Freedom of Speech--How Far?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Freedom of Speech--How Far?

I caught this video and it is troubling me. It's only a minute or so.

There is no embed code, so here is the link to it on the Real Clear Politics site:

Lindsey Graham: "Free Speech Is A Great Idea, But We're In A War"

I have transcribed Sen. Graham's part below. He is discussing Terry Jones burning the Qu'ran.

You know I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war,

During WWII you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So, burning a Qu'ran is a terrible thing, but it doesn't justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing, but it wouldn't justify a murder.

But having said that, any time we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we ought to do it. So I look forward to working with Senators Kerry and Reid and others to condemn this--condemn violence all over the world based in the name of religion. But General Petraeus understands better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country. And he was right to condemn it, and I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petraeus said.

Someone should advise Graham that freedom of speech is not just "a great idea," it is a right enshrined in our founding documents.

What the hell does "find some way to hold people accountable" mean in terms of Congress? And what the hell does Congress "reinforce what General Petraeus said" mean? Congress is a body that enacts federal laws.

This stinks.

It is part of a dangerous government creep and nudge and Graham is totally out there in adopting the position he is adopting.

What Jones did is wrong on so many levels, it's not even worth trying to prove that. And he's just plain stupid to boot as this plays into the hands of Islamist fanatics who use it to misinform uneducated people (on foreign soil at that). But that is not the issue.

Jones is an American citizen on American soil carrying out a nonviolent ritual in a church he presides over. Socially, I think he should pay a high price for that, but legally he is solidly within his rights.

I stand for his right to do what he did. I despise it, but I despise not having the right more. Congress has to butt out.

I believe this is one we need to keep an eye on.

Michael

[Selene]

Agreed Michael:

There are all kinds of subtle subtexts floating in the media. For example, during WWII, if President Roosevelt had asked a citizen not to act a certain way in the cause of patriotism, protecting the mission and protecting the servicemen, a "good American" would stand down.

This kind of rhetoric merely gives Graham cover. I have not trusted him since the "gang of seven" deal. He needs to be stopped cold. He needs to be defeated in a primary as soon as possible.

Most of all, as your alarm bell warns, we should all be contacting our Reps and Senators and tell them to stand down from compromising another inalienable right.

This kind of incrementalism needs to be stopped cold right now.

I already called this moron's Senate office today.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Freedom of Speech--How Far?

I caught this video and it is troubling me. It's only a minute or so.

There is no embed code, so here is the link to it on the Real Clear Politics site:

Lindsey Graham: "Free Speech Is A Great Idea, But We're In A War"

I have transcribed Sen. Graham's part below. He is discussing Terry Jones burning the Qu'ran.

You know I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war,

During WWII you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So, burning a Qu'ran is a terrible thing, but it doesn't justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing, but it wouldn't justify a murder.

But having said that, any time we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we ought to do it. So I look forward to working with Senators Kerry and Reid and others to condemn this--condemn violence all over the world based in the name of religion. But General Petraeus understands better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country. And he was right to condemn it, and I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petraeus said.

Someone should advise Graham that freedom of speech is not just "a great idea," it is a right enshrined in our founding documents.

What the hell does "find some way to hold people accountable" mean in terms of Congress? And what the hell does Congress "reinforce what General Petraeus said" mean? Congress is a body that enacts federal laws.

This stinks.

It is part of a dangerous government creep and nudge and Graham is totally out there in adopting the position he is adopting.

What Jones did is wrong on so many levels, it's not even worth trying to prove that. And he's just plain stupid to boot as this plays into the hands of Islamist fanatics who use it to misinform uneducated people (on foreign soil at that). But that is not the issue.

Jones is an American citizen on American soil carrying out a nonviolent ritual in a church he presides over. Socially, I think he should pay a high price for that, but legally he is solidly within his rights.

I stand for his right to do what he did. I despise it, but I despise not having the right more. Congress has to butt out.

I believe this is one we need to keep an eye on.

Michael

Short of incitement to riot or threatening violence, there should be no prior restraint on freedom of expression. There might be actionable consequences to exercising free speech as slander actions. Also revealing official secrets carries a penalty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 5, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think I've got Beck on the brain.

I just saw the recording of today's show and he practically echoed what I said here (Or I echoed him... whatever... )

I arrived at my conclusion without thinking of anyone else, though.

It correctly reflects my values

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

I'm not sure why anyones surprised at this. The effort to impose Shariah blasphemy laws have been going full throttle ever since the cartoon furore, pushed majorly by the OIC, and as the left is no friend of freedom of speech either, they're only happy to align with that. However, Mr Graham needs to get used the idea of people burning Qur'ans, because if he tries to stop it he'll find more and more supporters of freedom of speech popping out of the woodwork, all burning Qur'ans.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Who's surprised?

I don't see anyone surprised here.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

If no one's surprised, then that's good.

[Richard Wiig]

Socially, I think he should pay a high price for that,

Why? What has he actually done that is truly so terrible?

[Selene]

Socially, I think he should pay a high price for that,

Why? What has he actually done that is truly so terrible?

Does being an asshole count?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Does being an asshole count?

Yup.

[Richard Wiig]

Socially, I think he should pay a high price for that,

Why? What has he actually done that is truly so terrible?

Does being an asshole count?

That doesn't really tell me does it, Adam. He's an areshole but he's also a brave man standing up in the face of a totalitarian ideology that would enslave us all. Just what social price should he pay and for what specific actions?

[Selene]

Socially, I think he should pay a high price for that,

Why? What has he actually done that is truly so terrible?

Does being an asshole count?

That doesn't really tell me does it, Adam. He's an areshole but he's also a brave man standing up in the face of a totalitarian ideology that would enslave us all. Just what social price should he pay and for what specific actions?

No, Richard, what he did was ignorant, dangerous and accomplishes nothing in terms of effectively combating the radical Islamofascists.

I am not going to argue with you. You stated your position, I stated mine. It ends here.

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

Socially, I think he should pay a high price for that,

Why? What has he actually done that is truly so terrible?

Does being an asshole count?

That doesn't really tell me does it, Adam. He's an areshole but he's also a brave man standing up in the face of a totalitarian ideology that would enslave us all. Just what social price should he pay and for what specific actions?

No, Richard, what he did was ignorant, dangerous and accomplishes nothing in terms of effectively combating the radical Islamofascists.

I am not going to argue with you. You stated your position, I stated mine. It ends here.

Adam

I wasn't arguing. I'm interested in your reasoning, which I'm in the dark on, and I'm still totally in the dark on it. I disagree with you about his actions being ineffective. I think it is actually very effective. Forcing the issue is what is needed.

Richard

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sacrificing innocent people on both sides is not necessary to win this ideological war.

The leaders are the problem, not the schlubs.

Haters on both sides don't don't give a damn about the schlubs, though, unless they can use their suffering to feign outrage at the other side.

Change the leaders, you change what the schlubs do. That's the only strategy that works, that has ever worked, and that will ever work.

Terry Jones is just as nuts as any fundamentalist jihadist. He's merely not violent--but that's only for now. (He's already making sure he is photographed with a pistol.)

I can easily see that mock trial he did of the Qu'ran and the upcoming one on Mohammad turning into mock trials and burning of real living "witches" if he ever gets any real power. People like him (fanatical control freaks) always do that crap if they can get away with it.

Thanks but no thanks. Assholes like that do not speak for me.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Sacrificing innocent people on both sides is not necessary to win this ideological war.

Michael

No one has sacrificed innocent people, and burning a Qur'an is not a sacrifice of innocent people, unless of course you are implying that Terry Jones is partly responsible for the murders that have been done. It's unclear to me why Terry Jones burning of a Qur'an is dangerous and sacrifices innocent people, whereas your publishing of the cartoon of Muhammad on your website is a stand for freedom of speech, rather than dangerous and a sacrifice of innocent people.

Richard

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Richard,

Give it some time.

This stuff might become clear to you after a while.

Or it might not.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Oh, things are pretty clear to me. The aim is to achieve a world where someone can burn a Qur'an, or an Ayn Rand book, or any book they choose, just so long as they own it, and people don't go apeshit, let alone go on murderous rampages. It's pretty clear to me that kowtowing to people who intimidate and murder doesn't bring that world any closer. In fact, it distances us from it. To make Terry Jones, the kook that he is, bow to that, is to make him bow to lower standards than that - to the standards that the murderous thugs demand of him and of us all.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Richard,

Look at you once again.

Nobody said anything about making Jones kowtow to anything, yet you accuse this.

Maybe you missed the part where I said I stand for the rights of Jones. Go on. Go back and read it. It's there as clear as daylight.

Hatred is a lousy way to live. It pollutes everything you think about--so much so that you can't even read what is right in front of you.

What doesn't fit the hatred narrative gets blanked out.

What's the sense of discussing anything like that?

Go hate something with someone else and ask your leading questions to people who will fall for them. I've wasted too much time with this already.

Michael

[Selene]

Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself. Richard M. Nixon, in his White House farewell

[Richard Wiig]

Richard,

Look at you once again.

Nobody said anything about making Jones kowtow to anything, yet you accuse this.

I didn't miss that part at all, but it is merely something that you pay lipservice too. You haven't held it in higher esteem than castigating Mr Jones at all. Denouncing him for his "bigotry", danger, and the "sacrificing of innocents" is to the fore. You make it clear that he shouldn' be doing it and that he's an areshole for it who should pay a high social price. You talk of leaders changing things for the better. Well, what our leaders should be doing, what Obama should say, is something along these lines:

That here in the West we have the right to freedom of speech. People do and say all manner of things, high and low, from burning a Qur'an, to putting effigies of jesus into vats of urine and calling it art, to expounding views from the weird and wacky to the highly rational and sane. Here in America, in the West, we tolerate it even if we find some speech offensive. He should explain that that toleration is one of the pillars of the free world, and explain why it leads to the prosperity and advancement of the West. He should explain that it would be in the Islamic worlds best interest to adopt that wonderful institution as a pillar of their own society, if they want to flourish. And he should demand that Karzai, in Afghanistan, and whoever leads in whatever other countries its happening in, hunts down and puts the perpetrators of those murders on trial. He should not even comment on whether or not he thinks Terry Jones is a bigot. It's not his job to make pronouncements on citizens exercising their right to freedom of speech. It's his job to defend that right.

That's not what you've put first and foremost in regard to this. What's come through first and foremost, loud and clear, is that Terry Jones is an unconscionable bigot and an arsehole and that he, and by extension the rest of us, should all tone down the things we might say or do in regards to our criticism of Islam. That doesn't strike me as putting love over hate. Just the opposite in fact. The very thing that you're constantly charging others with.

Richard

[Richard Wiig]

Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself. Richard M. Nixon, in his White House farewell

Pithiness, in the defense of nothing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That doesn't strike me as putting love over hate.

Richard,

Look at you once again.

You really are blinded by hatred.

You keep misrepresenting my words that are right in front if you. You're not even supposing stuff. You're just getting it wrong. This is the third time that's explicit, not counting all the other times when I didn't call you on it.

I'm going to say something from the heart.

I pity you.

I really do.

Michael

[caroljane]

Richard,

Look at you once again.

Nobody said anything about making Jones kowtow to anything, yet you accuse this.

I didn't miss that part at all, but it is merely something that you pay lipservice too. You haven't held it in higher esteem than castigating Mr Jones at all. Denouncing him for his "bigotry", danger, and the "sacrificing of innocents" is to the fore. You make it clear that he shouldn' be doing it and that he's an areshole for it who should pay a high social price. You talk of leaders changing things for the better. Well, what our leaders should be doing, what Obama should say, is something along these lines:

That here in the West we have the right to freedom of speech. People do and say all manner of things, high and low, from burning a Qur'an, to putting effigies of jesus into vats of urine and calling it art, to expounding views from the weird and wacky to the highly rational and sane. Here in America, in the West, we tolerate it even if we find some speech offensive. He should explain that that toleration is one of the pillars of the free world, and explain why it leads to the prosperity and advancement of the West. He should explain that it would be in the Islamic worlds best interest to adopt that wonderful institution as a pillar of their own society, if they want to flourish. And he should demand that Karzai, in Afghanistan, and whoever leads in whatever other countries its happening in, hunts down and puts the perpetrators of those murders on trial. He should not even comment on whether or not he thinks Terry Jones is a bigot. It's not his job to make pronouncements on citizens exercising their right to freedom of speech. It's his job to defend that right.

That's not what you've put first and foremost in regard to this. What's come through first and foremost, loud and clear, is that Terry Jones is an unconscionable bigot and an arsehole and that he, and by extension the rest of us, should all tone down the things we might say or do in regards to our criticism of Islam. That doesn't strike me as putting love over hate. Just the opposite in fact. The very thing that you're constantly charging others with.

Richard

Presumably you want Muslims to denounce and socially penalize the fundamentalist fanatics within their society. Michael, as a member of Western society, denounces and calls for social penalties on a fundamentalist fanatic within his own society.Neither you nor Michael denies anyone's freedom of speech.

You persistently claim to see a difference that isn't there.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You persistently claim to see a difference that isn't there.

Carol,

I know you haven't read much of Rand, but you have your finger right on a problem that many people have in applying Rand's ideas.

They take her normative part, but never really get the epistemology. (To be fair, Rand messed up this herself a few times when she got wound up.)

I call it the cognitive-normative inversion. I've done the technical explanation several times, so I'll just stick to the plain language version right now.

Essentially, the correct way to use your reason in a disciplined manner is to correctly identify something before judging it. This is harder than it appears because of all the stuff in the subconscious, but it's a choice you make on purpose about your own thinking. The question that illustrates the need for doing this is: How can you correctly judge something when you don't correctly know what it is?

It takes effort to think that way. Lots of effort to do it consistently. Especially when your emotions try to pull your thoughts in a specific direction.

Far, far too many people do the contrary as their normal way of reasoning. They take a generalized judgement, then go around seeking facts to fit it. They exaggerate the facts that fit the generalization and ignore the ones that contradict it.

If strong emotion is involved, they become so blind, they distort stuff right in front of them without even realizing it.

We all do this at times, too. It's one of those things you have to correct once in a while when you make a mess. Once again, this takes effort to consistently stay in the correct thinking sequence.

The inversion is not a bad process, though, if you are working on discovering something or building something. It's a great way to channel focused creativity. But you have to know that you are doing it to make it work well--to function productively.

My complaint is when the cognitive-normative inversion used consistently is a bad habit--a poor thinking method that just happens. It is not chosen.

If Rand's statement that the fundamental choice is to think or not to think has any meaning, to me that is the main one.

So, to you, you mentioned a difference that is not there. But you are talking about the cognitive part--the identification. To Richard, there most definitely is a difference--the hatred of Islam. One side has it and the other doesn't. This is because he uses his generalized evaluation where his identifying faculty should be. Thus, your observation to him will be a triviality, not something based on a fundamental premise.

To be fair, I think he senses something is amiss, but can't quite put his finger on it. (And to be even more fair, I believe Richard has a good heart underneath. I might be wrong, but that's the impression I get.)

Notice that people who use the correct sequence to their thinking (identifying then judging) get along just fine with others who use the same system, but who disagree with them. There's an underlying sense of knowing who you are in both sides that is never threatened by disagreement.

But also notice that people who use the contrary system (judging first, then trying to make the facts fit), get really wound up if you don't agree with them, especially if they have found some semi-intelligent sounding sources that appear to back them up. These are ones who go on crusades.

Some really intelligent people do this, too. But being intelligent in developing an argument from a premise is not the same kind of intelligence as what you need when you look all the way down to the bottom--for example examining your very processes of thinking.

In even more plain language, I think it was in the essay, "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" that Rand said if you landed on a strange planet, your first questions would be:

What do I know?

How do I know it?

What do I do about it?

The people who use the normative before the cognitive as their thinking method cut out the second question--or fudge it in a blurred way at best--and ask:

What do I know?

What do I do about it?

I combat this when I see it because I have seen how our mirror neurons operate in whipping up a crowd. You can do this for good, like at a show, or bad, like lathering up a lynch mob.

To be precise, I do not combat it for things like shows since I don't want to be a buzz-kill. But I hammer hatred when used in the place of identification in the cognitive-normative sequence because it tends to result in lynch mobs.

It's funny, but I believe that using the correct sequence in thinking is not just logically and epistemologically correct, it makes you feel good.

It's healthy in more ways than one.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Richard,

Look at you once again.

Nobody said anything about making Jones kowtow to anything, yet you accuse this.

I didn't miss that part at all, but it is merely something that you pay lipservice too. You haven't held it in higher esteem than castigating Mr Jones at all. Denouncing him for his "bigotry", danger, and the "sacrificing of innocents" is to the fore. You make it clear that he shouldn' be doing it and that he's an areshole for it who should pay a high social price. You talk of leaders changing things for the better. Well, what our leaders should be doing, what Obama should say, is something along these lines:

That here in the West we have the right to freedom of speech. People do and say all manner of things, high and low, from burning a Qur'an, to putting effigies of jesus into vats of urine and calling it art, to expounding views from the weird and wacky to the highly rational and sane. Here in America, in the West, we tolerate it even if we find some speech offensive. He should explain that that toleration is one of the pillars of the free world, and explain why it leads to the prosperity and advancement of the West. He should explain that it would be in the Islamic worlds best interest to adopt that wonderful institution as a pillar of their own society, if they want to flourish. And he should demand that Karzai, in Afghanistan, and whoever leads in whatever other countries its happening in, hunts down and puts the perpetrators of those murders on trial. He should not even comment on whether or not he thinks Terry Jones is a bigot. It's not his job to make pronouncements on citizens exercising their right to freedom of speech. It's his job to defend that right.

That's not what you've put first and foremost in regard to this. What's come through first and foremost, loud and clear, is that Terry Jones is an unconscionable bigot and an arsehole and that he, and by extension the rest of us, should all tone down the things we might say or do in regards to our criticism of Islam. That doesn't strike me as putting love over hate. Just the opposite in fact. The very thing that you're constantly charging others with.

Richard

Presumably you want Muslims to denounce and socially penalize the fundamentalist fanatics within their society. Michael, as a member of Western society, denounces and calls for social penalties on a fundamentalist fanatic within his own society.Neither you nor Michael denies anyone's freedom of speech.

You persistently claim to see a difference that isn't there.

I denounce Terry Jones fundamentalism myself - in fact, I denounce all religion in so far as it is irrational. Unlike Michael though, I do not denounce his burning of the Qur'an. In fact, I applaud his freedom to burn it, and would say to Terry Jones feel free to burn more if that is your want. Michael, and it seems you, and others here, put him down for burning it, for his insensitivity to those who revere it. As far as I'm concerned it's better that he speaks his mind and feels free to do so. Those who revere Qur'ans' need to get used to tolerating things that might offend them if they want to raise themselves up to the standard the West requires. They can practice on Terry Jones.

You persistently claim to see a difference that isn't there.

There's a difference. Michael isn't going to give Islamic supremacists anything to practice on, and he encourages everyone else to do the same.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Infidel