Ride along on the rant du jour as we tear apart political correctness, social justice, cultural Marxism, and the war on free speech. This is a rational look at an irrational movement and a vote in favor of leaving everyone the hell alone. Set your emotions aside and listen to logic for a change. Don't forget to leave a comment and join the discourse, and if you are so moved, how about tossing a coin in the PayPal or Patreon bucket? Support the arts!
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
11.9.18
16.10.17
The Pig That Proved Free Speech
At the time I was becoming politically aware, Larry Flynt was fighting the US system, which was trying to squelch his right to speak freely, publish smut and lampoon public figures. You can despise his publications (the most famous of which is Hustler magazine), you can hold the man in the lowest regard, you can even hate the man, but no one who loves freedom or liberty can deny his immense contribution to advancing individual rights.
Flynt's satire of preacher Jerry Falwell led to a lawsuit, Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Jerry Falwell, that ultimately led to the US Supreme Court decision affirming the absolute right of all individuals, no matter how or what they say, to have the right to say it. The free market of ideas, the Court said, was far more important than the sensitivities of public figures. The case reaffirmed that all speech is protected, not just speech that is pleasing or doesn't hurt one's feelings.
It is especially ironic that a mere 30 years after that landmark decision, the US is in the midst of a campaign to silence unpopular speech by the very ideologues and organizations that supported Larry Flynt.
The opening words of the Court's decision, written by Antonin Scalia, read as follows:
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole."
The New York Times, now one of the most vile enemies of free speech, filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in thsi case, reminding the Court of its own victory in the New York Times Company v. Sullivan case of 1964, in which the Court ruled that press reports on public figures had to meet an "acutal malice" standard to prove defamatory speech.
Larry Flynt's case established that individuals had an absolute right to express opions, even in the form of comedy or satire and regardless of whether the subject had his or her feelings hurt, as a means of expanding the boundaries of public discourse, because expanding those boundaries was always in the public interest.
It is highly entertaining to me, if not very disappointing, that the liberal left, which supported Larry Flynt's campaign for free speech, is now the very group fighting tooth and nail to shut down public discourse on the basis that someone may get their feelings hurt - the very reason they argued against in 1987.
The irony of history never escapes my bemused gaze.
Flynt v. Falwall was required reading for Communications majors. Among a pile of other Supreme Court decisions, it was a lynch pin for anyone in mass media. We had to know the parameters of the Sullivan test and the Court's opinion on free speech. We had to write papers on our understanding and interpretation of these cases.
I also just liked Larry Flynt because he hated the System and flaunted in front of it every chance he got. I respect that in a man. I've tried to emulate his example every chance I've had.
One of the most precious gifts Nature has seen fit to give humans is the ability to communicate. We have a facility called speech that allows us to encode and decode messages containing our thoughts, opinions and feelings. If someone has the right to express having their feelings hurt, then someone else has the right to say something that hurts feelings. If you cut of one, the other must go, as well.
It is especially importnat that people be allowed to ridicule, lampoon and hold up for public display the words and actions of public figures. These figures earn a living off of our labor and willingness to support them. They, therefore, must endure our praise and our mockery. It is the price they pay for not having to do real, productive work. They know full well walking into public life that they are exposing themselves to this sort of scrutiny, and they cannot be immune from it.
To protect public figures from such treatment is to give them carte blanche for curruption and depravity, since they then have the power to shut down and punish such scrutiny. We see cases al the time in the public sphere where public figures who are protected from public ridicule take advantage of it and devolve into subhumans who act as if they are above the rest of us.
All sides of public discourse have the absolute right to express their opinions. To silence one voice is to ultimately silence all, since the arguments in favor of doing so apply to everyone. No matter what is said by whom and to whom, there will always be someone who gets their feelings hurt. The only solution is complete silence, which denies a very basic characteristic of being human.
We are in a critical juncture where the counter-culture is swinging from one political extreme to the other. In the 1980s, it was the Moral Majority and the highly vocal right wing that was trying to silnce free expression. It is now AntiFa and the left wing that is doing the very same thing. The worm turns.
In the end, free speech is not a privilege granted or rescinded bv governments. It is a vital part of being human, an intricate part of our Nature, that cannot be silenced without terrible destruction and damage to our civilization. Wherever it has been done, unspeakable horrors have resulted. It is a matter of historical record. A dam eventually breaks when the pressure behind it overcomes the force holding it.
Whether you view Larry Flynt as hero or scum is immaterial. The fact is his actions made people a little bit freer, and that is worthy of praise.
13.3.17
Sticks And Stones
 |
| Giordano Bruno |
Of the Big Three, Free Speech is the one that supports all the others. My unaLIENable right to speak my mind, and your unaLIENable right to respond is the basis of a free and open society.
The two greatest enemies of Free Speech are the State and Religion. The most dangerous condition is when Religion has sway over the State. Throughout history, the most repressive regimes have all been theocracies. The first thing a theocracy does is shut down criticism of itself, then it proceeds to define everything in terms of itself. Since Religion claims to have the keys to all of existence, naturally it sees just about anything as a threat to its grandiose claims - especially the right to freely speak the contradictions and pure fantasy inherent in all religions.
In ancient Rome, it was a capital crime to speak out against Caesar, who being deified as a matter of course by the Senate, was a demi-god created by the State. To speak against Caesar was to speak again Nature and the Universe themselves.
In its most benign form, theocracies are still intolerant of Free Speech. Thailand does not tolerate any speech about the king, unless it is glowing and praiseful. One can get in quite a bit of trouble for pointing out flaws, contradictions or wrongs on the part of the king, and to a certain extent the immediate royal family, as well.
Here in Indonesia, there is a blasphemy law that primarily protects Islam, though it has occasionally been used by Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. Most recently, Jakarta governor Ahok quoted a bit of the Koran that prohibits Koranic verses from being used for political purposes. Of course, he was immediately charged with blasphemy (being a Christian and reciting the Koran), and is still being politically attacked for reminding folks what the Good Book says.
The US is a rather strange situation. Since the government and Religion are not allowed to be bedfellows, a sort of secular religion was created. Blending "science", "environmentalism", "tolerance", and "diversity", a beast called Political Correctness was born that has the same effect as Religion, but the word "religion" is religiously avoided. Through the rampant use of PC, people are forbidden to raise topics such as immigration, climate change, or any of a host of other topics that "blaspheme" the State Religion.
In any repressive regime, there are always quasi-official gangs whose job it is to go round and commit acts of violence and destruction against those deemed to be enemies of the Religion. Here, it;s the FPI, in the US it's SJW. Either way, the goals and results are the same. It's just a game of semantics, really.
The Roman Church went on its own pogrom, known affectionately as the Inquisition, in order to stifle Free Speech. People like Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei were hounded and harassed, and in some cased killed, for daring to speak out of turn. Even up until the 50s, publishers strove to receive a "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" from the Church so that sales would not be limited by having the Church ban its mind-slaves from reading the books. Even though the system was a sanctioned form of bribery much like "halal" or "kosher", it still had the effect of stifling Free Speech at some level.
The fact of the matter is that limiting Free Speech is a very old institution used primarily by the state and religious authorities. It is a blatant admission of weakness, since those enforcing limits know that their "arguments" are so inherently illogical, they cannot stand up to open inquiry and criticism. Speech limits always carry the threat of violence, and an individual or group who resort to violence have run out of verbal defenses of their positions and admitted their weakness through the use of force.
Of all the perceived sins against the State and Religion (i.e. authority), Free Speech is the most dangerous, since any limit on the individual must be backed up with the threat of violence. Furthermore, "authority" will continuously expand its definition of limits until it meets resistance from the greatest number of people. and ultimately those threatened will expand until it includes everyone who is not an "authority".
What most people fear about Free Speech is that eventually they will run into ideas that offend them. For speech to be truly free, we cannot limit anyone's right to express ideas or opinions, no matter how ridiculous or offensive they are. Once a group accepts that there is any limit on speech, then all speech is limited, since the movement will ultimately expand to encompass just about everything except the proscribed "right think".
Most people will agree that the Nazis were very bad folks and that the rest of us don't want them around. However, we are forced to admit that even the Nazis cam up with ideas like the Volkswagen Beetle. ao
In every ugly or abhorrent idea, there is some kernel of truth that can be gleaobned. We may not agree with, or may even be deeply offended by someone's speech, but it is absolutely vital that we allow that speech. By limiting anyone's speech, we do ourselves and the world a disfavor by cutting off potentially world-changing ideas, no matter how buried in hurtful or hateful trappings.
It is never speech that hurts anyone, it is the actions taken based on it, and that is where limits are properly placed.
Galileo was imprisoned for life by "authorities" because he observed objects orbiting a body other than the Earth. This was deeply offensive the the State and Religion. However, imprisoning him for life did not change the facts, only who could hear them.
27.12.16
Peeking Behind The Curtain
Well, here we go with the top news stories of 2016. Yesterday, we covered the various passings that have marked the year that was, from the great to the small. Today, we want to focus on the more entertaining parts of pop culture, namely the headlines.
Our take on things is, of course, a bit different. We focus on the stories that will likely have far-reaching impact on the future, and believe it not, we don't think the Trump presidency is one of them. In fact, the entire election cycle of 2016, while being wildly entertaining and providing gobs of grist for the mill, will like a Hollywood blockbuster have little or no nutritional value for the brain.
Instead, we will focus on some stories that flew in under the radar, but which will likely come back to haunt us in major ways in the near-to-far future.
The first thing we focus on also happens to be one of the most recent: the assassination of Andrey Karlov, the Russian Ambassador to Turkey. Likely related to that event was the downing of a Russian jet over the Black Sea with a Russian military choir on its way to Syria to entertain the troops for Christmas and New Year.
This event is a fire starter - a slow burn in the coal scuttle that will eventually leap into dramatic flame, much like the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand in Sarajevo that touched off World War One. To any aware observer, this event couldn't be more obvious. It was meant, as so many other events over the past two decades, to goad Russia into war. The provocations include the Ukraine mess, NATO camping out on Russian borders, "friendly fire" incidents in Syria, and the overt acts of war generally called the Economic Sanctions set in place because 98% of Crimean people voted to rejoin the Russian Federation and Russia accepted.
And all this against a country that just a few years ago was America's best buddy in Asia after the Wall Fall. In fact, Russia was seen as the foil by which the West could keep China down on the farm.
Well, it didn't work out that way. Instead, Russia and China teamed up to form the BRICSA group, who announced their intention to start an alternative financial clearing system that threatens the Dollar Hegemony and the SWIFT cabal. Since that time, the Western media, mouthpieces for the Shadow Government, have been steadily driving Russia's image into the dirt - or at least trying.
Despite all the humiliations and public trashings the West has heaped on Russia, they have shown remarkable restraint, preferring instead to fight through media and public relations, figuring the "whipping boy" image garners sympathy and admiration from the rest of the world, which it certainly seems to have done. However, their patience is not boundless.
Certainly, the murder of a top diplomat in a key nation, plus the jet downing, must be pressing on the Kremlin's last nerve. We can assume that investigators will thoroughly document proof of Western involvement, and then take their case to the world in the hopes of stirring significant ill will towards the US, and most definitely put it on the table when negotiating with the Trump administration, which has promised to lighten up a bit. In any event, a significant story to watch.
Another important story, and one that will have long-lasting effects on all our daily lives, is the so-called "fake news" phenomenon. In addition to being used to tar and feather Russia (again), it is also part of a much larger effort to take full control of the internet, a process that was begun with Obama's signing over ICANN to the UN in October, plus rise and empowerment of WIPO, have touched off a rapidly growing effort to shut down free speech on the internet.
There is nothing more dangerous to human liberty than giving any government body the ability to control how and what its opposition can say. This ability is especially powerful when "intellectual property" rights can be used to control people's ability to cite reference materials in their writings and speech. This combination can literally shut down free inquiry, independent reporting and academic research all in one fell swoop. The associated rise of "fact checkers" and "information arbiters" is a very dangerous game in which almost everyone loses.
Every discovery ever made in human history came from rearranging existing facts and applying novel interpretations to them. If one can control the facts that are widely available and the interpretations that are deemed "acceptable," one effectively controls the mind of humanity and certainly shuts down any voyages of discovery in the general population, not to mention political opposition.
One to watch, and fight tooth and nail, going forward.
The next major story is one that is truly bubbling just under the surface, and there is a full-on effort to stifle it, as it could literally destroy the global ruling class. The story is, of course, Pizzagate.
Wikipedia immediately labeled this story a "conspiracy theory" and says it has been debunked. The now-discredited Snopes jumped all over it and declared it a non-item. "News" outlets have all but shut the story up, except to rant on about a "lone gunman" who walked into Comet Ping Pong in an obvious attempt to discredit the story. In other words, it's a very dangerous story to certain groups who desperately want it to go away.
The story broke during WikiLeaks' release of John Podesta's email during the presidential campaign. There were numerous references to "pizza" and other code words that are known to be pedophile jargon. The email mentioned several pizza restaurants around the US, specifically Comet Ping Pong in Washington, D.C., and the references were connected to other mentions of "spirit cooking," a truly sick form of black magic
This story is a huge deal. Dozens of researchers have spent decades documenting child-sex rings at the highest levels of power. Though nearly snuffed out, the Jimmy Seville case almost blew the lid off of the story. Before that, researchers have been tracing this practice since the 1950s, showing that Child Protection Services, kidnapping rings and other sources provided thousands of children each year to service high-level clients.
The practice has been tied to the Roman Church abuse of children dating back to the 1800s in Canada, the Bohemian Grove antics of the US power elite, black magic rituals, and the use of pedophilia as a means to ensure silence among the participants. There are also long-standing rumors that Stanley Kubrick was murdered for the subtle and not-so-subtle revelations in his films The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. If proof of this practice were ever to see the light of day, it would cause a global and violent backlash against the ruling classes that would change the course of history. Naturally, it must be squelched with every possible effort.
The Podesta email provided one of the biggest breaks ever in research of the practice. It named places and people, gave code words, and have led to the discovery of all sorts of corroborating evidence, such as advertising, that clearly imply nefarious activities of a most grotesque nature.
Needless to say, the people who research this subject are tireless and stay on it for decades. With this kind of information coming to the public, it has reinvigorated them in a way that Jimmy Seville's story did and shows the global nature of the problem. This story will not go away anytime soon, and there are likely to be more revelations coming to light over the coming year and beyond.
Finally, the major story of the century will most likely be the weather, and this year the New Ice Age started to become apparent. Over the year, oddly cold spells, strange snow events, heavy rains, record frosts, and other events signalled the coming Big Chill, though the constant brow-beating of Global Warming over the past three decades, combined with repeated scandals of data manipulation, have either got most people unable to see it, or simply burned out on the whole climate debate.
As the story goes, this past solar cycle has been unnervingly quiet. The sunspot counts are way down and solar activity of all kinds have been waning for the past three years. This has caused Earth's magnetic shield to weaken and destabilize, with the poles wandering closer to the equator on their way to converging sometime over Indonesia.
At the same time, the weaker shield has allowed much higher levels of cosmic radiation to penetrate Earth's atmosphere resulting in higher evaporation rates from the oceans. This higher moisture content in the atmosphere meets with rapidly cooling temperatures due to reduced solar output, causing vast flooding and snow events worldwide, including the most recent heavy snows in North Africa, one of the hottest regions on Earth.
Careful reading of food quality and price reports shows a steady decrease in food quality combined with a steady increase in prices across the board for grain, fruit and leafy vegetables. Harvest outputs have been declining over the past three years due to flooded fields and frost damage.
This story will become increasingly visible over the coming couple of years as the Sun enters a periodic minimum causing global temperatures to drop rapidly and a whole host of problems to crop up as a result. Though attempts are and will continue to be made to blame Global Warming and human activity. Cooling is, however, a far worse problem that warming and has nothing to do with anything humans are doing.
The extent of this story depends entirely on the Sun. A severe minimum combined with Earth's magnetic poles reversing would likely be catastrophic. Because so much time and money has been wasted on the Global Warming fairy tale, we are ill-prepared for what's coming, with declining food supplies, large areas becoming uninhabitable and the possibility of ocean levels dropping precipitously resulting in toxic salinity levels for marine life. No one really knows how severe the situation will be, but higher food prices and political instability are certainly the least of the problems to come.
Obviously, the stories the Corporate Media want us to focus on pale in comparison to our top picks here. Oh sure, the election made good theater, Brexit was chat-worthy and WikiLeaks stole a lot of headlines, but all of them will fade in weeks or months, replaced with more entertaining "news." The stories that will affect most of humanity going forward are the ones being assiduously kept under wraps. We are not meant to bother ourselves with real issues, and that distracts from our ability to be controlled.
Stay tuned tomorrow as we release our world-famous Predilection Issue 2016, looking at the most likely headlines for 2017 - good, bad and indifferent. That will be followed by a little break for us Far Siders as we welcome the New Year and get roaring drunk in the jungle of Borneo.
Sampai jumpa, Y'all!
27.5.16
Truth In Advertising
Earlier this week, there was a brief storm of controversy over a young woman named Krystal Lake, who worked (I use the simple past advisedly) at a Home Depot in New York state. She had the unbridled audacity to make and wear a ball cap which read, "America Was Never Great."
Well, as you can imagine, especially in the current political environment in America right now, this set off a Twitter War of unrestrained jingoism and bashing that left the poor girl fearing for her life.
Yet, she posed a very good question, and one that still doesn't have a good answer, especially in the wake of how this girl was treated by the public at large. Certainly, it wasn't free speech that made America great.
The question is, "When exactly was America great in the first place?" I mean, after all, Donald Trump is having significant success running on a slogan of "Make American Great AGAIN." It begs the question, for which the neither the candidate nor his supporters seem to have an answer. It's one of those dangling assertions that everyone assumes is true, but no one can point to a specific fact that proves the case.
Was America great during the financial collapse and endless wars of the past two decades? How about during the 1990s, when the husband of one presidential candidate was abusing White House interns with cigars?
Was America great during the 1980s, when greed took over the Western World? Perhaps the hedonistic 1970s, when polyester leisure suits and all-night parties with piles of Bolivian Marching Powder were the rage? Perhaps America was great during the 1960s, when a number of high-profile folks were murders and riots occurred at political conventions and the president of the country ordered henchmen to break into the opposition's headquarters?
The saccharine 50s? The war-torn 40s? The Depression 30s? The 20s, decade of Robber Barons? How about the 1800s, when the federal government licensed slave ships, committed genocide and a brutal and bloody internal war torn the country to pieces?
I guess there was a brief period when America was home to amazing inventors, entrepreneurs and small business owners, but it didn't take long for the regulators to step in and shut them down to protect the major corporations.
Yes, we are in search of that elusive moment when America was great the first time.
Oh sure, the country stepped into two world wars under false pretenses to come to the aid of a couple of "allies" that got themselves into wars they couldn't win because of pure stupidity, knowing that they could lure those war-like Americans to join in at some point.
I heard you earlier start to get upset when I said the US licenses slave ships. Well, hate to break it to you, but not one single slave was brought to America under the Confederate flag. All the slave ships where either British or US registry.
OK, I'll grant you that the US Constitution is pretty great, but to be great again would assume the country ever followed it in the first place. Even the vaunted Thomas Jefferson violated that poor document with the Louisiana Purchase. The Constitution would be great if anyone had ever paid attention to it. Now it's just a dirty word and judges throw you in jail for contempt if you so much as breathe the word in court (I know...I've been one of them).
That very Constitution that is so great guarantees the freedom of speech, which poor Krystal Lake found out is not much protection. When she expressed her thoughts, people began campaigns to get her fired from her job, called her all sorts of mean nasty names and even threatened her life on social media.
The behavior of Krystal's fellow citizens proved the very point she was making with her simple ball cap. The things that made America great were ideals that have rarely been achieved (if ever). Even the noted Mr. Jefferson wrote that all men were created equal, except perhaps the ones he owned.
Ms. Lake made a valid and profound point with her quiet statement. America has an active fantasy life about its greatness, but there is a lot of room for improvement.
In defense of Ms. Lake, I would like the Trump campaign, and all his supporters that espouse his slogan, to please define for us what period of American history we should return to in order to be great again.
Perhaps dropping "again" from the slogan and campaigning on a platform of returning the country to Constitutional government would be more honest and appropriate, because I honestly can't think of a single period of time to which the country could return to be great again.
16.3.16
For Hate's Sake I Spit At Thee
I looked up the definition of "hate speech" on Google and got this, "Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." So, according to this definition, almost every human alive in every context and every day commits "hate speech."
Schoolboy taunts are "hate speech." Calling Nazis evil is "hate speech." Saying that Attila the Hun was an invader rather than an immigrant is "hate speech." Hell, even referring to "white privilege" is "hate speech," except that it's quite in vogue right now. And therein lies the issue.
"Hate speech" is one of those amorphous things used to paint anyone we don't like with the brush of "political correctness." You see, it's OK to bash the white race, and for non-white races to bash each other, but it is a sin of the highest order for white folk to say even the least derogatory thing about anyone else. It's OK to bash Nazis and fascists, but not socialists and communists. In fact, the borders of "hate speech" keep moving to suit whatever the Gatekeepers want. In other words, "hate speech" is a tool of a controlling elite to stifle free and open discourse on whatever topic they don't like.
There is no right not to be offended or insulted. Sorry, but that is a fact. Trying to skate through life without someone somewhere offending and insulting you is a hopeless and ridiculous exercise. For example, if you are fat, then at some point in your life, someone will call you "fat." It is an accurate description of you. It's a fact, get over it. If it offends or insults you, then shutting up the person saying it will not change the fact. Only direct action on your part to lose weight will do that. If you don't take action, then you have chosen to be fat, and if you are insulted by someone noting that fact makes you an oversensitive idiot, as well.
Since records began, humans have had prejudices. Every sub-group of society bashes every other sub-group to make themselves look superior and thus attract and keep members in the group. Exclusivity is a selling point. People want things that no one else has, and feel superior when they have them. Whether your group feels snobbish because you eat at the finest restaurants, or your group has a lock on eternal salvation, everyone everywhere at all times has felt superior because of their membership in some group - and they have bashed other groups for not having the same thing.
Every race has bashed every other race for being inferior. Every religion has bashed every other religion for not having the secrets to eternal truth. Every political party has bashed every other political party for not having the answers. And every individual has bashed some other individual for not being in their group.
It is a fact of life and the human condition that we define ourselves in opposition to others. It is also a fact that at some point in our life, we will feel insulted or slighted in some way. For crying out loud, siblings fight at the dinner table because one of them got a piece of pie that was slightly larger than another. People get their feelings hurt. So what?
The thing about "hate speech," and other terms, like "conspiracy theorist," is that they are a way to stifle thought and expression that are not in line with our own. And when you put the deadly force of law behind it, you have a formidable weapon to shut down dissent and control the boundaries of public discourse.
Puppeteers control their marionettes using strings and sticks to animate the bodies and mouths. Ambiguous terms like "hate speech" are nothing more than those strings and sticks making us dance to whatever tune the Puppeteers wish.
The terms are so vague that they seem reasonable, until you think a little deeper, but the Puppeteers control thinking with "conspiracy theorist" to prevent folks from doing that. It's a vicious merry-go-round designed to entice people to jump on for the ride, and then slamming the gates behind them so they can't jump off. All the pretty lights and organ music make the ride seem so cool and reasonable, but you are not allowed to wonder why you would want to ride in endless circles.
In the end, "hate speech" can be defined as just about anything the Puppeteers want, while at another level it's a means of having society itself limit each other from expressing opinions and facts that might hurt someone's feelings. Anyone who speaks against a protected group or idea is using "hate speech." You can't even defend freedom of speech without crossing this arbitrary border.
If you start thinking for yourself and offering alternatives to the sanctioned mindset, then you are a "conspiracy theorist," and again free speech is shut down.
The truly amazing thing is that this form of "political correctness" is a classic case of Double Think. In effect, the individual ends up suppressing others' right to free speech by labeling what they say as "hate speech," while at the same time the individual believes he is protecting free speech. It's a ghastly mind twist that has been installed in our minds.
Finally, these labels release us from having to think. We don't need to respond intelligently, or formulate arguments to refute, we just utter "hate speech" and walk away. No effort. No thought. No danger of actually using our minds and reason. Good little marionettes.
It is time to eradicate these terms from our vocabulary. They are too glib and vague to be useful in the best case, and deeply dangerous and controlling in the worst. The control is not on others, it is on ourselves. We close and lock our own cages when we use these terms.
There is no right to be un-offended, un-insulted or inconvenienced. You have a right to pursue happiness, which means you can walk away or change the channel. The other guy has the same right and is using his speech to seek that happiness. He doesn't have a right to force you to listen, but you don't have a right to shut him up. This is what used to be called being an adult.
If someone says or publishes something untrue about you, we have slander and libel laws to protect you, and if someone incites violence, there's laws for that too. Otherwise, get over it and deal with it like an adult.
(By the way, the title of this article is taken from Moby Dick, so sue Herman Melville)
27.1.16
MiniTrue Strikes Again
If you are one of the three people in the educated world that have not yet read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, then you should probably drop everything you are doing and rush out to get a copy and curl up this weekend with a good bottle of single-malt scotch and put it in your brain.It is not just to finally grok the true meaning of Big Brother, MiniTrue, Newspeak, IngSoc, and other now-cultural terms, but to send shivers of recognition down your spine as you see words written in 1949, can seem so prescient in 2016.
There are hundreds of reasons to read this book, but the one that has always remained foremost for me is the look at "free speech" and manipulation of language.
If you are not in the know, then the protagonist, Winston Smith, is employed at the Ministry of Truth (MiniTrue), where he spends his days modifying historical records and dictionary entries. The ultimate goal of this exercise is to completely eliminate factual history and to reduce the common vocabulary to the point where it is completely impossible to express ideas that are contrary to the ruling elites' interests.
Having absorbed this book in high school, I have watched the world march unceasingly towards those very goals. We call them "political correctness" and other euphemisms, but the concepts and the results are the same.
We are often treated to a certain group of left wing polemicists harping on "free speech," while simultaneously ridiculing anyone expressing ideas and concepts that are outside their carefully crafted narrative. For instance, we might hear Noam Chomsky wax philosphical about linguistics and the control of language (or through language), but turn right around and attackurn someone promoting a boycott of Israel for the Palestinian attrocities. This is a textbook example of Double Think - holding two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time and believing both of them with fervor.
The thing about free speech is that it involves the right of everyone to say anything they believe, and even to try and convince you of the value of their position. To repeat - ANYONE to say ANYTHING they believe, no matter what the topic or viewpoint.
There have been multiple legal boundaries put up over the centuries since the Enlightenment. The US Supreme Court ruled that free speech does not include the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. The reasoning was that to incite a panic for no reason that can lead to grievous bodily harm is not permitted. This makes sense, until you expand it to mean that someone advocating revolution is also outside the protection of free speech, when in fact, it is that person's speech that is the most protected.
The thing is that free speech protects the presentation and argumentation of ideas and concepts. If one person is free to present the argument that the Nazis committed a racial holocaust against a certain segment of society, then someone else is must be allowed to present the opposing view. The two sides battle it out on the basis of evidence and persuasion, not on who can slam the door the hardest on the opposition.
In fact, in the above example, laws have been passed in a number of countries making it a crime to question the "mainstream" narrative of the Nazi holocaust. To my mind, any argument that requires that extreme to protect it is weak on its face. If, in fact, the entirety of the story were true in every detail, there would be no need to use the deadly force of law to protect it, as it would stand on its own merits.
Another example is the recent banning by Amazon of a book called Nobody Died at Sandy Hook. The fact that the book had to be banned shows the weakness in the "mainstream" narrative and the fear on the part of the elite that their carefully woven fabric might be undone by pulling on the wrong strings.
At this point, some readers will accuse me of being a "conspiracy theorist," and I admit that I am open to reinterpretations of history. It is a fact that history is created by conspiracies and that historical events and persons are open to new data. Even in the "mainstream," history is being rewritten all the time. A new discovery at CERN or the publication of Planned Parenthood videos allows the public to reconsider their understanding of things. If respected researchers build documented arguments that turn common beliefs on their ears, I am all for a fair listen and reserve the right to change my own opinions based on that information if I so choose.
In other words, if I have to choose between a protected species and the survival of me and my family, the protected species loses. End of story. In the same way, if a protected story deeply affects the ability of me and my family to function because the narrative has come at a social price, then I am all for re-examining that story to ensure what I have been asked to give up is worth the price. The Nazi holocaust being used to jail and shame people, Sandy Hook being used to limit my right to self-defense, 911 being used to rein in civil liberties, and religion being used to fence my right to reason mean that these things (and so much more) are open to review and criticism and revision until we are all satisfied that the truth is known and it justifies the sacrifices being foisted on us.
The moment someone wants to take something from you based on some event or argument is the moment that free speech is most valuable and necessary. If the food safety board declares that cherries are no longer healthy and must be eradicated from my diet, then I want to see the evidence and arguments to the contrary before I surrender my warm slice of pie with a heap of vanilla ice cream on top.
In criminal law in most Western countries, a person must be proved guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt" before being convicted of a crime. To remove ANY of my liberties and freedoms is effectively the same as convicting me of a crime beyond a "reasonable doubt." Therefore, I want to examine the evidence from all sides. I want to hear all the witnesses. I want to see all the forensic research. I want to question every detail before I surrender my freedom. To abridge my right to free speech and access to information, to limit what and how much I can ingest of any substance, to hide any facts or alternatives is to convict me (or anyone) without trial.
So, what does all this mean? What is "free speech?"
Does it mean we can question the right of Jews to claim a "homeland" called Israel? Absolutely. Despite 150 years of feverish digging in the Sinai and Egypt, there is yet to come to light any hard evidence to support the Biblical narrative of Exodus, and thus the claim of ancient homeland is suspect. That the holocaust has been used to justify the political state of Israel, even with the paucity of evidence for the claim, and the use of lethal force (government and law) to enforce it, makes the entire thing suspect and open to critical review. If the facts later support it, no problem. But...
Does this mean we have the right to question 911, 77, and other acts of terrorism? Absolutely. Because those events have been used to justify indicting and convicting (removing civil rights) from the entire populace of nations, then we have the right to investigate thoroughly and ensure that the foundations of our collective conviction is justified and factual.
Does this mean we have the inalienable (in-a-LIEN-able) right to say whatever we want, no matter how offensive to others or the elite. Absolutely. We must be allowed to speak our minds and cast our opinions into the marketplace to allow others to judge their worthiness. If we abridge a single word, then we have opened the floodgate, no matter how small, to further incursions on our liberty, and even the wholesale editing and control of history and what/how we think (a la Nineteen Eighty-Four). None of us has a "right" to not be offended, but we all have the right to change the channel or move to another seat.
Does this mean there is an inalienable right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Absolutely. It is not the act of yelling "fire," but the reaction of the crowd. If anyone is injured or property destroyed, there are remedies under the law if the intent of the person yelling "fire" can be shown to have been less than honorable.
Free speech is a huge right, and one that all other rights are founded on. It is also the foundation of a republican (not the party) form of government to preserve and protect fundamental rights for all members of society, no matter how many heads can be counted in each camp. It is the classic case of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, and lamb is off the menu.
"I disagree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it," is often attributed to Voltaire, but it was more likely expressed by Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Thank goodness for historical revisionists. It is not that Voltaire did not think this way, or even say something quite like it, but rather the fact that it was his biographer who expressed it in those particular words.
There is always room for new information, new ideas and revision of old concepts. To limit any speech or deny anyone the right to put forth an argument on any topic is to set back human advancement if even an imperceptible amount. It is vital that we protect the right of ALL people to express ANY argument, no matter how offensive we may personally find it. If the argument has no merit (some genders/races are inferior to others), it is easily dismissed and eventually the speaker will have no audience. If the argument is valid, then no matter how ridiculous or offensive it may seem, it deserves to be examined by a free society. Any idea that requires deadly force (government and law) to enforce it is by definition unworthy of publication. QED
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)