The slow death of free speech

[Valmy]

My take on Mr. Steyn:

(1) "Free speech" = freedom from government repression over speech, not freedom from bad consequences in general from speech.

OTOH,

(2) "Civility" = the notion that it is unacceptable to shout down or boycott others over the content of their speech.

What is at issue here is not "free speech", but a breakdown in "civility". One aspect of this is shouting down and boycotting others. Another aspect of this is demonizing fellow citizens as morally corrupt enemies. Both left and right are guilty of corroding standards of civility - the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them, the right to lunatic theories about the alleged moral corruption of those who displease them. Naturally, Mr. Steyn, being on the right, has more to say about the former than the latter. 

Well said, that is more about what we are talking about here.

[jimmy olsen]

He's still defending a political enemy.

I couldn't find any evidence either way of him defending or failing to defend a leftist over an issue unrelated to religion. From what I've seen the left wing is not often censured on such things.

I did try and searched several pages of google but anything useful must be buried deep.

When they agree with him!   Steyn's a Jew, so you'd think understand he a historical constant.  If you fan the flames of hate eventually the fire will spread to a synagogue.

Fanatics do not defend enemies even when they agree with them. Often times that just gets an even harsher response.

Obama adopted the republican health care plan. Did the GOP tumpet it's victory in the marketplace of ideas? Of course not. They abandoned the idea and attacked it as a communist monstrosity.

You behave the same way Raz. When derspeiss or someone you label the enemy agress with a political position you hold you aren't pleased they've seen the light. On the contrary you go on the attack, attacking their motives and attempting to prove that they don't really agree with you.

[Razgovory]

Fanatics do not defend enemies even when they agree with them. Often times that just gets an even harsher response.

Obama adopted the republican health care plan. Did the GOP tumpet it's victory in the marketplace of ideas? Of course not. They abanded the idea and attacked it as a communist monstrosity.

You behave the same way Raz. When derspeiss or someone you label the enemy agress with a political position you hold you aren't pleased they've seen the light. On the contrary you go on the attack, attacking their motives and attempting to prove that they don't really agree with you.

This is nonsense.  First nobody said he was a fanatic, second, you statements about fanatics aren't even true.  I can find many examples of fanatical people who said nice things about their enemies when faced a greater threat.  Churchill praised the Soviet Union despite being an ardent anticommunist while they were fighting the Germans.  And thirdly, I argue with derspeiss because I'm hard to get along with.

[Valmy]

I Find you delightful Raz.

[jimmy olsen]

I did try and searched several pages of google but anything useful must be buried deep.

Or doesn't exist.

Since I searched for two diametrically opposed options, evidence for one must exist.

[Sheilbh]

Fanatics do not defend enemies even when they agree with them. Often times that just gets an even harsher response.

Obama adopted the republican health care plan. Did the GOP tumpet it's victory in the marketplace of ideas? Of course not. They abanded the idea and attacked it as a communist monstrosity.

Maybe they changed their mind.

I mean the GOP proposal that looked like Obamacare was made in the mid-90s, I think Bob Dole was the guy behind it. Maybe, in 15 years, the views of the GOP and the conservative movement shifted? I don't think there's much reason to attack their motives like this (the lack of a current GOP alternative to Obamacare is stronger ground in my view).

[jimmy olsen]

Mitt Romney was running for the GOP nomination in 2008 trumpeting his health care plan (identical to Obamacare) as his crowning achievement. It wasn't until Obama adopted it that the GOP turned against the idea.

[Sheilbh]

Mitt Romney was running for the GOP nomination in 2008 trumpeting his health care plan (identical to Obamacare) as his crowning achievement. It wasn't until Obama adopted it that the GOP turned against the idea.

Oh if we're bitching about Romney then that's fine I agree with you. But he's shallower than a puddle and hasn't had a single consistent belief or ideology in his career.

But he was also attacked for it in 2008, especially by McCain and the right whose policy was basically vouchers. There was no-one but Romney in the GOP in 2008 pushing for something like Obamacare. And Romney lost.

[Malthus]

My take on Mr. Steyn:

(1) "Free speech" = freedom from government repression over speech, not freedom from bad consequences in general from speech.

OTOH,

(2) "Civility" = the notion that it is unacceptable to shout down or boycott others over the content of their speech.

What is at issue here is not "free speech", but a breakdown in "civility". One aspect of this is shouting down and boycotting others. Another aspect of this is demonizing fellow citizens as morally corrupt enemies. Both left and right are guilty of corroding standards of civility - the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them, the right to lunatic theories about the alleged moral corruption of those who displease them. Naturally, Mr. Steyn, being on the right, has more to say about the former than the latter. 

Well said, that is more about what we are talking about here.

To my mind, I prefer a society in which civil discourse is the norm, even for abhorent views, so stuff like what Mr. Steyn is complaining about has a certain amount of traction - but he's pushing the wrong button here when he's complaining about a threat to "free speech".

[jimmy olsen]

My take on Mr. Steyn:

(1) "Free speech" = freedom from government repression over speech, not freedom from bad consequences in general from speech.

OTOH,

(2) "Civility" = the notion that it is unacceptable to shout down or boycott others over the content of their speech.

What is at issue here is not "free speech", but a breakdown in "civility". One aspect of this is shouting down and boycotting others. Another aspect of this is demonizing fellow citizens as morally corrupt enemies. Both left and right are guilty of corroding standards of civility - the left is more prone to shouting down or boycotting those who displease them, the right to lunatic theories about the alleged moral corruption of those who displease them. Naturally, Mr. Steyn, being on the right, has more to say about the former than the latter. 

Well said, that is more about what we are talking about here.

To my mind, I prefer a society in which civil discourse is the norm, even for abhorent views, so stuff like what Mr. Steyn is complaining about has a certain amount of traction - but he's pushing the wrong button here when he's complaining about a threat to "free speech".

But those movements lead to laws that infringe on free speech. Just look at what happened in Canada and Australia. Now thankfully the law in Canada was repealed, but the movement to do so in Australia seems to have sputtered.

[Sheilbh]

The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.

The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.

[Valmy]

The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.

The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.

Maybe.  But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing.  I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.

[Razgovory]

The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.

The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.

Maybe.  But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing.  I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.

We already live in such a society.  We've always lived in such a society.  Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.

[jimmy olsen]

The death of free speech is very slow given that Australia's had that law on the books for over 20 years.

The US is exceptional in not having these sort of laws and most of them have been on the books for a long time. I think their threat to free speech is a bit overstated.

Maybe.  But we did not get to be exceptional in this respect by not being vigilant about this sort of thing.  I have no interest in living in a society where people are too afraid to speak their minds because they could have their livelihoods ruined.

We already live in such a society. We've always lived in such a society.  Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.

Completely untrue. It was illegal to advocate abolition in half the country for decades. "Obscenity" was harshly censored for far longer than that.

[derspiess]

We already live in such a society.  We've always lived in such a society.  Speaking unpopular opinions have always carried the threat of social sanction.

Do you think this is healthy & should continue?