People Really Don't Believe In Free Speech
Let's be honest here for a minute, nobody totally believes in
"Free Speech." There are limits to what we're willing to tolerate.
For an example, I have these strict rules on The Electric Speakeasy:
No pornography or sexually explicit content of any kind, I
have no desire look at porn or have my website become a portal
for someone else's.
No racist content - use your own best judgment in regards to
what's "profain" or "vulgar" and keep it off our forum. I have
no use for racists or racism - I'll go so far as to ban "Holiday
Inn" because of the Abraham Lincoln's scene with Bing Crosby in
black-face while the real African-Americans were working in the
kitchen. Because of Jay Severin's recent diatribes of racism (up
until recently he's been clear to single out and target ILLEGAL
aliens and the corrupt Mexican Government) I can sympathize with
WTKK's management.
No plagiarism: If you're going to repost or "recast"
something from somewhere else, at least give the author and the
original publication credit.
No Personal Attacks against other members: You can disagree
with out being disagreeable. Not allowing people to trash other
members of The Electric Speakeasy isn't tolerated simply because
the goal of the forum is to debate the issues while at the same
time uplifting each other whom have similar interests. But I
digress.
I have suspended and banned at least 6 people for violating these
rules, but other than those minor bumps the forum has run smoothly.
Now, does this mean that I'm not a complete proponent of Free Speech
if there are some things I won't allow? That's my point. Nobody
really completely believes in Free Speech since we all draw lines
and set standards.
It's a difficult thing to stand-up for someone who is saying or
writing something that you don't agree with. and even more so if someone is
saying something that's offensive. From my own personal experience
I've made the observation that people will only defend someone else
who is being silenced when they agree with what the censored was
saying. If you agree with what someone is saying or writing, and
that person's mouth is being shut for them - then you're going to
get angry because you can't hear or read what they were
communicating. And there's a safe assumption that if you try and
fill the void their absence created, you'll be shut down to.
What's more appalling to me than what Jay Severin has said in the
past about illegal immigrants (it's how you say it, not so much what
you say) but the celebratory back-slapping that's been going on with
in the media between the columnists that are actually glad this
happened.
None of these people (and the other bloggers too numerous to
mention who have written about this incident) are willing to partake of Voltaire's
Philosophy: Fight to the death for Jay Severin's right to say what
he wants despite their adamant disagreements or at least make
an attempt to say that they dislike what he said but play lip
service to his right to voice an opinion. I would almost guarantee
that over the past few years these people have been railing against
the potential for civil rights violations under The Bush
Administrations Patriot Act and warrantless wire-taps. Wouldn't
shutting Severin down also be a violation of civil rights, despite
how appalling his opinion is to many people?
And what did these people say in protest against those on the
other side like Garofalo and Oberman who have made bigoted and
inflammatory comments about conservatives and Christians? Is that OK
because they think it's "true?" Would it be safe to assume that
these people think hate-speech is fine as long as it's the "right"
hate-speech and you agree with it?
What none of these people understand is that there will come a
time when the political winds will change and blow from the right
again and these people will be under similar scrutiny. Writers like
Lehigh, Gelzinis and Reyes could find them selves out of a job
because they don't share the same "Groupthink" and have the "right"
political views and could have their mouths shut by a conservative
version of "The Fairness Doctrine." Who will stand up for them? Who
would?
I'm concerned about the chilling effect this is going to cause in
the near future. If radio hosts will be taken off the air because of
the wrong kind of "hate-speech" and political pressure, where does
it go from there? "If you give a mouse a cookie..."
What's next to be shut down? Entire radio stations? Print media
and publications? Websites, perhaps? Who's to say that the next step
in silencing the "wrong" type of political dissent is to have
privately owned and operated websites like The Fedora Chronicles
deleted? If someone can make the argument that nobody has a "right"
to free speech on the radio because the air-waves are publicly
owned, then you can also make an argument that I'm not entitled to
run a website on the publicly owned internet.
Is YOUR webpage, forum profile,
Facebook or "MySpace" account going to be next? |
There
was once this quote that I was taught a long time ago that rattles
around in my head when ever issues of free speech come up; "I may
not agree with what you say, but to the death I will defend your
right to say it," it was originally attributed to Voltaire [b. 1694
- d. 1778] When ever I've had the urge to lambaste someone for not
sharing my opinion, I always think back to that little philosophical
nugget. If I have to disagree with someone, then maybe I should do
it in a thoughtful manner. 
