2015/05/okay-lets-talk-about-silencing-thesilencing.html
“My identity comes from the fact that I’m pro-gay marriage and pro-choice and believe in climate change and oppose charter schools.”
There’s nothing wrong with believing those things. It’s the need to de-legitimize anybody who doesn’t believe them, that puts them in a different category.”
OK, I think one of the four beliefs above is not like the others….
Marriage, choice, charter schools are a matter of what’s justifiable. Climate change [to be specific, anthropogenic warming] is like evolution, a matter of fact and like
WEIT — the facts all point in one direction. I will de-legitimize special pleading, which is all they got.
Yep. If you are lumping a “belief” in climate change in with being pro-gay marriage and pro-choice and opposing charter schools, it is likely that the person playing identity politics is you.
Still, it it’s “my” own personal identity we’re talking about, then I guess it is legitimate to include all “my” beliefs, whether evidence-based or not. And as someone noted elsewhere, it’s quite possible to have a valid belief (e.g. DNA exists) ‘because someone said so’. (Have you ever _seen_ DNA? Personally?)
I’m reconciled to the fact that even people I generally agree with are going to disagree with me strongly on one thing or another. ‘Identity politics’ only arises if I think we should agree about everything.
So I think, for the purposes of illustrating her argument, Powers is not wrong to lump all those ‘beliefs’ together.
Totally agree with your comments regarding the Liberal confusion with free speech. I read your article as I was finishing my own !
http://rationalrazor.com/liberals-please-speak-up-for-free-speech/
Part of the problem IMHO is that when pseudo-liberal lefties talk about “diversity” very often what they are really talking about is “visible diversity”.
Of course “diversity” is great in the sense of everyone being different and being allowed to be different (diversity1). But that’s not the same as everyone belonging to different visible groups (diversity2).
Unfortunately, diversity1 and diversity2 are regularly, even routinely, conflated.
The town I live in consists of approximately 30% people who don’t speak English as a first language. However, people claim that we lack diversity because the town is close to 90% white. How there “isn’t diversity” when there’s native German, Italian and Polish speakers all over the place (many of them 1st and 2nd generation immigrants) still befuddles me. Yet, everyone would claim we’re extremely diverse if we had 30% American born minorities living in the town. This speaks exactly to your point.
I’ve just re-read Bulger’s lines as quoted above and I agree with him. I can’t see where he says events like Geller’s should be banned, as everyone here seems to assume. He does say they don’t advance the cause of free speech, with which point I agree.
While on the subject of free speech, where is the concern that the current Administration has allegedly classified more documents than ever before? That’s real censorship. Is anyone here concerned about the fate of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange or Edward Snowden, or should they just shut the hell up?
I haven’t seen anyone making that assumption, and plenty of people here are concerned about government overreach. (It just doesn’t happen to be the subject of this post.) It’s like you didn’t actually read the post or comments and just submitted a canned response.
Thank you for that insult, I could say the same about yours.
I share your concern over the lack of transparency in Government, but I think categorizing this under free speech is stretching the definition quite a bit. Free speech does not mean that one is required to fully disclose everything, but at a trivial level, it does mean the right to disclose it exists.
Regarding Snowden and the others, from what I can tell, he’s exposed some pretty bad abuses of privacy within the Government and no demonstrative evidence has been presented to show that he cause endangered anyone because of it. There is certainly a line where speech crosses the line into action (it may be fuzzy, but it’s there). As one examnple, if someone revealed classified information about an FBI investigation and that resulted in the massacre of Federal agents, then yes I’d say that’s more than speech it’s reasonable to expect what the results of this action would be. We simply don’t have enough information to know whether this is the case with Snowden, Assange, et al.
I’d say part of the reason we don’t have enough information is that government smothers it. Every government does it, not just the US. Sometimes with genuine cause, but all too often because it’s politically inconvenient or ‘because we can’.
Meanwhile, over in England:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150513/07020630985/uk-plans-to-do-away-with-free-speech-name-free-speech.shtml
“… would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred. “
And this really terrifying quote from Cameron:
“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.
“This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.”
This in the country of Orwell?
I have to see more …
Chilling.
Typo:
“I spend most of my time writing about
social change and not time doing stuff change society.”
Should be:
“I spend most of my time writing about
social change and not time doing stuff TO change society.”
Fixed, thanks!
How can we not agree, as liberals, that any human can say exactly what they want, wherever they are, and that they should not be subject to fear of death for it? And that if they are, it is the perpetrators of the violence who are at fault – not the victim of it?
What is the difference between this argument and the “well what was she wearing” argument for victims of sexual assault?
I can wear what I want. I can say what I want. To whomever I want. And I should not be afraid to.
I want to state at the outset that I agree with most of the article. But…
I might be able to be brought around to the notion that opponents of equal rights for gays should not be socially ostracized. But, before I get there, I really need it explained that opponents of equal rights for black people should not be socially ostracized. Once I understand why they shouldn’t be, then I will be able to accept that opponents of gay rights shouldn’t be. And not before.
It depends on what you mean by “social ostracism.” Of course racists should be criticized loudly, and I can’t imagine befriending one or hanging around with one, but I also can’t imagine preventing them from speaking.
I was writing my response to the place in the article where it says “There’s nothing wrong with believing those things [equal rights for gay marriage]. It’s the need to de-legitimize anybody who doesn’t believe them, that puts them in a different category.”
I should have said “de-legitimize” rather than ostracize.
For example, a person who says “black people should not be allowed to marry because they then produce additional inferior humans that are prone to crime …”. I think such a person should be ‘de-legitimized’. But, I am willing to be convinced they shouldn’t be. When I am, I will understand why the anti-gay equivalent shouldn’t be.