“…to do anything less would violate my conscience.”
A couple of good posts up at Five Feet of Fury today.
First off, some follow-up on her appearance on TVO’s “The Agenda” last night, to which Warren Kinsella (among others) objected to quite vocally, and attempted to prevent.
So if you, too, want TVO to cancel my appearance tonight — either because I’m a “racist” or because you’d like to help me be able to put my jammies on a few hours earlier, please leave a polite message at TVO for “the producer of The Agenda”.
Who I’m sure is already having a VERY bad day…
PS: a couple of Muslim guys in Montreal are going to jail for firebombing Jewish centers and planning to behead a gay dude.
But do keep on spending your time complaining to TVO about my “racism”, m’kay?
Then there’s this gem, which could serve as a manifesto for any determined conservative blogger, and which must be read in its entirety. This last part, in particular, has resonance:
I will continue to express my views, not only about belligerent, disloyal Muslims, but about everything that constitutes a threat to national security, be it the welfare state, radical ecology, the division of society into various arbitrary “victim” “communities, or official multiculturalism, “tolerance” and “diversity”.
(I also support the right to any other person, left or right, to post annoying, rude, ill-informed, provocative writing on their blog. That they don’t often extend me the same courtesy is unfortunate but I’m powerless to do much about that.)
This stance has, and will, cost me dearly. However, to do anything less would violate my conscience.
Those who dislike what they read at this blog are free to make their first visit here their last.
Let’s see how long I am free to keep writing it.
Those are the stakes, people. Moreover, that’s the blogger’s obligation: if you’re going to put yourself out into the New Wild West that is the Internet, you won’t get far by not being true to yourself. Say it like you mean it, or pack up and head back east (so to speak).
Steynian 325 « Free Canuckistan! (February 18, 2009, 12:33 pm).
[...] HYNEK ON SHAIDLE– “…to do anything less would violate my conscience.” …. [...]
Free speech is usually only free for those who abuse it. However anything other than, “telling it as you see it”, would be a commercial, and then you would have to get paid for it.
If speech is truly free, can it truly be abused? If we have a notion that free speech can be abused, do we not imply that in our minds there are limits to what can and cannot be said? And is that not the antithesis of free speech?
Well, what would you call “Piss Christ”, pornography and other such ‘art’? It is definately a misuse if not an abuse, as is propaganda such that it is speech that violates the dignity of either persons or reality.
But I would also like to reflect on the response we give to such things to see if the notion of abuse implies commentary on ability, permission or morality. (You speak of ‘can’ in the permission (‘may’) sense, but it actually denotes ability = sorry the grammar teacher coming out).
My sense is that most conservative outrage at such ‘art’ is of the ‘you shouldn’t do that’ variety which would imply some moral limits which need to be considered and which mean that such ‘art’ be cordoned from free public consumption – in a special gallery, age limits for purchase, etc. The controversy generally erupts when those lines are violated. Now, imagine the response to, say, ‘Piss Muhammed’ – would even moderate Muslims, about such ‘art’ about their Prophet, react the same as all but the most extreme fringe of Christians do about such ‘art’ about our Divine Messiah?
There are legitimate impermissible speech acts – yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded room when no fire exists being an example – but they are few and generally have public safety in mind – no trampled people for no good reason.
Our language limitations – and English is dynamic, living and can generally create new words or redefine old words as needed – should be the only ‘ability’ inhibitors – we can not, for instance, truly speak freely about the nature of God since we are unable to accurately describe said nature by our limited vocabulary. This does not mean we may not, or should not, try to articulate as close (although far) a description as possible.
And any moral norm transgressing free speech act ought to be ‘limited’ in such a way that the transgression can be made known, but not to stop the transgressive act. Propaganda is largely untouched, because the truth of reality can either directly or through a ‘dialectic of propaganda’ be manifest for the public. Offenses to human dignity which can not so easily be countered (of what good is a message of the virtues of chastity or an uplifting story about Christ is the face of the grotesque images of ‘piss Christ’ or pornography, especially as images can ‘burn’ themselves into the mind much more easily?) are more appropriately placed such that only those who have, ostensibly, full command of their reason and will – both are, at least, naturally mature (nature can not improve them, only nurture/grace can) – can access them.
If such limiting of abuses of free speech constitutes an abrogation of free speech than I will have to reflect more, but I think that such limiting is an act of free speech insofar as it communicates by such limits the dignity being violated.
As to your questions, Ken:
Yes it is possible to abuse free speech.
No, abuse need not imply impermissible boundaries.
Yes, impermissible boundaries are the antithesis of free speech.
CSR
“Piss Christ” is a sin and a blasphemy, and rather vulgar…but it is not an abuse of the artist’s right or ability to express his opinion. It is not an abuse of free speech, even if what is “said” is not particularly tasteful.
Fair enough.
A fair summary — a combination of moral imperative and the attempt not to prohibit expression entirely, but to suggest that it be expressed in such a forum that only those who would desire to partake of it can do so, without subjecting others to it beyond that group.
The notion of “age appropriateness” is a bit different, though still analogous.
One is hesitant to believe they would. One is willing instead to imagine that murder and rioting would be a world-wide result of such an exhibition.
Yet one must cry fire if, in one’s considered view, a fire does exist — even if it is later revealed that what one saw was just a figment of optics.
But more to the point, is the “fire in a crowded room/theater” (theater is the correct completion of the phrase, mind) analogy even relevant these days? It was first articulated in 1919, when theaters were substantially more combustible than they are today. It makes little actual sense when one considers a modern institution, which will tend to be constructed of flame-retardant materials supported by various fire suppression systems.
More to the point, it’s not so much a persuasive argument for moderation as it is “a puerile but sly collectivist argument.”
I get the point that is, I think, intended by the use of the “fire in a crowded room” analogy…but (and this could perhaps be considered the final nail in the coffin of the tired old trope) that is not even what this situation is about. You yourself point out that “Piss Christ” had very different results, in terms of public response, than “Piss Muhammed” would ever have.
More plainly: nobody died because of “Piss Christ;” dozens would die over “Piss Muhammed.”
Here’s the rub: within the confines of the analogy, yelling “Fire” always results in a stampede for the doors; whether there is a fire or not, people get trampled. With regard to the difference between “Piss Christ” and “Piss Muhammed,” it’s the fact that public response to the latter would be orders of magnitude more violent than public response to the former that is, actually, the proverbial fire.
That’s the key point here, the reason that the analogy is itself useless — there is actually a fire which needs to be pointed out.
That would be nice.
This already exists, for the most part, in laws against e.g. defamation or incitement to violence. And restrictions on such things are, to a point, legitimate, provided that the definitions of what constitutes “incitement” or “defamation” are clearly and reasonably defined, and essentially immutable.
I believe we’ve covered this concept previously.
In a sense, it makes sense to limit the audience of certain forms of “expression” for various reasons (age being, typically, the principal determinant here)…but at the same time, there are inherent risks even to that approach; which definition of maturity do we use, especially given the absence of a canonically-defined “dividing line” between maturity and immaturity? We have only secular definitions for who is to be considered mature or not; these are by their very nature imperfect.
With #1, I am not sure I agree; in fact, I think I do not.
With #2 and #3, I am more in agreement.