Shut Up or I’ll Kill You
We’re a fractious people, always have been, and our politics have been especially colorful. I’m a nearly lifelong fan of John C. Calhoun’s line about Henry Clay: “Like a mackerel by moonlight, he shines and stinks …”. Our political candidates have been mocked for their love affairs, their wooden legs, their false teeth, and their drinking habits. It’s not elegant, but rude, insulting talk is one of the products of free speech.
It’s worth reminding ourselves that free speech around the world is still a rarity, and seems to be becoming even rarer. Lots of countries have the death penalty and other violent punishments for “insulting the state” or “the leader.” In religious states, such talk is branded blasphemy; in all too many secular states, unrestrained criticism of favored groups falls under the arbitrary classification of “hate speech” and is suppressed.
Citizens and subjects of such places are not at all like Americans; they learn habits of mind and mouth that are quite different from ours. They learn to be silent about any subject that could arouse the displeasure of the thought police, and they learn to speak in code, using words to mean things very different from their dictionary meanings. If they are unhappy with their lot or see ways things could be improved, they don’t dare reveal their true feelings openly and explicitly.
That means they can’t think their way to new ideas, because creativity requires trial and error; it needs open criticism, it relishes the destruction of bad ideas.
Free societies are so much more productive and creative than the others in large part because of open debate, just as scientific discovery demands testing all manner of hypotheses. Once you lose the habits of the free mind, it extends to all areas of endeavor. Stifling free speech crushes creativity in all areas of life. And once the censors get their teeth into us, there’s no stopping them.
In my youth, there was a fine cartoon which showed two nasty-looking men outside a movie theater with “CLOSED” on the marquee (I think it was Lady Chatterly’s Lover), and one said to the other: “You know, I enjoyed censoring the movie so much, I think I’ll go censor the book.”
There’s no stopping them. So it’s always urgent to fight the censors, and to embrace free speech, rudeness and all.
That’s not happening nearly enough. Have a look at a few recent cases here at home, and then at a frightening event overseas:
● Four students in Oxnard, California were reportedly suspended for chanting “USA! USA!” at an athletic event. The school superintendent, incoherently, said that he was trying to advance the concept of “cultural proficiency,” whatever that means. The kids are back in school, but the matter is still open. They and their cohorts had better watch their language.
● Apparently, it’s very dangerous to criticize a judge in Indiana.
● If you’re criticizing the president, you’d better not … drink water or something. If you do, your ideas won’t get reported. Only your thirst will make headlines. You don’t think that’s censorship? I do.
● Segue to Denmark, where the estimable journalist, editor, and free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard answered his doorbell when he saw a mailman there, only to have the guy draw a gun and shoot at his head. Blessedly, the would-be assassin missed, Hedegaard swung at him, and the guy ran off.
We can all be thankful that the killer missed, but Lars is now “under protection,” in the usual undisclosed secure location, surrounded by men and women with guns of their own. This may reassure you, but in practice it’s another form of restriction of free speech. Like Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, and others before him, Hedegaard is so well-protected that he no longer appears in public (not even on TV). He’s been taken out of the public square; the censors have thereby won at least a partial victory.






So do I. I said all along the media's obsession with Rubio taking a sip of water was intended to distract people from what he said. Our news media must protect Dear Leader at all costs, and anything or anyone that makes Him look bad cannot be tolerated.
It's no wonder they behave this way. Not only are they liberal, but they are indoctrinated with the idea that repressing the "wrong" kind of speech is acceptable in our colleges and universities, where conservatives are shouted down when they give speeches (if they are allowed to speak at all) and college newspapers... (show more)
So do I. I said all along the media's obsession with Rubio taking a sip of water was intended to distract people from what he said. Our news media must protect Dear Leader at all costs, and anything or anyone that makes Him look bad cannot be tolerated.
It's no wonder they behave this way. Not only are they liberal, but they are indoctrinated with the idea that repressing the "wrong" kind of speech is acceptable in our colleges and universities, where conservatives are shouted down when they give speeches (if they are allowed to speak at all) and college newspapers that dare to print a conservative column are thrown in the dumpster by the bundle in the early AM before anyone gets a chance to read them.
I think they instinctively know their positions are so weak they can't withstand debate. Not an honest debate, anyway...hence their frequent use of straw men, exaggeration, emotional histrionics, scare tactics, and explicit demagoguery. (show less)
― Fyodor Dostoevsky
― Fyodor Dostoevsky
"How much media have you seen about the war against free speech? Not so much. The media have a heavy burden of complicity in all of this, needless to say. They should be up in arms"
It is truly a shining and corruptly stinking thing that the tiresome mainstream press has turned out to be. Members of said decadent press behave like thinking impaired ninnies.
What I truly do not understand, simply CANNOT get my own brain around, is just what benefit is there for this monolithic, single brain-cell sharing media to discard their integrity and scheme, distort, and lie for the "cause" ????
"How much media have you seen about the war against free speech? Not so much. The media have a heavy burden of complicity in all of this, needless to say. They should be up in arms"
It is truly a shining and corruptly stinking thing that the tiresome mainstream press has turned out to be. Members of said decadent press behave like thinking impaired ninnies.
What I truly do not understand, simply CANNOT get my own brain around, is just what benefit is there for this monolithic, single brain-cell sharing media to discard their integrity and scheme, distort, and lie for the "cause" ????
Sometimes, that stuff about looking in the mirror and self-examination (mote vs log) is pretty uncomfortable.
Sometimes, that stuff about looking in the mirror and self-examination (mote vs log) is pretty uncomfortable.
"He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight."
"He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight."
<a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/02/22/israels-bad-week-on-uk-campuses/#more-819124" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/02/22/israels-bad-week-on-uk-campuses/#more-819124</a>
Just ask Obama's pal, Ali Abunimah.
<i> "Mayer points out the predictably hypocritical response of the anti-Israel activist Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electric Intifada. While Abunimah was outraged at the attempts of BDS opponents in Brooklyn to squash the departmentally sponsored event aimed at what Jonathan rightly described as hate speech, Abunimah described the actions of protestors at crushing free speech as “great.” </i>
Obama puts forth Hagel, had put forth Robert Malley and... (show more)
<a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/02/22/israels-bad-week-on-uk-campuses/#more-819124" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/02/22/israels-bad-week-on-uk-campuses/#more-819124</a>
Just ask Obama's pal, Ali Abunimah.
<i> "Mayer points out the predictably hypocritical response of the anti-Israel activist Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electric Intifada. While Abunimah was outraged at the attempts of BDS opponents in Brooklyn to squash the departmentally sponsored event aimed at what Jonathan rightly described as hate speech, Abunimah described the actions of protestors at crushing free speech as “great.” </i>
Obama puts forth Hagel, had put forth Robert Malley and tickled toes with Rashid Khalidi for years.
Makes just all warm and fuzzy if you love free speech and Israel doncha think?
(show less)
"Citizens and subjects of such places are not at all like Americans; they learn habits of mind and mouth that are quite different from ours. They learn to be silent about any subject that could arouse the displeasure of the thought police, and they learn to speak in code, using words to mean things very different from their dictionary meanings. If they are unhappy with their lot or see ways things could be improved, they don’t dare reveal their true feelings openly and explicitly."
Ledeen's mistake here is to confuse manners with legal institutions. The desire not to offend, to avoid what today are called "sensitive issues," has been a staple of American manners from the time of Tocqueville. Many societies are... (show more)
"Citizens and subjects of such places are not at all like Americans; they learn habits of mind and mouth that are quite different from ours. They learn to be silent about any subject that could arouse the displeasure of the thought police, and they learn to speak in code, using words to mean things very different from their dictionary meanings. If they are unhappy with their lot or see ways things could be improved, they don’t dare reveal their true feelings openly and explicitly."
Ledeen's mistake here is to confuse manners with legal institutions. The desire not to offend, to avoid what today are called "sensitive issues," has been a staple of American manners from the time of Tocqueville. Many societies are opposite of ours in this respect: they have no free speech as an institution, but have no "unofficial" restrictions due to political correctness, either. A good example is post-Soviet Russia, which certainly has no "free speech," but where you wouldn't be treated like a social outcast for having unpopular opinions about theoretical subjects. (show less)
Incidentally, opinions on suffrage or immigration are unlikely to get you branded as a lunatic here, unless you advocate murdering immigrants or taking the vote away from anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Incidentally, opinions on suffrage or immigration are unlikely to get you branded as a lunatic here, unless you advocate murdering immigrants or taking the vote away from anyone who doesn't agree with you.