I'm not a free speech absolutist. I don't believe that every form of censorship is necessarily wrong. It's reasonable position on the conservative side. For example (please forgive me), Jonah Goldberg has beat up on free speech absolutists several times at NRO (I've borrowed that term from him). I don't see a problem with the banning of flag burning or with the banning of nudie bars. I do see the problem with the restrictions placed on free speech with the enactment of campaign finance laws.
The truth is, just about everyone believes in some form of censorship. At least libertarians are willing to admit that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is forbidden, unless there actually happens to be a fire.
For the left, censorship usually takes the form of political correctness. They go the bullying route. Recently, I encountered a lefty that was so willing to throw out the 'homophobe' mantra, that the disclaimer "hate the sin, love the sinner" was insufficient to protect anyone from her fangs. Any peep against sodomy was proof of a person's hatred of homosexuals. I'm only exaggerating slightly.
On the right, at least in some corners, there is the idea of ordered liberty. The idea is that for freedom to flourish, some order must be established. Bromides such as "the best answer to poor speech is more speech" fail to bear up to reality.
The failure of the libertarian dystopia, otherwise known as the Internet forum, was well expressed by my friend Rafa, in the following rant:
In the Internet everyone can play tough, every one can be a hero, everyone can be a killer. This amusing exchange that I just described came after a couple of weeks of some other idiot from New York doing the same thing to most members of that forum, he invited them to come on over to his apartment and to see what a great Conan The Barbarian he was. He insulted everyone, everyone's wife, mother and grandmother and he is still relentless about this attitude with one particular member there.
Rafa then expressed relief at returning to a better moderated (and closed) forum.
Welcome to the jungle.
There is a difference between the censorship styles of right and left. While some may disagree, the right thinks that flag burning and stripping in a nudie bar are not protected speech, and the left is willing to put restrictions on political speech (à la campaign finance bills). In general, these issues aptly express the divide between left and right. Flag burning (anger) and nudie bars (lust) are expressions of the gut. The political campaign might be emotional, but it is the instance where actual speech is used; reason can reside here.
The leftist view of free speech promotes feelings and drives out thought. Any nut can rant and rave, and his feelings should be respected. After all, he has a "right to free speech." We are expected to show compassion toward designated victim groups. Any failure to respond appropriately is deemed to be hateful. This is the tactic voiced recently by liberals such as Ted Kennedy; he "reasons" that the denial of same-sex marriage rights is of the same order of bigotry that placed blacks at the back of the bus. Reason cannot be inserted in such a "discussion."
Bad speech drives out good speech. When an emotional argument is given the same validity as a reasoned argument, we've given the keys of the asylum to the lunatics. This is not to say that the heart should never be given voice, but the crying woman will demand vengeance and the angry man will beat his chest. Both are bullies. The more sane folks, unless they have tremendous patience and strength, are likely to flee or remain quiet.
Leftists do have valid criticisms of traditional censorship. They will draw on the tried and true (and worn out) examples of excess. But that doesn't prove that censorship is always wrong. Indeed, Tammy Bruce's criticism of the left (in The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds) shows that they are very willing to resort to censorship as long as it's on their terms. Often, their terms have a Stalinist tinge.
The sign that traditional censorship is working is when it promotes free thought within its established boundaries. One might argue that the boundaries are improperly set, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have boundaries.
Welcome to the city.
Posted by Bob at February 7, 2005 08:20 PM