Shut Up or I’ll Kill You
The mission of a free society is to maximize the number of voices, not to remove some from the national debate, even on the grounds of protecting them.
The protectors have it half-backwards, at the very least. It’s fine and dandy to provide security for those at risk, but the “hate speech” rules and laws give wrongheaded protection — moral and political protection — to those who incite violence against their critics. Nobody, and no group, should be sheltered from criticism, even vulgar criticism. Not Jews, not Muslims, not neocons, not liberals. Nobody. As it is currently played, the free speech game is wildly biased in favor of those demanding that their critics be silenced or punished.
These are the fruits of the wrongheaded doctrine of multiculturalism, the misguided notion that all cultures are equally worthy of respect — especially those that attack the core values of Western civilization.
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, but they more commonly play politics as usual. The American cases noted above are symptomatic of a large universe of similar stories, and they are not subjects of the sort of media campaign that any self-respecting publication or network should be waging. Nor have the campuses rallied to the defense of unpopular (read “not politically correct”) advocates; students are censored, because their grades may well suffer if they demonstrate for the rights of “wrong-minded” individuals. They’re intimidated to cater to the requirements of the mysterious doctrine of “cultural proficiency.”
Finally, there is the failure of the political class to take up the cudgels on behalf of free speech. Yes, I know they have reason to fear the media, but if cowed they should go into a different line of work, or at least stop pretending to be leaders. American leaders, anyway.
Earlier: Back in 2009, PJM’s Andrew Klavan explored in video form the media’s chief message for conservatives — and pretty much everyone else who disagreed with the MSM and the president’s agenda:
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.