OK, no crocodiles. Which is too bad, because what's cooler than a creature that goes from 0 to 100 in 0.1 seconds, biting and thrashing? But anyway.
David writes:
Read your article and there are a couple points that are up for debate. One that is quick is that Bill O'Reilly has NEVER called for Churchill's firing, not a single time. He has said that he believes that Churchill may get fired for what he said but he has never called for his firing, not once.
No one coughed up a show transcript but a few reliable FORs who are regular O'Reilly watchers say that David is correct. So consider this a retraction: Bill O'Reilly, as far as I know, did NOT call for Ward Churchill's firing, though he reportedly urged viewers to contact the University of Colorado to express their opinions about Churchill's opinions.
Number two, it would be ignorant, arrogant and hypocritic to believe that all free speech would never see a response. Churchill can say what he wants but don't be suprise to not hear a response to his inflammatory comments. The right-wing and everyday American that feels offended has a right to excersise their free speech in response to Ward Churchill. Would you defend Ward Churchill so easily if he made comments that sounded right-wing or racist to you? Probably not. Freedom is a two way street.
David should reread my essay, which is less about "defending" Churchill than pointing out that censorship doesn't necessarily originate only with the government, contrary to the assertions of the Ayn Rand types. In that context I absolutly would "defend" Churchill were he censored merely for the sin of being racist or otherwise offensive. What I was attempting to point out is that Hamilton College absolutely did censor Ward Churchill. Sure, they had the Constitutional right to do so. But they are censors, and should cop to being censors.
Frequent GOR (Gadly of Rall) Alan writes:
You're right. The dictionary doesn't relate censorship to government. It's the Constitution that does that. Here's what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Quite simply, it prevents the Government from censoring the verbalization of the thoughts of the people. College Administrative Boards are not Congress, and the Constitution does not protect against censorship by non-governmental entities.
That's true. But I never argued that what happened to Churchill was unconstitutional, merely that it was censorship.
In instances like the Churchill situation, liberals seek to pioneer the right to speak freely into the 'right to force an unsuspecting and/or unwilling audience to listen to what I have to say'. That is a MONUMENTAL deviation from what was intended, as Thomas Boyden readily observed.
I cannot speak for liberals as a whole nor would I want to, but I wish Republicans would read the words I write rather than project the ones they imagine I'd write. All I want is for people who blackball and censor people who express unpopular opinions to admit that that's what they're doing. "Because I'm too stupid to engage in debate," they should scream at the top of their lungs, "I make those with whom I disagree shut up. I'm a censor!" Is that asking so much, for censors to admit that that's what they are?
"High School students have no power to censor. So, if their sentiments trend towards censorship, it's probably because many liberals refuse to exercise discretion and responsibility in what they say and because of their insistence that we have to here them out even if we don't want to."
Actually, the poll I cited in my column says that the students want the government to censor, not that they want to censor. And anyway, high school students can censor--if they're, say, the editor of their high school newspaper.
"Not only is refusing to invite Churchill to speak not 'censorship' in the legal sense, it doesn't prevent him from speaking his mind in the broader sense. It just prevents him from acquiring an audience with those who (for whatever legally rightfull reason) don't want to hear him."
This is fallacious reasoning. Economic censorship, denying someone the chance to express themselves and "acquiring an audience," is naturally a way to prevent the dissemination of uncomfortable ideas. Moreover, these censorship decisions rarely express the desire of the majority of a community not to let someone talk. Hamilton College, for instance, did not take a survey of its students and faculty to ask them whether or not Churchill should be allowed to speak. A few administrators made the call; for all they knew 99% of the Hamilton community agreed with everything Churchill had to say or disagreed and wanted to hear him nonetheless.
If a speaker from a white supremacy group insisted on an opportunity to speak about his ideology at a predominately black college, would you rise to support him?
Sure, the same way I invited David Duke onto my former KFI radio show to expound his racist thoughts to my progressive audience. A more accurate analogy would be whether a predominantly black college should disinvite a chemist from talking about chemistry after finding out that he was a bigot. Churchill, remember, was supposed to talk about American Indian activism, not 9/11.
If Churchill wanted to speak (to college students) about the positive benefits female college students can derive from having sex with college professors, would you support him?
See above.
So, what's the difference, other than the subject matter?
I'm your worst nightmare, Alan--a leftie who strives to be consistent.
Iran
Rick writes:
Ted, what do you think about letting Iran develop nuclear weapons? Do you not think they would eventually use them against Israel? I agree, spy drones are an invasion of sovereign territory, but how else would we know where they are? Do you really think the EU or UN can negotiate with religious leaders in Iran? In short, what would you have done different? Also, what would you suggest is the best course of action regarding North Korea? Is war never an option?
and Allen asks:
Off the subject...Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? If not, what should be done to stop them? Have you heard of the new alliance between Syria and Iran? It's getting ugly.
First: The United States, the only nation to have used nukes (twice), is by definition the least trustworthy country on earth when it comes to the judicious application of a nuclear arsenal.
Second: The United States does not enjoy the legal or moral prerogative to determine which nations may or may not possess nuclear weapons.
Third: The Bush Administration's sabre-rattling is doing more to encourage nuclear proliferation than any other force in politics today. Who doubts that North Korea is safe from U.S. attack precisely because it managed to go nuclear before Bush had the chance to attack them? Or that Iraq would have been safe had it managed to do the same?
Answer: If the U.S. doesn't want Iran to acquire nukes, it will get further with honey than vinegar. Opening diplomatic relations, getting Israel to promise not to attack Iran, asking Israel to get rid of its own nuclear arsenal (why doesn't anyone ever talk about that threat in the Middle East?), guaranteeing not to attack Iran--all of these would be far likelier to convince the Iranian government that it no longer needs to spend millions on a nuclear program.
The alliance between Syria and Iran, believe it or not, is good news for global stability. I hope to see more nations form strategic alliances to counterbalance the United States, which is using its post-Cold War power to wreak havoc throughout the world.
Is war ever an option? Yes: when you are attacked, when your allies are attacked, and when you are about to be attacked. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq nor Iran qualify, of course. After 9/11, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan did--but Bush raised their allowance instead.
The Haters
Fred marvels:
So, as a lark (and to keep from having to do any actual work for a few moments) I goggled your name. Good God man! There a lot of people who really hate you! Which I take as a sign that you're doing your job (I'd say the same thing to Rush Limbaugh if I could stomach his website and he were to deign respond). Most of them seem like raving lunatics, but there are a few who refute many of your positions in an intelligent manner. Still, I'm sure you've got a pretty thick skin about this kinda stuff, but do the death threats and insults ever bother you? I don't know how you deal with that kind of vitriol. I know I sure as hell couldn't. Again, though we disagree on much, this just adds to the respect I have for you and work.
Of course the threats bother me, so much so that I report the most extreme ones to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. The United States is an extraordinarily violent country awash in weaponry, its Wild West culture encourages the use of force as a means of resolving disputes, and many Americans are threatened by opinions that counter their own. So it's important to take these things seriously. That said, I can't help how other people react to what I say or do. All things considered, I'm a relatively moderate voice doing little more than expressing my take on the issues of the day. Were I to softpedal my opinions, I'd be little better than the squishy mainstream media cartoonists and columnists whose work I deplore. I'm lucky to live in a country which has enshrined the freedom of expression in its Bill of Rights and to have the opportunity to use that freedom to earn a living, and I intend to use it as fully as I know how. I refuse to live in fear because some violent jackasses have access to computers.
No comments:
Post a Comment