In Defense of Uncivil Speech
Since the tragic massacre in Arizona earlier this year, Americans have been treated to a lot of talk about how a lack of “civility” in public discourse led to the shooting, may have led to the shooting, or didn’t lead to the shooting but still reminded us about how bad uncivil speech is in general. Now comes the news that a new National Institute for Civil Discourse will be established at the University of Arizona, the site of President Obama’s speech in the wake of the shootings, with former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton as honorary co-chairs.
The goals of the institute sound benign enough. Former President Bush said in a press release that “[o]ur country needs a setting for political debate that is both frank and civil, and the National Institute for Civil Discourse can make a significant contribution toward reaching this goal.” Vice Chair of the Arizona Board of Regents Fred DuVal, who reportedly came up with the idea of the institute, added, “I think we need to be realistic about what can be accomplished.…What is realistic is to create enough conversation among more thoughtful and respectful people in as many places in the country as possible.”
It’s hard to object to this mission, and if this were the extent of the efforts to combat civility in society, it would not be problematic. Unfortunately, though, other efforts to enforce civility are far less benign, and our nation’s colleges and universities have, unsurprisingly, long been in the forefront of the movement to limit Americans’ fundamental liberties in the name of “civility” — with the limits defined, of course, by those in power on campus.
An excellent example of how campus censors use “civility” requirements to silence dissent can be found in the former speech code of San Francisco State University (SFSU). In 2006, during the course of an anti-terrorism protest on campus, the SFSU College Republicans stomped on handmade replicas of the flags of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Other students complained about this behavior on the grounds that the word “Allah” was on the flags, and that by stepping on these flags, the College Republicans were, in the words of one SFSU official, “desecrating the name of Allah.” As it happened, not being Arabic readers, the College Republicans had simply copied pictures of the flags straight from the Internet, and did not know the Arabic word “Allah” was on them.
” College Republicans had simply copied pictures of the flags straight from the Internet, and did not know the Arabic word “Allah” was on them.”
Ah, yes; they truly are stupid party. OTOH, what was the matter with desecrating the idols of Islam? If they knew the word “Allah” was on the flags, they should have treated the flags even worse. This is America: I want “Piss Koran!”
In the vile revolutions in Cambodia, Russia, China, et. al., there are always people who act civilly. When confronted with evil, they ask for mercy, beg, and most of all talk–just before they lose. The side with the socially-acceptable violence wins, which is why the fascists occupying the state capitol at Madison soon will celebrate their victory over the talk and talk and talk of people who discuss how Obama’s call for civility doesn’t seem to include his allies. Duh.
The whole idea of “civility” in politics is a joke. What a bunch a wimps we have running for office today. If you want to go back to our Founding Fathers, they were famous for attacking each other mercilessly in the press. In fact, at one point Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton actually bought newspapers just so they could hurl insults at each other. And I don’t even want to talk about the insults that were made by the press against John Adams when he was president.
And what makes people like Obama even more insidious and reprehensible is that they will call for “civility” and then have their henchmen at places like the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, the main stream media (both newspapers and TV), Media Matters, and MoveOn.org do the dirty work for him and insult just about anybody who has the termerity to disagree with the “Chosen One” in the White House. Obama is like a mafia don who just gives the order for a hit but never actually gets his fingers dirty with the day-to-day workings of his criminal organization. What a coward he is. At least if you disagree with someone, have to stones to stand up and say it to his or her face and don’t hide behind the skirts of others, like a frightened little boy (which is what he is).
Americans like people who say what they mean and mean what they say. That’s why a liar like Obama will fail in 2012.
“It’s true that stomping on a terrorist flag is arguably uncivil.”
Not only that, but it’s not nearly as productive as cutting to the chase and stomping on terrorists.
Of course had they instead burned an American Flag there would have been No Incivility what-so-ever in the eyes of the University.
“the SFSU College Republicans stomped on handmade replicas of the flags of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Other students complained about this behavior on the grounds that the word “Allah” was on the flags, and that by stepping on these flags, the College Republicans were, in the words of one SFSU official, “desecrating the name of Allah.””
But those same students probably have no problem with people burning or stomping on the American flag.
The only reason civility became an issue, was to silence all dissent against the current administration. None of the people upset with the language of the Tea Party have a problem with the arguably more uncivil rhetoric pouring forth from the unions and their supporters in the media and government.
A call to have a more civil discourse would have been fine if the people advocating it actually engaged in civil discourse themselves.
To a Conservative respectful means to attack the ideas and policies in question and not the person responsible for them.
To a Liberal respectful means a conservative must capitulate by any means necessary.
An interesting post, but a somewhat untimely one, as we who are concerned that this call for “civility” was a velvet glove on a censoring fist now have little to worry about.
You see, the entire “civility” discussion has been forthrightly ripped to pieces, pieces burned, sent into deep space, and scattered to whatever winds are out there – by the apppalling and rancid behavior in Madison witnessed by the entire world over the past three weeks.
The issue is dead…. utterly. NO ONE is going to see further caterwauling on this issue as anything but exactly what it now obviously was from the beginning…. the most obscenely cynical manipulation by people who feel not a hint of obligation to practice it if they would prefer not to, but will happily use it as a self-rightous club and a high-caliber political weapon when it suits their purposes.
So “civility” is all well and good, but of little relevance now. Frankly, anyone who now brings it up in light of the latest has earned a most uncivil response, forthrightly and without apology. Let them send their thank-you’s for such to ‘General Delivery, Streets of Madison, WI’.
Dream on. You badly underestimate the shamelessness of leftists.
…. the tragic massacre in Arizona ….
“Tragic?”
Deaths in motor-vehicle accidents might be deemed, “tragic.”
Lunatic Lefty-nutcase-perpetrated massacres, like the one in Arizona, are atrocities.
“a new National Institute for Civil Discourse will be established at the University of Arizona”
“It’s hard to object to this mission”
I would object (and I wouldn’t find it hard) if my taxes were going towards this “Institute”. What is its purpose? Why is it needed? Can’t people just be allowed to choose how they communicate?
What’s next, and Institute for Smiling?
Roseann Barr Scrapes the Incivility Bottom
President Barack Hussein Obama hasn’t said much about civility lately, and with good reason.
When fellow liberals mouth some of the most boorish diatribes heard this side of Iran, it’s a major challenge even for Obama to pretend the civility campaign he began following the Tucson shootings–by a “progressive”–last January hasn’t run aground, if it ever left the ground in the first place.
The latest lib to demonstrate how low liberals can go is television’s washed-up 58 year old Jewish-born comedienne Roseann Barr who must be an embarrassment even to her lesbian sister and gay brother.
Roseann long ago set the civil and taste bars as low as they could go with her toilet humor and crotch-grabbing rendition of the national anthem.
Another memorable excursion into gross incivility was her unprovoked attack on Tinseltown and two of Hollywood’s own when she blogged, “Your evil spawn Angelina Jolie and her vacuous hubby Brad Pitt make about $40 million a year in violent, psychopathic movies and give away three of it to starving children, trying to look as if they give a crap about humanity as they spit out more dunces that will consume more than their fair share and wreck the earth even more.”
Talk about vacuousness and wrecking the earth! Envy can be as ugly as Roseann, sometimes.
Doing her small thing for the president’s old share-the-wealth ambitions and for his new class warfare gambit, Roseann has now hit upon what she feels would be apt punishment for all those evil bankers and other rich people intent on wrecking her earth: Behead them. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5630.)