02/05/06
Abhorrent Muslim behavior is a welcome wake-up call for Europe
The past year or so has seen Muslim behavior so repugnant as to get even the ultra-tolerant Dutch and spineless French to see the risk to their societies from the influx of Muslim immigrants.
For those of us who find merit in the idea of the Cold War as World War III, the current conflict between Islam and the civilized world is easily posed as World War IV. Europeans have a long history of being slow to react to their own imminent demise, often needing help from their overseas savior to survive. (This is not to say that the US responded with admirable speed in either of the first two World Wars.) The difference with World War IV is that Europe has allowed the invaders to live among them in the lead-up to war.
Over the past week, the behavior of Muslims in Europe has been perfect fodder for caricature. Unforunately it was cartoons that caused their outrageous conduct: Muslims across Europe are on the rampage in response to cartoons portraying their prophet Mohammed, including at least two showing him as a terrorist.
The cartoons were originally printed in September in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and reprinted recently by other publications "in solidarity" with Jyllands-Posten. (The question of why Muslims are on the rampage 4 months after the cartoons' publication is also an interesting question.)
[According to the Financial Times, publications which have printed the cartoons include: Jyllands-Posten (Danish); WeekendAvisen (Danish); Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (German); Magazinet (Norwegian); Brussels Journal (Belgium); DV (Icelandic); Die Tageszeitung (German); France Soir (French); Die Welt (German); Tagesspiegel(German); Berliner Zeitung (German); La Stampa(Italian); El Periodico(Spanish); Volkskrant (Dutch); NRC Handelsblad (Dutch); Elsevier (Dutch); Die Zeit (German); al-Shihan (Jordanian); Le Soir (Belgium); Le Monde (French); BBC (UK)]
I believe that the Cartoon Uprising of Muslims worldwide, but especially in Europe, is an unqualified blessing for the Western World. More on this after some discussion of the controversial cartoons and related issues....
Here, for your viewing pleasure are the two "most offensive" cartoons, portraying Mohammed as a murderer and terrorist bomber. You can click on the image to see all 12 cartoons originally printed in Denmark. (Note: If all 12 cartoons are small, move mouse over image or click on it and look for an icon of a magnifying glass or a square with 4 arrows coming out from it and click on that to enlarge images.)
Where politicians throughout Europe are apologizing for the cartoons, newspapers across the Continent have reprinted the cartoons to show support for the Danish paper and to stand up for freedom of speech.
The Muslim reaction has been an often-violent demonstration of the dangerous intolerance which is at least as fundamental to the European Islamic "culture" as within Islam itself.
At least three Muslim nations have recalled their ambassadors from Denmark. Denmark's Jyllands-Posten has received bomb threats. Radicals stormed EU offices in the Gaza Strip, and according to the Washington Times: In Indonesia, about 100 members of the hardline Front of the Defenders of Islam stormed the Danish Embassy, chanting, "Let's go jihad. We're ready for jihad." One of their banners said: "Let's slaughter the Danish ambassador!" Yesterday, rioters burned the Danish embassy in Damascus. (The building also held the Swedish and Chilean embassies.) And today they burned the Danish embassy in Beirut.
Click HERE to see a few pictures of Muslim reaction in Europe from the BBC.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it
Arab countries have a long history of anti-Semitic and anti-American cartoons, in general far more offensive to an objective observer (not that I claim to be one) than these depictions of Mohammed.
Click HERE to read a discussion of "Major Anti-Semitic Motifs in Arab Cartoons" from 2004. For those of you have never seen such things, it will be an eye-opener, showing Muslim hypocrisy with stark clarity.
Here are a few more examples:
Tom Gross - Mideast Media Analysis, "Cartoons from the Arab World"
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htmStart about halfway down this page, at the television show info:
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/syria/media_1_04.htmAnother must see site is Palestinian Media Watch. I strongly recommend you take a look, and with the theme of this article I recommend their "Cartoons and Photo" section.
So, why is this cartoon furor a good thing? Because it is the first pan-European wave of Muslim intolerance followed by push-back from Europeans (even if it is newspapers rather than governments leading the charge for sanity.)
In prior events, whether bombings in London or Spain, a murder in Holland, or riots in France, the stories were easy for citizens of other European countries to say "It was a local event with limited relevance for us."
No longer. The courage of newspapers across Europe to reprint the cartoons has caused Muslims to show their true nature: Intolerant and hateful of other religions and cultures.
To be sure, there are many Muslims who do not agree with the violent reaction of radical Muslims. (THIS STORY from the Times of London has an interesting balance of reaction.) But those moderates are frequently silent, maybe in as much (or more) fear of their own co-religionists as the rest of the world is.
The worldwide reaction to these cartoons show Muslims in the worst possible light and may finally get European countries which thought that the problem of Muslim immigration was always someone else's problem to realize their true risk.
There is too much fear of offending Muslims. Radical muslims already hate the West as much as they can. Offending them will not make it worse. Europeans must take seriously the threat to everything they know and value. European governmets must no longer avoid strong action, stricter immigration laws, and more aggressive deportation and prosecution.
As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I would never argue that most European governments are mostly made up of good men, but the citizens of those countries are. Until now, there has been little pressure by citizens on governments in Europe to take the problem of domestic radical Islam seriously, and no consistent continent-wide pressure.
The reaction to these cartoons will change that and, with some new-found courage in Europe, may finally bring the beginnings of a cohesive European resistance to the cultural war that Islam has been, until now, waging with substantial success across the Continent (and maybe even more so in England).
From the German newspaper, Der Spiegel, here is an excellent commentary by a Muslim, essentially exhorting the West: "Do not apologize". Moderate Muslims in Europe should follow Mr. Warraq's example and start speaking out more aggressively against those who would hijack their religion.
"Democracy in a Cartoon" (Ibn Warraq in Der Spiegel, 2/3/06)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html
In large part due to the silence and inaction of moderate Muslims within European immigrant communities as well as inaction by weak-kneed governments, immigration of Muslims (now 10% of the French population, for example) has become a European cancer. Europeans have known something was wrong for years but have refused to see the doctor. But visions of an early death are a powerful incentive to take strong medicine.
We should thank the intolerant Muslim reaction to these cartoons for bringing into millions of homes nightmare visions of a future full of immigrant Islamic hatred for their hosts, for democracy, for freedom of speech, thought, the press, or religion.
Given the comparatively small cost (in lives and property) of the Cartoon Uprising, I am grateful to those radicals who finally made Europeans consider seeing the "cultural oncologist" and getting treatment before it's too late. I only hope the West as well as moderate Muslims have the courage to realize that the disease is indeed far worse than the cure.
---------------------------
NB: When a villain does one good thing, he is not instantly redeemed...not suddenly a "good guy" deserving of trust. Thus, this one good deed by European newspapers who reprinted the cartoons of Mohammed does not undo their generations of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. A perfect example is shown by the pleasant surprise of a French court finding the writers of a profoundly anti-Semitic article in a major newspaper guilty of "racist defamation". While I don't argue for censorship, the article was typical of French journalism which is hateful of the only democracy in the Middle East, preferring homicide bombers and radical mullahs who want nuclear weapons. [Please see my comment in the comments section below for clarification of this part of the discussion.]
You can read about the whole thing here:
"Anti-Semitism at 'Le Monde' and Beyond"
(Tom Gross, Wall Street Journal Europe, 6/2/05)
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/Anti-Semitism_at_Le_Monde_and_Beyond.asp
27 comments
We must recognize and deal with it or die.
Let loose the dogs of war NOW!
Perhaps I'm missing your point? I guess I can't understand how you can be "pleasantly surprised" by the French courts in this instance while showing (appropriate) contempt for Arabic governments shunning Denmark over the cartoons.
Thanks for the comment. I was aware of the potential "mixed message" of that final comment, but here are my thoughts on it:
1) Although the court found them guilty, their punishment was a symbolic payment of one Euro as well as having to publish an article condemning what was simply racist propaganda. So, it's not as if the court closed down the newspaper or did anything that actually jeopardized freedom of the press.
2) This was in Europe and not the US. They do not live under our Constitution and I don't hold their system to our standards or procedures. Similarly, I don't hold out system to their standards or procedures, which is why it was so wrong for one of our Supreme Court justices to cite European precedent in the recent decision about capital punishment.
3) I did not say that "racist defamation" should be illegal, but again I don't hold Europeans to our Constitutional standards. If it is illegal there, they should either change the law or enforce it. My main point was that no serious newspaper should run what is simply hateful propaganda while pretending it is news and research. It is finding that distinction that I cheer.
Again, thanks for reading and writing!
Ross
Initially, it does appear to be contradictory.
You also said, "Having ANY kind of opinion - vile though it may be - adjudicated by the state does violence to our freedom (leaving aside libel and such). "Racist defamation" is vile, but certainly shouldn't be illegal in a free society."
I presume here you mean that public expression of opinion is inviolate?
Do you then disagree with banning the action of walking in to a movie theater and yelling "Fire"?
If you do not disagree, (for the obvious reason of the likely harm to others that will result from that action) on what basis do you object to bans on Hate Speech?("a French court finding the writers of a profoundly anti-Semitic article in a major newspaper guilty of 'racist defamation'.")
Hate speech is likely to result in harm to others as well.
We must not stoop to rhetoric like "exterminate" as applied to an entire race, religion, country, etc. I could go with "exterminating" Al Qaeda members, those planning terrorist attacks, etc., but entire races or religions are not "vermin".
On another note, some of the discussion around this issue has used rhetoric like "white verus brown", which I also find repugnant and distinctly unhelpful in solving what is arguably the world's biggest problem at this time.
I stand with Denmark and Queen Margarethe and anyone who does not succumb to Islamic extortion. Muslims (Al Jazeera, etc) publish pictures mocking Bush (heck, we here in the United States publish pictures mocking Bush!) in addition to others who we feel deserve it.
The fact is, I live by the mantra that "all I need to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11". The weak and almost non-existent protest by American muslims and others around the world have turned what might have been characterized by non-Muslim as a simple "belief" into something hated and vilified.
How I perceive Muslims is what they project: evil, weakness, backwards, hatred, murderers, sick, sick, sick. Muslims to me now mean nothing but to fight to keep Christianity alive and well. I thought I would never say this, but I am beginning to hate Muslims. They hold signs saying anyone who says anything about Muslins should be murdered, butchered, etc...well..let me tell you...
Anyone Christian reserves the right to do the same to any Muslim who defiles a Bible, or Jesus Christ.
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. God help them if I ever seen any Muslim torching a picture of Jesus Christ.
The "fire" reference, in my view, is miles away from so-called "hate speech." The former is impermissible because its utterance is not an expression of any substance or point of view, but merely an attempt to incite panic and, presumably, physical injury.
"Hate-speech," on the other hand, merely expresses a point of view. The fact that people may be offended by that point of view doesn't equate to "causing them harm" in the sense of the "fire" example. You've (inadvertently, I think)summed up the problem perfectly.
In short, people do not have a right not to be offended by the words of other people. "Hate speech" codes are merely a means of suppressing certain topics of discussion that the majority doesn't like. (A current example: a minister in Scotland is being persecuted - oops, prosecuted -under hate speech laws for preaching from the pulpit that homosexuality is sinful. Does such a doctine offend some folks? Sure! But so does most of Christianity, indeed most religions that place even the most minute restrictions on human behavior. Are the minister's words "hateful?" Of course not. Is it "hateful" for a minister to proclaim from the pulpit that, say, working on the Sabbath is sinful? Such a statement may well offend lots of folks who work on Sunday, but is it any more "hateful" than the proclamation on homosexuality? It all boils down to whose ox is being gored.
Now, if the minister was telling his flock to go lynch any gay folks in the community, or any folks that work on Sunday, that's incitement to violence. But the expression of a point of view that offends people is NOT incitement to violence. If the people that are offended resort to violence (as is clearly happening in the current situation regarding the cartoons), they are the ones committing a crime. That's where "hate speech" fails the freedom test.
Anyway, went a bit long. Sorry about that.
Best,
Paul
Okay, I'll shut up now.
Paul
What you say may be true, however,
if you're going to fight with pigs, you have to get in the mud.
Standing up against a barabaric, so-called "religion that advocates and celebrates the murders of innocent people, Christians, Jews, anyone who ISN'T Muslim (they are told to convert or kill), are asking for it BIG TIME!
Muslims are the one reciprocating over a few cartoons. That psycho in Iran likens cartoons to The Holocaust. Give me a break. We need to be a little more pro-active here, not completely on defense. Never works.
If rats or roaches invade your home, do you coax them out and send them on their way, or do you call for pest control to get all of them and preferably in one trip?
Same thing. People who don't value human life should NEVER be given the same rights as a human being.
Doesn't take much for you to call people barbarians who don't want to put up with the devil in their faces any longer.
I wasn't calling you a barbarian. Sorry if that wasn't clear. (I do think the "exterminate" comments from some of the others certainly qualify as barbaric, however.) I, too, am for an aggressive response to Islamic Radicalism. I completely support our "forward" strategy in the Middle East, and I would support damned near any action necessary to keep the crazy mullahs in Iran from getting nukes (and I do mean "any" action). So please, don't mistake me for someone who wants to play defense all the time. All I'm saying is, doing what the barbarians do isn't the answer. In the end, it's counterproductive.
In more concrete terms, I would certainly entertain the argument that the burning of European embassies in places like Syria is an act of war, justifying everything from sanctions to, possibly, limited military action. Particularly in a place like Syria, where roaming crowds don't do ANYTHING without the tacit approval of the regime, the burning of embassies is clearly an act of war, and should be responded to accordingly.
Again, I'm not for passivity or defensiveness. I am for a rationally-driven response that a) achieves what we want to achieve, and b)identifies the barbarians as barbarians. Let's make them play our game, not the other way around. We hold the cards in the end, they don't. To use your analogy, I sure as hell wouldn't fight a pig in his own mud. I'd stay out of his mud and use the weapon of my choice. (I don't know if that analogy works or not, but you get the gist.)That's all I'm saying.
When's the Super Bowl start? All this geopolitics is making my head hurt!
Paul
Freedom of speech will have died a little more.
What I forsee eventually is the first use of nuclear weapons by an Islamic state against Israel. Will Israel then attempt to destroy that nation, or destroy all Muslims within their reach? If Tel Aviv is destroyed, will the Israelis destroy Mecca, Medina, Cairo, and Tehran, despite the fact that most of the people they are killing are innocent?
Radical islam must be completely extirpated from the face of the Earth. For the good of all, including moderate Muslims.
But mere recognition of the quickening is not a prediction of the ultimate outcome. One side plainly must prevail over the other, and on this most elemental question the jury is still out. Either tolerance will continue to be practiced as a quasi-religious virtue in a secularized if not decadent West, or the violent fascist intolerance that seems to be at the heart of modern Islam will consume tolerance in its purifying crucible. Not since Hiroshima in 1945 have the tides of change been this severe.
I don't want to put too fine a point on it as I agree with you in the main about censorship. I also share your perception that labeling opinions 'Hate Speech' is frequently PC run amuck.
Nevertheless and, to use the clearest example, Hitler's rantings certainly led to harm to over 6 million people.
"Stating a hateful point of view' and repeated often enough, sometimes does lead to actions harmful to others.
To deny this, seems to me to be intellectual dishonesty in accepting the natural consequence of the power of words to sway men's hearts and move them to action. As it is a natural human tendency to 'want to do something about it'.
Here is the problem with the issue of hate speech. Like Paul indicated previously, at what point does an opinion become hate? The fact that the Muslim world appears to have very thin skin and reacts in a violent manner to a cartoon doesn't mean those cartoons constituted hate speech.
All one has to do is look at the vile cartoons that the Arab world creates on a daily basis depicting Jews as rodents or pigs and one will get a good example of the height of hypocrisy.
Then again if we're going to simply accept that criticism of Islam will automatically set the Arab street to violence in much the same way yelling fire in a crowded theater would cause innocent people to be harmed, than I would say that is not a ringing endorsement for a positive image of Muslims.
When 'art' such as Piss Christ was displayed, Christians were naturally very upset and said so, however, Christians were also not calling for the artist to be beheaded, no buildings were burnt down and we were not calling for a new crusade. Its not that Christians are no more devout than Muslims, but perhaps it was the whole 'thou shalt not kill' thing.
I agree with the point of view that promulgates confrontation with Islamic fanaticism, artistic AND military.
I believe we are far too conciliatory in our dealings with them.
I think ridicule and contempt is much more effective in dealing with fanatics, than we are presently employing.
We need to constantly piss them off.
Startegically, it is the equivalent of putting an opposing sports team 'off' their game.
Sun Tzu would approve.
However, I do NOT think attacking the fundamental foundational personality of Islam is the way to most effectively do that, in fact its couter productive.
Regardless of Muhammeds reportedly less than saint-like behaviors.
Some of the cartoons attacked Muhammed (bomb in the turban) some attacked the terrorists :-) [Muhammed greeting the line of terrorists and saying, "Stop, we're out of virgins!"]
Ridiculing terrorists=good.
Disparaging Mohammmed=STUPID.
As example, we need cartoons that show the terrorists being greeted by the Devil...with appropriate commentary on where their actions have led them.
I am in favor of hunting down every single one of them and simply killing them, just as we did with the Nazi's until the 'movement' is fully defeated. Anyone who doesn't immediately drop their weapons...No trial, just a bullet in the head.
No quarter, surrender or die...
Well, now that I've demonstrated just what the Islamic terrorists are dealing with...
I'll return to freedom of speech and hate speech.
Regardless of how difficult it may be to define, there is such a thing as hate speech.
I simply felt that Paul was a bit too dismissive of Rossputin's post by characterizing it as contradictory.
Paul appeared to me to be rejecting Rossputins reasoning based upon the view that 'freedom of speech' is absolute and thus supreme over any other consideration.
In the constallation of his values, freedom of speech may be first among equals but last I checked, the Bill of Rights contained TEN essential protections.
I wrote most of this yesterday, but there seemed to be a technical glitch somewhere. Anyway..
You write:
"Nevertheless and, to use the clearest example, Hitler's rantings certainly led to harm to over 6 million people.
And yesterday, late:
"Paul appeared to me to be rejecting Rossputins reasoning based upon the view that 'freedom of speech' is absolute and thus supreme over any other consideration.
"In the constallation of his values, freedom of speech may be first among equals but last I checked, the Bill of Rights contained TEN essential protections."
Okay, this is useful, because it shows what I consider to be some very clear non sequiturs that frequently arise in these types of discussions.
With respect to your reference to Hitler, you indicate that Hitler's rantings lead to the destruction of 6 million people (Jews, primarily). I couldn't disagree more. It was not a surplus of free speech in Nazi Germany that led to the Holocaust (and WWII), it was the inattention of the rest of the world to what Hitler was saying that resulted in all that death and destruction. Of course I don't question the impact of words and ideas (I publish three magazines, so believe me, I hold the value of ideas in high esteem), but there is a wide chasm between saying something and doing something. It is what Hitler and his followers did (and what we allowed them to do by ignoring their words) that resulted in death, not his words. On the contrary, one of the most practical (as opposed to ideological) defenses of a NEAR-absolute position on freedom of speech is that allowing people to say what's on their minds - even if those minds are filled with bile and hatred - allows the disinfectant of truth to be applied. This is an excruciatingly relevant lesson for the current situation with Iran and the crazies running that country. They, too, have made their hateful intentions perfectly clear. That isn't a problem, it's a blessing - but only if we heed what they're saying and don't fall back on the nonsensical "it's only for domestic consumption" line.
With respect to your assertion that my view on freedom of speech is "absolute," that mischaracterizes my position, as my previous posts should have made clear. Nor have I ever indicated that free speech is the highest consideration. It's not (but it's damned close.)
Finally, with respect to your statement regarding "my" constellation of values - a pretty broad statement coming from somebody who doesn't know me in any way - placing freedom of speech first among equals, you say "last time I checked, the Bill of Rights had TEN protections..." Honestly, I haven't a clue what this have to do with anything? Unless I've missed something along the way in our discussing, I don't think I've seen anyone - and certainly not myself - making any arguments regarding whether the First Amendment is more important than the Fifth Amendment, or the Sixth or the Third, etc. The fact that our Constitution has a whole bunch of other protections has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. We're discussing freedom of speech (at least I thought we were), not the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to avoid self-incrimination, etc.
Anyway, even with all this, I don't think we're that far apart. Having gone well over my allotment of space here, I'll simply summarize by pointing out that yes, we can obviously agree that there is hateful speech out there, some of which is incendiary. But as long as such speech stops short of EXPLICITLY advocating violence against other individuals (no, "Death To America" shouldn't be banned), it isn't the government's job to tell us what we can and cannot say.
Best,
Paul
Paul,
We are and are not that far apart.
However, I can't fully agree with your reasoning. It’s not that what you say isn't true, it’s that it’s incomplete.
You state, "It was not a surplus of free speech in Nazi Germany that led to the Holocaust (and WWII), it was the inattention of the rest of the world to what Hitler was saying that resulted in all that death and destruction...there is a wide chasm between saying something and doing something. It is what Hitler and his followers did (and what we allowed them to do by ignoring their words) that resulted in death, not his words."
You are creating your own non-sequitur; by responding to my assertion that Hitler’s hate speech repeated often enough led to action against the Jews with the assertion that "It was not a surplus of free speech in Nazi Germany that led to the Holocaust" I never claimed it did as it is not the freedom to express an opinion to which I am objecting.
It is incessant, unrestrained hate speech to which I object, as I don’t think TRUE Hate speech is simply the expression of an opinion.
While I agree that frequently accusations of ‘Hate Speech’ are a cover for suppressing Politically ‘incorrect’ views, my intuition is that true Hate speech is a ‘horse of another color’ and very real.
You agree that Racist defamation is vile and indicate that libel and slander exceed free speech.
Websters defines "‘defame’ as: to attack the reputation of; slander or libel…"
Generally we think of slander and libel as directed against the individual but there is no logical reason why these definitions should not apply to groups as well.
Logically then, Racist defamation is, in effect, libel and slander.
The "fire" reference, in my view, is miles away from so-called "hate speech." The former is impermissible because its utterance is not an expression of any substance or point of view, but merely an attempt to incite panic and, presumably, physical injury.
"Hate-speech," on the other hand, merely expresses a point of view. The fact that people may be offended by that point of view doesn't equate to "causing them harm" in the sense of the "fire" example. You've (inadvertently, I think) summed up the problem perfectly.
I used the example of yelling “fire” to illustrate one undeniable reason for curtailed free speech, with the implication, that if there is one reason why curtailing free speech may be necessary, there can well be other reasons as well.
Sorry that I was not more specific as to my reasoning.
I believe that a compelling argument can be made that true Hate Speech exceeds language that is simply ‘offensive’ and in fact can and does lead to harm to those who are the object of Hate speech..
You are perfectly correct that people do not have a right ‘not to be offended’ by the words of others.
However when you say, “.…the expression of a point of view that offends people is NOT incitement to violence. If the people that are offended resort to violence (as is clearly happening in the current situation regarding the cartoons), they are the ones committing a crime. That's where "hate speech" fails the freedom test.” I can’t fully agree because you are separating cause from effect. The ‘rabble’ rouser is at least as guilty as those moved by his words, who then call for violence.
It is too facile by half to claim that someone engaged in blatant public Hate Speech, who does not specifically call for violence is thus not accountable, even if someone else among the listeners yells at a critical moment for violence and, the crowd becomes a homicidal mob. To say that it is only the mob and those who call for violence who are culpable is naively denying the causal nature of incessant Hate speech.
I also can’t buy your assertion that, “it was the inattention of the rest of the world to what Hitler was saying that resulted in all that death and destruction…"
What would you have had the world do? Impose sanctions? Invade? Speak out in foreign publications against a minor German politician before his election as chancellor? Churchill did and it counted for nothing because nothing could really be done until Hitler led Germany into war.
The truth of the matter is that you can’t sell something to someone that they’re not ready to buy. The German people where ready to buy his line and his ‘reasoning’ as to why they were in the economic and political position that Germany experienced during the twenties and early 30’s.
No amount of ‘free speech’ and counter arguments, were going to change the German people’s feelings about their perception of ‘unfairness’ at the allies imposition of onerous ‘conditions’ upon Germany with the ending of WWI.
If it hadn’t been Hitler it would have been some other authoritarian figure who offered ‘salvation’ to people suffering so. Remember that the ‘great depression’ was world wide and the Germans had a particularly hard time of it.
All of this puts your assertion that, if people had only taken Hitler seriously, they would have stopped him, as inadequate to the realities that supported the emergence of a Hitler in that day and time.
“With respect to your assertion that my view on freedom of speech is "absolute," that mischaracterizes my position, as my previous posts should have made clear. Nor have I ever indicated that free speech is the highest consideration. It's not (but it's damned close.)
It was not my intention to mischaracterize your position. I have not read your prior posts. I was unaware of the existence of Rossputins blog prior to my original comment. I'm a 'newbie' to this blog.
My perception that your view was that freedom of speech is an absolute value was based in your statement, “Having ANY kind of opinion - vile though it may be - adjudicated by the state does violence to our freedom (leaving aside libel and such).”
While I may have misunderstood your emphasis, given your statement that Freedom of speech is “damned close” to the highest value, it’s a bit much to accuse me of ‘mischaracterizing’ your position.
Finally, with respect to your statement regarding "my" constellation of values - a pretty broad statement coming from somebody who doesn't know me in any way”
No we don’t know each other, though words are revealing of much and discussions of ‘values’ is an excellent way to get to know someone. I wasn’t pretending to know the specifics of your constellation of values but it seems safe enough to presume that you have a set of them and based upon your own words, that freedom of speech clearly is “damned close” to first among equals, so was I really that presumptuous?
As for my reference to the Bill of Rights, it was a perhaps awkward attempt to suggest a need for balance. Freedom of Speech being but one amendment among many...
We do have a difference in emphasis and I do disagree with you about Hate Speech.
Nevertheless, I'm with those who'll fight to the death to defend your right to express your opinion :-)
AND if that's contradictory, well thats just being human after all.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
