23.Oct.2009 at 23 | xn
Defending Hate Speech
I absolutely will NOT sign the “Denounce Glenn Beck” petition. His speech (and not the pornographic, obscene, gutter-speech that permeates our culture) is PRECISELY what the first amendment was designed to protect: Political Speech. Compared to how “hateful” some of the 18th and 19th-century tabloids and Presidential campaigns were, this is nothing.
I believe Al Franken is a thief and a liar, but would vigorously defend his right to say whatever he wants to say on Air America. Or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. The market hasn’t been to kind to either one; Air America makes a fraction of what EIB makes, and MSNBC gets killed by Fox. And that’s how I think it should be: if I don’t like it, I won’t watch, and the collective, uncoerced decisions of a lot of viewers (or non-viewers) like me will determine who succeeds.
If someone’s slandering or libeling, sue them and prove it. Otherwise speak up yourself and try to persuade people that the content of their speech is wrong. Trying to “shut them up” is the tactic of someone who can’t win an argument on merit. Compete in the arena of ideas, for goodness sake!
I don’t even like the designation “hate speech”. Because “hate thought” comes next.
We went from crime, to “hate crime” (now motivation matters; why you did it can get a greater punishment that what you did), to “hate speech” (speech is now only protected if it offends no one?). The thought police are next. I read 1984 within the last 6 months; it made me squirm. Who gets to be the arbiter of what is “hateful”?
I prefer this approach — it seems to me to be the more liberal, tolerant view:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
(— regularly attributed to Voltaire, but first said Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
What has happened to that sentiment?
This relates to why I have a hard time getting too exorcised about Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst. Improper? Yes, according to the rules of etiquette. But where were the etiquette police when Sen Reid was daily calling President Bush a liar? When President Bush was repeatedly mocked, accused, slandered by other elected officials during his tenure? “Bush lied, people died”? Burning in effigy? Riots at the G-8? Comparisons to Hitler? Where were the calls for civility then?
(BTW, I submit Bush never — NEVER — lied during his presidency. If I’m wrong, prove me wrong. One of the cardinal rules of debate is to accurately portray your opponent’s position, and Bush’s accusers have consistently failed to do that. A lie is not the same thing as stating something that you — along with many other credible, reasonable people — believe to be true, only to find later that it was not. And where were the truth police when President Clinton was lying under oath, and parsing the meaning of “is”?)
The dustup over Joe Wilson’s remark strikes me as very hollow; if CIVILITY is the goal, why wasn’t that a worthy goal during the Bush years? I think it has nothing to do with civility. It has to do with the fact that Rep Wilson called Obama out, in a forum where the mainstream media couldn’t sanitize it. And I think this is why Glenn Beck and Fox are driving the mainstream media – and the Obama administration – nuts.
If Joe Wilson was wrong, let someone analyze it and prove it. But the Democratic leadership would rather spend their time demonizing Beck, Rush, Fox, Wilson, and the “astroturf” (Pelosi) “teabaggers” (Anderson Cooper), instead of legitimately looking at their points of view to see what merit their arguments have.
(Here is where I concede Wilson MAY have made a tactical error: more people were left talking about HOW he said it, instead of asking, “Is what he said TRUE?”)
So I won’t sign any petition denouncing Glenn Beck, Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Bill Clinton, or any American citizen exercising his right to free political speech. The First Amendment was put into place to protect that speech, regardless of how offensive I may find it.
I respect your right to your opinion and respectfully disagree. Hate speech is intended to incite violence and I don’t like it. Oh, yes, that’s how our nation came into being; but this is an entirely different ballgame.
Why can we not disagree as ladies and gentlemen with civility? What is wrong with showing respect toward our President when he addresses Congress? Talking about the disrespect Bush was shown is comparing apples with oranges. While it is not my intent nor do I feel it necessary to prove you wrong, can you cite one instance when a Republican president (or any previous president) was shown this type of contempt at a joint session of Congress? I happen to believe in free speech and devoted 6 years of my life in the service of this country, but I also believe in civility.
@skip said:
>that’s how our nation came into being; but this is an entirely different ballgame.
In what respect? I’m not sure I understand.
How does Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” differ from Glenn Beck? Have you seen how Jefferson and Adams talked about each other? This romantic notion we have that the Founders were always polite and “disagreed agreeably” is just wrong.
They were more than willing to lampoon and “attack” their opponents. Vigorously.
>Talking about the disrespect Bush was shown is comparing apples with oranges.
Why? Again, I don’t understand. We are talking about political speech, directed at a sitting Commander-In-Chief. How does it differ? I’m sure there’s a principled reason there, and it’s not just, “Well, everyone KNOWS Bush was a lying bastard, but Obama doesn’t deserve this treatment!”
>While it is not my intent nor do I feel it necessary to prove you wrong
Please DO. I don’t want to hold wrong ideas.
>can you cite one instance when a Republican president (or any previous president) was shown this
>type of contempt at a joint session of Congress?
Absolutely. Look at GWB’s 2005 SOTU Address. Here is the YouTube link:
and here are what commentators said afterward:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200502040014
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2336074/posts
It’s clear that Bush was heckled, as was Clinton. (There’s a comment that Bush was booed in the 2004 SOTU address when he mentioned the Patriot Act, but I can’t find a clip of it.)
Contrast that with Bush’s consistent graciousness to his opponents (when he introduced Nancy Pelosi as new Speaker of the House, for example). Then contrast that with Senator Reid’s constant attacks.
>I happen to believe in free speech and devoted 6 years of my life in the service of this country,
>but I also believe in civility.
I do, too, but for civility to work you have to have trust, and it has to be a 2-way street. And when your POTUS is lying to you (or, to be generous, stating something that isn’t actually true), and the media won’t challenge it, and any attempts to challenge it are answered by personal attacks rather than in the arena of ideas, civility has ALREADY been lost. All Joe Wilson did was confirm that fact.
“Unilateral civility”, as Bush tried under his “new tone in Washington”, didn’t change a darn thing about how his opponents treated him. There was no reciprocity. So calls for civility from the same people who thrashed GWB, and called him a liar every chance they got, ring hollow.
I almost missed one:
Bush was booed at President Obama’s inauguration, with chants of “hey, hey, hey, goodbye”. Not from Congress, but from the millions-strong “Hope and Change crowd” that elected Obama. Not an auspicious beginning to “Hope and Change”.
I think boos are actually LESS respectful than “You lie!”. The latter at least can be proven or disproven with facts, leaving the commenter either vindicated or with egg on his face. You can’t do that with boos.