Supporting Free Speech Is Only for Fervent Rightwingers

[A_Wanderer]

The guardian told me so

While Danish milk products were dumped in the Middle East, fervent rightwing Americans started buying Bang & Olufsen stereos and Lego. In the first quarter of this year Denmark’s exports to the US soared 17%. The British writer Christopher Hitchens organised a buy-Danish campaign. Among the thousands of emails sent to Rose was one from an American soldier serving in Iraq. “He told me he was sitting in Iraq, watching a game of football and drinking a can of Carlsberg,” Rose said.

Rose is not the only person to have prospered from the crisis. Re-elected last year, Mr Rasmussen last week became Denmark’s longest-serving Liberal prime minister. Danish troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than this, his sceptical line on immigration appears to have been vindicated as other EU countries follow suit.

link

 

[BonosSaint]

We all support free speech we agree with.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Thats not supporting free speech, free speech only exists at the margins.

 

[BonosSaint]

I understand the distinction. I'm merely making the point that that too many people support the idea of free speech but not the actual practice of it when it goes against something they believe.

 

[A_Wanderer]

At least social conservatives don't pretend to support free speech; thats what makes leftists and"hate speech" laws so ugly.

 

[BonosSaint]

Actually, I agree with you. There should be no sacred cows.

 

[verte76]

I agree, no sacred cows. If we have sacred cows it's Inquisitions and witch hunts next.

 

[CTU2fan]

At least social conservatives don't pretend to support free speech; thats what makes leftists and"hate speech" laws so ugly.

They don't? I can tell you censorship of leftist speech/writing is alive & well here in the States. Oh and the spin-doctoring...here if you are against the war or critical of GWB you're pro-terrorist.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Firstly the protest marches with some very ugly protest posters against the war in the streets goes against that, calling somebody pro-terrorist is not censorship. I have not seen the blocking of publishing Chomsky and Pilger by the government and the story about the FBI visiting a students house over Mao's "Little Red Book" was a lie and the perpetrator admitted as much. This contrasts to Victoria, Australia where two evangelicals have been carged with religious vilification for having a meeting explaining that Islam worships Jinn and how Christians should talk to Muslims about conversion.

Secondly what I said is that social conservatives will advocate censorship and will not be hypocrites and say how much they love free speech but then turn around and say there should be limits on bigotry.

 

[Sherry Darling]

AW, you (understandably enough, I guess) simply don't have a US-eyed view on this. Your statement that these guys are free of hypocrisy is embarrassingly counter-factual. Consider the right-wing attempts to censor PBS (Bert and Ernie being the national security threat that they are), Harry Potter and Sponge Bob.

Secondly, are you seriously asking me to admire the consistency of a group of folks who, by your own description above, don't even pretend to value free speech?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Free of hypocricy is that social conservatives (like Pat Buchanan who sides against Rushdie) don't pretend to be in favour of free speech, they are bastards who advocate censorship but at least their honest about it. I don't admire the position, I think that censorship is wrong but I do think that it is more honest than standing for free speech in the forms of gay rights parades and blasting the government but then turning around to supress intolerent speech.

I extend my support for free speech to the likes of Abu Hamza al Masri telling the world that the Jews are the sons of pigs and apes; I draw attention to and I think rightfully blast that speech as violent and intolerent but still think that the right for it to be said (and importantly publicised and criticised) is better than sending him off to prison for "race hate".

 

[BonosSaint]

I agree with Wanderer in that the right wing does not make much of a pretense of valuing free speech, therefore are not being hypocritical. The left is more hypocritical on this. I didn't think there was any praise in his post for the right wing, just a little note on the irony. It's a fair point to bring up -- and I lean left.

 

[CTU2fan]

I guess that's true - the right is less hypocritical about it; they're for suppressing free speech if they disagree with it and make no bones about it.

But isn't it hypocritical for the right to criticize laws against hate speech while trying to pass legislature banning flag burning?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am pretty right and I still support free speech; statists are the types who want to supress it and they can be progressive or conservative.

There is genuine irony in having Christopher Hitchens on the list as a fervent rightwinger.

 

[verte76]

The right is more consistent with the whole free speech deal. The left is often hypocritical about this, and I say this as someone who leans left. The right blatantly opposes free speech, and the left says they support it but often suppress it. I saw plenty of this in the Mohammed cartoon controversy.

 

[financeguy]

I have not seen the blocking of publishing Chomsky and Pilger by the government

Not yet.

 

[INDY500]

The right blatantly opposes free speech

Are we talking about "censorship" and standards of decency or "censorship" and political speech?

I can tell you censorship of leftist speech/writing is alive & well here in the States

(a recent example being)
____________ wanted to talk/write about _________ and was prevented by ___________ from "the Right."

 

[Sherry Darling]

Free of hypocricy is that social conservatives (like Pat Buchanan who sides against Rushdie) don't pretend to be in favour of free speech, they are bastards who advocate censorship but at least their honest about it. I don't admire the position, I think that censorship is wrong but I do think that it is more honest than standing for free speech in the forms of gay rights parades and blasting the government but then turning around to supress intolerent speech.

I extend my support for free speech to the likes of Abu Hamza al Masri telling the world that the Jews are the sons of pigs and apes; I draw attention to and I think rightfully blast that speech as violent and intolerent but still think that the right for it to be said (and importantly publicised and criticised) is better than sending him off to prison for "race hate".

If you say you don't admire them, I'll take you at your word, but suggest you phrase yourself more precisely. Your language is absolutist and binary. Why if I didn't know better, I'd say this was really just an attempt to smear a group I didn't like and exculpaite one I identify more with.

You still have not provided a convincing arguement why I should give any sort of credit for "honest" bigtory or up-front attempts to stifle the speech of others. You argument remains weak in a second respect as well, in that you still have not grappled with the left's support of "hate speech" (check out the ACLU's controversial legal defense of the KKK, for example).

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am not making a binary distinction, there are obviously those on the left and right who support free expression and those who do not, the point was the absurdity of an article describing those who supported the buycott of Danish products being labelled fervent right wingers when the left has just as much at stake.

The minor detail that the cited example of the passionate advocate for free speech against religious bigots is left is being overlooked. I do not think that left or right has a monopoly on free speech, I do think that the bastard who admits that they want censorship is more honest than somebody who is duplicitous about it and the ACLU is reasonably consistent.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You still have not provided a convincing arguement why I should give any sort of credit for "honest" bigtory or up-front attempts to stifle the speech of others.

Because it is a lot easier to recognise and resist; it is not insidious.

 

[yolland]

I agree that "fervent rightwingers" is overdrawn editorializing hype (one of the Guardian's less appealing tendencies in general, IMO) although Hitchens in fact no longer considers himself a member of the Left, and told the Independent (Sept 23, 2004) "I don't have a political allegiance now, and I doubt I ever will have again."

I don't though see how declining to participate in a counter-boycott buying campaign constitutes an endorsement of censorship.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Saying that the cartoons should not be published and that it is should be a crime is. Anything short of defending the right to publish and criticise is fence sitting at best, especially when the reaction causes so much violence and the speech si so threatened.

Note the important distinction made above between the right to publish and the content being published.

 

[yolland]

"Should not be" I don't have a problem with, that's a statement of opinion on the advisability of endorsing what's likely to broadly alienate to little benefit, not a demand that it be made illegal. I object to the idea that because someone else reacts violently to publications I find distasteful, I therefore owe the publisher some special leg-up beyond affirming their legal right to publish and to not suffer violence for that. A counter-boycott does nothing to address violence; boycotting is not violent.

And I don't recall the notion that the cartoons possibly constituted illegal hate speech being a common critical theme at the time.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The demands by Muslim groups to institute hate speech laws, appealing to the EU and UN to enact those laws was an issue; an unrealistic issue in the context of Denmark but certainly relevent in other countries.

Although now government censorship is moot. We have reached a point where self-censorship out of fear has taken hold, so the protestors and murderers have succeeded in getting people to think twice before doing anything that may be percieved as offensive to Muslims and I think that is a pity, luckily it has also emboldened those who want to defend and produce such provocative ideas and expressions; the cartoon wars are symptomatic of broader cultural differences that underlie conflict between the faithful and unbelievers.

 

[anitram]

The right is more consistent with the whole free speech deal.

So what if they are?

Following that logic is the same as following the old adage that "better the law be certain and unjust than just and uncertain."

 

[A_Wanderer]

Its more like being consistently wrong.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Antriam gets my point precisely. I'm still stumped on the "so what?" here. Yeah, they're consistently wrong. And I know I don't need to remind you that the cartoon crazies were not folks one could identify with the Left. So that's less insidious how, exactly, because it's pitifully transparent? I'm just not inspired by that logic. LOL.

Maybe if you explained or thought out loud a bit about the purpose you had when you started this thread?

Interesting discussion, AW, about a topic that couldn't be more important. FWIW, when I do on ocassion hear a fellow lefty suggest "hate speech" laws in the misguided but well-intended belief that it's possible to legislate morality, I remind them that we're ultimately better off with the bigots out in the open where we can see them.

 

[verte76]

I hate the Ku Klux Klan, but they are U.S. citizens and have free speech rights. They have a right to have meetings and marches. I don't have to like them. Of course I have the right to demonstrate against the Klan, and, indeed, I do. I have been participating in anti-Klan activities for two decades.

 

[maycocksean]

I remind them that we're ultimately better off with the bigots out in the open where we can see them.

I think this was A_Wanderer's point.

 

[maycocksean]

A_Wanderer, I actually agree with you 100% on this issue. Which raises the question of how accurate broad, sweeping statements like this can really be:

the cartoon wars are symptomatic of broader cultural differences that underlie conflict between the faithful and unbelievers.

As you probably know I'm what you'd call "faithful" and while I don't have a personal issue with the Mohammed cartoons (since I'm a Christian) I fully support the right of anyone to mock or ridicule my faith (though of course I have the right to not be happy about it). So you may want to question your sweeping conclusions about the "bad guys" of faith and the "good guys" of unbelief.