Someone who hates free speech hates liberty and if you hate liberty then you hate every person in this country who wants to be free. You attack everyone who would like to be left alone to live their life in peace. You express a willingness to punish thought and impose your model of the world on others against their will through the coercive force of the state. You place your opinion ahead of the rights of others and that kind of selfishness is inexcusable in a free society — not that you want a free society. You want to be free to do as you please while others also do only as you please—your idea of liberty is pure selfishness.
The person who would shut down a radio station or a television network or a journalist hates the very principles America stands for. Whether the target is Julian Assange or Rush Limbaugh or some guy at a Tea Party with a stupid sign, the principle is the same. If you are willing to take away their rights then you are willing to take away everyone's rights. You are a bigot, and even worse you become a tyrant when you ask government to enforce your bigotry with the power of the law.
Someone who bombs a television station or shoots a talk show host has committed a terrible crime and should be punished. The action of closing that station down by government force or silencing that host with the threat of legal action should be just as much a crime, and if not punishable by death, it should certainly never happen in this country and those who advocate it should be reviled for the hatemongers they are.
Before you start condemning others for their speech, take a close look at the hate you're spewing and think twice.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joseph Cotto
Dave, you have masterfully exposed the hardline leftists' attempts to create separate classes of "free speech" here, exposing them for the crypto-totalitarian thugs that they are.
Great work.
2 - Clavos
Dave,
You write:
"In a nation where we have guaranteed freedom of speech, how can any kind of speech be a crime at all? Yes, it is a crime if you kill someone or encourage others to kill someone, but it cannot be a crime to criticize the actions or beliefs of others. That makes a crime of opinion and a crime of thought and a crime of dissent. That's the worst form of oppression."
And you are dead on with that point; for if we begin to demonize opinion, thought and dissent, we descend into a nightmarish reiteration of the Soviet Union or the Third Reich; we begin to bring to fruition the very horrors that Huxley and Orwell warned us about.
And yet, in your opening paragraph you invoke one of the most pernicious concepts ever perpetrated by the left in this country, the idea of "hate speech." Is the concept of hate speech not an attempt to demonize (and punish) thought and opinion, a la 1984 or Brave New World?
3 - Kenneth Pakal, aka "Frequency"
As demonstrated in the quote above, there are many in this nation who desperately want to silence dissent and to criminalize any ideas with which they do not agree.
That quote demonstrates no such thing. You cherry-picked one outrageous comment out of a thread of more than 50, and overreacted to it as if that guy represents more than just his own warped ideas. Get a grip, Dave.
4 - Christopher Rose
So if I was reckless enough to brave being irradiated or intimately groped by strangers and enter the former land of the free, then go stand outside, say, Dave Nalle's house abusing him and his family, would that be acceptable freedom of speech as well?
As to Joseph Cotto's partisan remark - there are idiots all around the political spectrum and if you still see any contemporary political issues along old style party political lines, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
All kinds of political parties are doing what politicians do, pass more legislation.
What we need on a global basis is a completely new politics that rejects such superficial and irrelevant notions as contemporary party politics, gets rid of maybe 50% to 90% of all existing law and develops relevant new ideas and solutions to the challenges of the day, which are considerable.
Clavos, whilst I would agree with your general point, I may be mistaken but I seem to recall you doing a fair bit of demonizing of "opinion, thought and dissent" in the past...
Kenneth, I wanted to express my opinion that whilst your aka may once have been witty and entertaining, it isn't working any more, so how about you dial it down to 0Hz?
As to your point, Dave Nalle indeed has a history of making up not only online identities but also provocative statements like this.
Although his head is hopelessly confused and not just a little back-dated, his heart is in approximately the right place. He may not have much of a grip, but he is at least groping around the right area...
5 - Dave Nalle
Clavos: And yet, in your opening paragraph you invoke one of the most pernicious concepts ever perpetrated by the left in this country, the idea of "hate speech." Is the concept of hate speech not an attempt to demonize (and punish) thought and opinion, a la 1984 or Brave New World?
Well, since that's the position taken by the left, I have to start from their premise. I do go on to reject it in the 5th paragraph.
Kenneth: That quote demonstrates no such thing. You cherry-picked one outrageous comment out of a thread of more than 50, and overreacted to it as if that guy represents more than just his own warped ideas. Get a grip,
Why would I want to respond to an example which doesn't prove my point? If all the comments were rational there would be no issue.
Chris: So if I was reckless enough to brave being irradiated or intimately groped by strangers and enter the former land of the free,
They'll only do that to you when you try to leave, so if you stay you'll be ok.
then go stand outside, say, Dave Nalle's house abusing him and his family, would that be acceptable freedom of speech as well?
Putting aside the fact that if you did this on a public street where your rights are protected you'd be too far from my house to be seen or heard, yes you'd have that right, up until the point where one of the neighbors called the police on you for disturbing the peace and scaring their kids. The cops would probably then tell you to move on, but likely wouldn't arrest you, but since you don't have a car when it's night time and the ice storms start and the packs of feral dogs start sniffing at you, you might take the cops up on their offer of a ride to a hotel.
But in this circumstance my proper response would be to put a sign in front of the house saying "Caution, Ranting Idiot at Work" and ignore you.
Dave
6 - Arch Conservative
"There are idiots all around the political spectrum."
There's no denying that Christopher however none are so loud and vociferous as those on the left who've pulled off the nifty little trick of convincing a large number of people that they are actually mainstream.
7 - Arch Conservative
To illustrate the difference. Bob B or whatever the name of the guy he was quoting is advocated the state removal of a media outlet for the mere fact that the socieconomic views that said media outlet espouses do not conform to his own.
There's nothing that irritates me more than that delusional, hyporcitical rabid moonbat Keith Olbermann reading one of his teleprompted tirades but I have never called for MSNBC to be shut down nor have any of the other "right wing nuts" on this site that I can recall.
So who would you rather throw in with when the going gets tough Christopher? People like myself and Nalle or that jackhole he was quoting (what the hell is his name anyhow?)
8 - Boeke
On the left side I see an unnamed anonymous person being nasty about rightists. As far as I know he has no political, or other, power.
On the right side I see national persons, many highly cherished by their constituencies and very visible, many actually on the government payroll, who are outright calling for the murder of American citizens that they personally disapprove of. And besides the famous incitement by Sarah Palin for her disciples to use "second amendment" remidies for her woes, we have these famous rightist characters:
-------------------------------------
Huckabee
By Nick Collins 9:30AM GMT 01 Dec 2010
Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and ex-Pentagon official KT McFarland were among those claiming the guilty party should face execution for putting national security at risk by leaking the inflammatory information.
Mr Huckabee, who is believed to be ready to renew his candidacy for the next presidential election, said responsible for the leak should be sentenced to death.
He said: “They’ve put American lives at risk ... They put relationships that will take decades to rebuild at risk. They knew full well that they were handling sensitive documents, they were entrusted.
"Any lives they endangered, they’re personally responsible for and the blood is on their hands.”
KT McFarland, who held national security posts under the Nixon, Ford and Reagan governments, backed the calls, saying Private Bradley Manning " the chief suspect of leaking the files " should face treason charges and possible execution.
...
The comments came as a former adviser to Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, suggested a different solution to the international diplomatic crisis " assassinating Mr Assange.
Prof Tom Flanagan said Barack Obama should “put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something” to rid the world of Mr Assange.
As the anchor on the CBC news programme warned him that his comments were “pretty harsh stuff”, Prof Flanagan responded that he was “feeling very manly today”.
He rounded off his interview by claiming the leak of the documents could "conceivably lead to war," adding: “I wouldn’t feel unhappy if Assange disappeared.”
Prof Flanagan was speaking on Tuesday evening, after the second day of WikiLeaks revelations from US State Department documents.
Huckabee again
Calls For Assassination Of Julian Assange! (Real Christian Of Ya There Hucklebee)
assassinate
again
more...
...
the people responsible for leaking the information deserve to be hung for treason.
In Assange's case, he's not an American and so he has no constitutional protection. Moreover, he's going to get a lot of people killed. Can we do anything legally about someone from another country leaking this information? Maybe not. Can we have a CIA agent with a sniper rifle rattle a bullet around his skull the next time he appears in public as a warning? You bet we can -- and we should. If that's too garish for people, then the CIA can kill him and make it look like an accident.
Either way, Julian Assange deserves to die for what he's done and he should be killed to send a message loud enough to convince other people not to publish documents like this in the future.
...
Bob Beckel Wants Julian Assange Assassinated!
------------------------------------------
And the rightists here at BC claim that there is some kind of Moral Equivalence?
BullSnot.
9 - roger nowosielski
The moral compass of the Right is reducible to the myth of American exceptionalism, the imbecilic idea that America, as originally conceived, stands head and shoulders above all other nations, that American interests override all other interests, that "We the People" - and the Right claims the exclusive title to this noble-sounding phrase - can do no wrong because our Constitution is our blueprint, the principles we live by. Little does it matter that our brief history has effectively disproved all such claim and shown us to be no better than any other nation present or past. The Right still believes because only through such believe can it validate itself. Also, little does it matter that the Right feels outraged at its own government for real or perceived offenses against "We the People."
Hence the paradox: the Right is the most vociferous proponent of the very same government, the government it despises, when it comes to promoting American interests worldwide.
Talking about a schizoid nation.
10 - Baritone
What might surprise some of you is that I am no fan of Mr. Assange. I think he's a grandstander and/or very naive about how government and international politics/diplomacy works. I agree that there should be more transparency (the "in" word for now) in some things, but making everything open to public scrutiny would cause much of international relations and commerce to come to a screecing halt. I don't like Assange, but I don't think he deserves execution.
It was not Palin who spoke of "second ammendment solutions," it was Sharon Angle. Palin may have repeated it, but, if memory serves, it first came from the sage lips of Ms. Angle.
Given yesterday's tragic events, though, it becomes clear that the level of vitriol, and the ad nauseam use of violent rhetoric and imagry is promulgating more and more senseless violence. I agree that there are nutballs on the fringes of the entire political spectrum, but most of the above has come from the right pretty much ever since Obama threw his hat in the presidential ring.
BTW - Olbermann may be over the top and is certainly bombastic in his demeanor and delivery, but he is also - far more often than not - spot on.
Also - surprise again - I pretty much agree with Dave who properly kept partisanship out of his article - although he fell back into it in his comment.
B
11 - Christopher Rose
Dave, I see you're still trying the old selective answering or smart alec answering techniques to evade rebuttals of the large amounts of drivel you spout that obscure those small glimmerings of constructiveness we glimpse from time to time. Pity.
As to staying in the USA, there was a time when I seriously considered that, although it wasn't this century. Now I wouldn't even go there for a holiday unless it could be done without flying in or out.
Arch: "none are so loud and vociferous as those on the left who've pulled off the nifty little trick of convincing a large number of people that they are actually mainstream".
As I've not noticed them, it can't be true that they are louder or more vociferous, not that either of those two things are actually illegal or anything.
I don't understand your obsession with the media, particularly those on the left whilst you largely ignore or apologise for those on the right. They all just do their jobs of pandering to the audiences their advertisers want to target.
The real scumbags are those in politics of the left and the right who aren't living up to their responsibilities towards we the people, which is happening pretty much across the political spectrum and all around the world.
I don't know Bob B or Keith Olbermann but, again, tilting at the media is pointless and mistargeted.
As to throwing in with you and Nalle, I doubt that could ever work, no matter how tough the going got. You guys are way too subjective and shifty for my liking, although if you both let go of your personal, political and media hangups there might be hope for you yet.
Baritone: more often than not we tend to agree but on the subject of Julian Assange I strongly disagree.
I don't think he is grandstanding at all, nor would it matter if he was.
Making everything open to public scrutiny - not that it would actually be everything of course - is generally a good thing.
It wouldn't actually cause anything to come to a halt, people would just adapt, grow up a little bit and get on with the things that had to be done.
The level of honesty, integrity or even simple respect for the meaning of words in public affairs and debate over public policy is at what seems to be an all time low.
Assange and other like minded people are more akin to Facebook like openness or open source technology, which includes wikis of course, whereas the majority of governments the world over are becoming more like Microsoft, Apple or Adobe with their closed autocratic systems.
12 - El Bicho
Kenneth, keep posting your entire name as you like. It's much better than the writer who feels the need to mention she has written a book every time she leaves a comment.
13 - M.O.
YOU ARE A GENIUS!!!
14 - Dave Nalle
Dave, I see you're still trying the old selective answering or smart alec answering techniques to evade rebuttals of the large amounts of drivel you spout that obscure those small glimmerings of constructiveness we glimpse from time to time. Pity.
Christopher, I answered the only part of your comment which had substance and was vaguely interesting. I'm under no obligation to respond to the rest of your pointless and generally ill-informed babbling.
Dave
15 - STM
Although my favourite one is when those who oppose gun rights are targeted by the right as un-American and by the slightly less-loony right as anti-constitutional ... for exercising their constitutional right to free speech and their natural right to express an opinion.
And Clav asks: "Is the concept of hate speech not an attempt to demonize (and punish) thought and opinion, a la 1984 or Brave New World?"
No, it's a nod to the idea that whatever might be contained in the constitution (a document written by a bunch of old blokes 200 years ago, not a tablet from God) or the writings of those who championed natural rights, that there might be other natural rights.
Possibly, they might include things like not becoming the victim of violence because of comments made by others, or not having your life, career, and wellbeing put at risk on the whim of someone who thinks they can defame you because they believe gossip or innuendo to be the gospel truth.
It's always worth exploring what OTHER rights people might have, apart from those written down on pieces of paper and made law.
16 - Irvin F Cohen
Question: since when is it a natural right not to be offended? Since when is it a crime to speak, oh well, like me? Just kidding - I think - sort of.
Let's get something straight here, the so-called crime of "hate speech," is pure intellectual and philosophic fascism, just as is "political correctness" from which it is spawned. They are tools of true believer totalitarians, who almost entirely hail from the liberal-left.
Have you people not ever heard of such anti-freedom of speech and anti-inellectual freedom and anti-debate concepts and doctrines such as "chilling effect" and "prior restraint"? Well that is exactly what hate speech and politically correct speech are, they are in fact weapons used by true believer, totalitarian fascists to stifle and kill speech - not to protect and or engender and or promote it.
That's one of my main complaints with the Blogcritics Comments editors, they seem to be consistently on the side of political correctness and hate speech as a weapon to silence people like me. And have done so consistently and rather arbitrarily and capriciously so in my own personal, individual case. And as evidenced within these very same threads, they have consistently defended and apologized for and promoted their double-edged sword of political correctness/hate speech.
Dear dave, I recall reading an article of yours a few weeks or months ago in which if I am not mistaken you complained about some issue or other in which you brought up the issues of freedom of speech and intellectual freedom and how others were stifling and jeopardizing it. Well, I wanted to comment and tell you that you were quite right, but that if you really wanted to address these issues and to be vigilant in opposing these anti-intellectual, anti-freedom of speech and anti-intellectual issues; you had better look first into your own backyard, into the intellectual slime-pit of left-wing fascists at Blogcritics, and especially of the cabal of the British comments editors, fascists.
But I didn't because of the "chilling effect" of being deleted and erased and or disappeared out of existence. Yes, I admit that I was a coward, but I also was afraid that I might offend you by bringing the fascism of the comments editors to your attention - I mean I reasoned to myself that they were still your colleagues, and no matter what your relationship with them, for me to do so would actually be in rather bad form.
Well I hereby recant, fuck them slimy scumbag, fascist, intellectual lilliputians and anti-intellectual freedom and anti-freedom of speech and anti-debate, slimy, mental-fucking-midgets. Sorry bout the explosion of my former rather choice descriptive adjectives, it's my Tourette's Syndrome acting up on me again, yeah, that's the ticket, it's my Tourette's Syndrome.
Nevertheless and in spite of me - keep up the good fight Dave, cause you're doing a good job of it..
And as were very wont and fond of saying in the "Corps" - "kick ass and take names" too.
17 - Clavos
Stan sez:
Possibly, they might include things like not becoming the victim of violence because of comments made by others, or not having your life, career, and wellbeing put at risk on the whim of someone who thinks they can defame you because they believe gossip or innuendo to be the gospel truth.
Stan the key word above is "defame." It, and its companion, "slander" are already well addressed in US law; both are illegal and subjerct to penalties under the law.
The concept of "hate speech" (and ITS companion, "hate crime") are at best, specious. As currently used in US jurisprudence they serve no practical purpose, but are simply tacked on superfluously to other crimes which are already addressed and defined.
18 - STM
Irv: "Question: since when is it a natural right not to be offended"
Who's talking about simply being offended? We're going a bit beyond that here.
Then again, who says it's not a natural right not to be offended.
I have a pretty good memory of school playground justice at my all boys' school: You offend me once too often, you run the risk of getting a smack in the mouth. Thus ensuring that next time, you might think twice before you open it.
In those cases, Irv, I'm afraid I DID believe it was my natural right not to be offended by idiots.
19 - STM
G'day Clav ... good to get you out of the woodwork. How's it all hanging??
In regard to the comment, though, I'd have to agree to disagree. There IS a case for the idea that purveyors of hate incite others to violence, which means when the violence is committed, or preparations are made to commit violence, they too are culpable.
20 - Clavos
Arguable, Stan, and damn near impossible to prove under the law.
In any case, that's not what the concepts of hate speech and hate crime attempt to address -- at least not here. At present, they are tacked on to a crime such as murder (usually very arbitrarily) so as to somehow cast the murder in a more heinous light. Of course, that idea ignores the fact that the victim of a murder is no deader than the victim of a stray bullet during a bank holdup.
As I said, specious.
21 - Clavos
Sorry, mate, got a little engrossed in the discussion. I'm doing pretty well, thanks. Just returned from a couple of weeks in Minneapolis, at my sister's house, followed by a visit to Austin to attend my niece's wedding -- both places were a lot colder than Miami -- glad to be back, I drove around all day today with the top down on the car.
How are you and the missus? All's well I hope?
22 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear comrade, commie-ilb/simp, etc., etc., ad nauseam, you know the fucking drill by now, so up against the wall motherf.....r, wait a minute, wrong drill, never mind STM,
By the way, what the fuck does STM stand for? Perhaps, could it possibly be Sanctimonious, Tow-headed Moth......r? Is that it? Please inform, cause I"d really like to know.
As for schoolyard bullies, I didn't fend them off by smacking them, which I find to be rather gay, which I understand today means "faggoty" - you know the stuff of sissies -rather I beat the fucking snot out of them - usually - and on occasion had the living shit kicked out of me as well. Let's put it this way, on the ledger sheet of ass-kicking and thumping and lumping, I was on the plus side of dishing out lumpings far more than on the negative side of the balance sheet.
For you see, I must confess, that that schoolyard bully you speak of, was usually me. So as a former schoolyard bully I take great umbrage to your smacking the likes of me - I mean as a deterrent, because I don't know if it would have worked with me because I was a real neanderthal, knuckle-dragging troglodyte, mean, kick-ass m.......rf......r and most likely would have beat you to a fucking pulp.
But let's not get too personal here.
Question: is it therefor a natural right to cause someone to become, let us say, euphoric? Or, what about to have someone, hey, let's shitcan the bullshit and just cut to the quick here - is it a natural right to compel and force someone by social convention or the force of law to be a sycophantic toady, yes man to my every capricious whim and desire? Is it a natural right to pout petulantly and hold my breath until I turn blue, unless and until I get my spoiled, worthless way, or unless I am not patronized and placated, or falsely praised and have my worthless ass kissed and kowtowed to as much as I should wish or desire? Tell me oh wise, STM, what the fuck exactly is a natural right?
And also tell me how "hate speech" and "political correctness" which must needs be imposed upon others, is somehow a natural right? Tell me how imposing one's will upon another or limiting their freedom of speech or of their attitudes towards others, or their freedom to think or associate with whomever they wish, or to think whatever they damn well please, tell me how your limiting and squashing these inalienable rights somehow constitutes what a natural right is, how it somehow becomes your natural right and not someone else's?
Let me see, your point is that you smacked those idiots who offended you until they got the message. Good, I would expect as much from a real man or woman, or person. But is that natural right to self-preservation and self-defense, and the defense of one's own personal space, and of one's self and sense of being and personhood, is that consistent with hate speech and political correctness as equivalents and therefore as natural rights?
The point which I'm attempting to make, and appear to be doing in a rather piss poor fashion, is that hate speech and political correctness are not natural rights. The right to think, the right to speak freely, to worship God, to a free press, the right to assembly, and several other rights of this nature, all of these are true natural rights. Everything else however is either a need, a desire, a whim, a caprice, etc.. Again, yee old "potential optative." And a need, an optative, a desire, wish, etc., is never a true right, natural or otherwise. And that is what hate speech and political correctness are. Get my drift [personal attack deleted]?
23 - Christopher Rose
El B: So two dorks do make a right? Cool!
Dave: if you really think your unfunny and generally weak attempts at humour were anything like an appropriate response or that you did indeed answer the only part of my comment "which had substance", then you really are even more dense than I originally thought.
I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but, as you seem so completely wedded to your little pet notions and unable to see anything outside them, I'm going to move you to the same mental category as the faithists and other pre-programmed types of people. Congratulations on becoming the latest living pre-programmed automaton.
Well done also on such a very prolonged and very public display of your arrogant, empty-headed posturing here at Blogcritics; what is it, seven years now? I'm sure your digital legacy will serve you equally as well in your personal life as your "professional" one.
Irv: Attempting to stop hate speech is "fascism"? Calm down old boy! You're really being a bit of a tool yourself if you believe such hysteria. Be careful or you may get lumped in with the other androids like Ruvy and Nalle...
I was, for once, going to respond to your wilfully inaccurate depiction of our comment management but as you made no coherent point at all, I hazard the assumption that you are merely exercising your right to blow hard. However, do feel free to contact me if you actually have anything substantive to say at any time.
Stan: once again you make more sense than most. Why do you think it is that your country is generally so much more sensible than the USA? Could it be that Australia (unfortunately died by cricket, R.I.P. 2011) has benefited from its closer relationship with the motherland than those wayward rebels? ;-)
Clavvy: Why do you think hate speech is "damn near impossible to prove under the law"? It doesn't seem that much more difficult than any other crime, especially when there is audio or video evidence.
Do you not think that murder committed out of some pointless prejudiced hate or rage is worse than some other types of capital crime?
Irv: For fuck's sake! Do you always use 100 words when 10 would do? Anyone would think you were a fucking philosopher!
That said, "The right to think... to speak freely, to worship God, to a free press, the right to assembly, and several other rights of this nature, all of these are true natural rights." Are you sure?
Surely any natural rights would have existed prior to we humans even developing the power of thinking, which many alive today have clearly not yet got the hang of, never mind the other "rights" you mention.
To rebut just one, god as a monotheistic concept has only been around for about five or six thousand years but we humans have been here for over 200,000 years. Was it a "natural right" to worship it before we made it up?
Get my drift [personal attack deleted]?
I'd also like to see you substantiate your line that gay somehow equates to cissy, which just seems like more ignorant crap to me. If you knew many gay people, you would find that they don't conform to such stereotyping anyway, but don't let reality impinge on your thinking, it might be traumatic...
24 - Cindy
Hence the paradox: the Right is the most vociferous proponent of the very same government, the government it despises, when it comes to promoting American interests worldwide.
Talking about a schizoid nation.
Perfectly put, Roger. Thanks for putting words to that sense.
25 - Cindy
Surely any natural rights would have existed prior to we humans even developing the power of thinking, which many alive today have clearly not yet got the hang of, never mind the other "rights" you mention.
lmao! That is good.