The myth of "free speech".....

[calitennis127]

It is quite humorous to see the reaction of the now post-Christian Western media to these shootings in France. On both the left and right, everyone is being all sanctimonious and pious about the treasured and cherished ideal of "free speech", when not only is that idea a hollow illusion that its purveyors don't even believe in, but it has actually been one of the fundamental causes of terrorism in recent years.

First of all - no society ever has had or ever will have such a thing as "free speech" in an unhindered, unfettered, unrestricted sense. Every society has values and standards. Every society has values it treats as sacrosanct. Case and point is the modern West, where the intellectual Maoists at universities and in the leftist media censor those who say something contrary to their ideology. They are entirely intolerant.

Second - "free speech" is precisely the notion that can be invoked by political subversives who preach violent jihad. They can say over and over, if you truly believe in free speech, then why can't we say whatever we want? To which there is no logical response.

Third - "free speech" was simply invented as a weapon for insulting the Catholic Church in France by the anti-Catholic bigots of the Enlightenment. It had nothing to do with a universal environment of unfettered tolerance. Ask those murdered by Robespierre's regime if the Enlightenment was a movement for tolerance.

 

[Kieran]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

Well, "Free Speech" has always been a relative term. As Ice T put it, "Freedom of speech - just watch what you say!"

But I disagree that this has been a "fundamental cause of terrorism." It's not, and we have to move past the simple thinking that blames the west for the actions of murderous loons. The terrorist attack yesterday wasn't caused by free speech, that's just the excuse these socially inadequate murderers use to shift the blame for their atrocities...

 

[calitennis127]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

Well, "Free Speech" has always been a relative term. As Ice T put it, "Freedom of speech - just watch what you say!"

But I disagree that this has been a "fundamental cause of terrorism." It's not, and we have to move past the simple thinking that blames the west for the actions of murderous loons. The terrorist attack yesterday wasn't caused by free speech, that's just the excuse these socially inadequate murderers use to shift the blame for their atrocities...

Kieran, fundamentally the atrocities are not caused by a motivation to fight for "free speech", of course. But it is the idea of "free speech" itself which gives the motivators of these acts a platform to incite. The idea of "free speech" is, in principle, self-defeating for any society because it allows subversion to be carried out freely.

Also, you as a Catholic should be skeptical of "free speech", since it was invented by people who detested your Church.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

The same way the myth of "democracy" somehow gave the west the permission to slaughter thousands of Arabs/Muslims, throughout the last few decades.

 

[Kieran]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

Kieran, fundamentally the atrocities are not caused by a motivation to fight for "free speech", of course. But it is the idea of "free speech" itself which gives the motivators of these acts a platform to incite.

Free speech isn't the cause of this violence, any more than the Danish newspaper publishing cartoons on its funny pages was the cause of violence there. The satirists in this newspaper may - or may not - have been off in their idea to poke fun at a minorities sacred held religious founder, but that's not a cause or excuse - or a "motivation" - for the reaction. The blame doesn't lie in free speech, newspapers, funny pages, teddy bears named Muhammad. None of these things are at fault when lunatics decide to do what these people did.

I realise I'm slightly derailing your thread a bit early, but that eventually happens anyway...

 

[calitennis127]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

The same way the myth of "democracy" somehow gave the west the permission to slaughter thousands of Arabs/Muslims, throughout the last few decades.

Absolutely right, and it truly is amazing when you actually study the Enlightenment how silly its political ideas so often were. The gushing mindset about "free speech" and "democracy" is case and point. These terms are so hollow and meaningless, and yet they are treated with religious reverence by secular government leaders who have to find something sacred to believe in.

 

[Riotbeard]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

The same way the myth of "democracy" somehow gave the west the permission to slaughter thousands of Arabs/Muslims, throughout the last few decades.

Absolutely right, and it truly is amazing when you actually study the Enlightenment how silly its political ideas so often were. The gushing mindset about "free speech" and "democracy" is case and point. These terms are so hollow and meaningless, and yet they are treated with religious reverence by secular government leaders who have to find something sacred to believe in.

You make some good point Cali, but I would ask, what is your solution or goal? Free speech like democracy has tended to be an ideal not a reality, but I would still say working towards that ideal is a positive. If you are suggesting, there is hyposcrisy in the West on this issue, I completely agree. I will say there are far more center-left Democrats than Maoist in academia. For that matter, there are way more center-right republicans than socialists in academia (see Louis Menand's The Marketplace of Ideas). As a socialist, I wish there were more of us, but that is sadly not the reality.

What do you propose in exchanging of reaching for but failing to achieve free-speech a return to inquisitors. The political-correctness witchunts are bad enough.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

I agree with Cali. Free speech is a myth. Tell your boss what you really think about him, and you will see. Like Riot said, political correctness is already at an absurd level.

You are free to think what you want but when you verbalize it, you are in trouble.

 

[calitennis127]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

The same way the myth of "democracy" somehow gave the west the permission to slaughter thousands of Arabs/Muslims, throughout the last few decades.

Absolutely right, and it truly is amazing when you actually study the Enlightenment how silly its political ideas so often were. The gushing mindset about "free speech" and "democracy" is case and point. These terms are so hollow and meaningless, and yet they are treated with religious reverence by secular government leaders who have to find something sacred to believe in.

You make some good point Cali, but I would ask, what is your solution or goal? Free speech like democracy has tended to be an ideal not a reality, but I would still say working towards that ideal is a positive. If you are suggesting, there is hyposcrisy in the West on this issue, I completely agree. I will say there are far more center-left Democrats than Maoist in academia. For that matter, there are way more center-right republicans than socialists in academia (see Louis Menand's The Marketplace of Ideas). As a socialist, I wish there were more of us, but that is sadly not the reality.

What do you propose in exchanging of reaching for but failing to achieve free-speech a return to inquisitors. The political-correctness witchunts are bad enough.

What I propose is that in defending ourselves from "Islamic extremists" we invoke more tangible and more real virtues of our civilization than the innocuous concept of "free speech". We could bring up our superior achievements in culture, economy (i.e. WEALTH), education, architecture/infrastructure, political systems, law, education, scholarship, science, art, music, literature, athletics - you name it. (I would throw Christianity in there, but obviously too many Westerners no longer believe in it for there to be consensus on it as something to be proud of). But it is the aforementioned that define us, not something hollow and arbitrary like "free speech".

I would have more respect for Western leaders saying the following to Islamic subversives, rather than the current claptrap that comes out of their confused mouths:

"Our societies are wealthy and prosperous and you envy them; yours are generally dirt-poor and depressing. We have proven ourselves over the centuries to simply be more effective in creating a prosperous civilization, so we don't want your inferior ideas polluting our culture. Shut up and assimilate, or go back to your native Arab country to continue building the world's 180th largest GDP and such magnificent cultural wonders as Osama Bin Laden's palace in Pakistan."

That would be a serious defense - not having candlelight vigils saying "we're not afraid" in the name of free speech so that some 55-year-old French buffoon can think up cartoons making fun of Jesus and Mohammed like he is 15.

 

[calitennis127]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

Kieran, fundamentally the atrocities are not caused by a motivation to fight for "free speech", of course. But it is the idea of "free speech" itself which gives the motivators of these acts a platform to incite.

Free speech isn't the cause of this violence, any more than the Danish newspaper publishing cartoons on its funny pages was the cause of violence there.

Like I said, the ideal of so-called "free speech" is not the fundamental cause of these actions, but it is a facilitator of them. It allows anti-Western subversives to spew nonsense that leads to these actions. So in that sense, it absolutely is a cause.

And, again, I am pretty surprised with you Kieran for not being more skeptical of "free speech" itself when the only reason the term was coined was frankly to insult the Catholic Church in the 18th century.

 

[Riotbeard]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

Absolutely right, and it truly is amazing when you actually study the Enlightenment how silly its political ideas so often were. The gushing mindset about "free speech" and "democracy" is case and point. These terms are so hollow and meaningless, and yet they are treated with religious reverence by secular government leaders who have to find something sacred to believe in.

You make some good point Cali, but I would ask, what is your solution or goal? Free speech like democracy has tended to be an ideal not a reality, but I would still say working towards that ideal is a positive. If you are suggesting, there is hyposcrisy in the West on this issue, I completely agree. I will say there are far more center-left Democrats than Maoist in academia. For that matter, there are way more center-right republicans than socialists in academia (see Louis Menand's The Marketplace of Ideas). As a socialist, I wish there were more of us, but that is sadly not the reality.

What do you propose in exchanging of reaching for but failing to achieve free-speech a return to inquisitors. The political-correctness witchunts are bad enough.

What I propose is that in defending ourselves from "Islamic extremists" we invoke more tangible and more real virtues of our civilization than the innocuous concept of "free speech". We could bring up our superior achievements in culture, economy (i.e. WEALTH), education, architecture/infrastructure, political systems, law, education, scholarship, science, art, music, literature, athletics - you name it. (I would throw Christianity in there, but obviously too many Westerners no longer believe in it for there to be consensus on it as something to be proud of). But it is the aforementioned that define us, not something hollow and arbitrary like "free speech".

I would have more respect for Western leaders saying the following to Islamic subversives, rather than the current claptrap that comes out of their confused mouths:

"Our societies are wealthy and prosperous and you envy them; yours are generally dirt-poor and depressing. We have proven ourselves over the centuries to simply be more effective in creating a prosperous civilization, so we don't want your inferior ideas polluting our culture. Shut up and assimilate, or go back to your native Arab country to continue building the world's 180th largest GDP and such magnificent cultural wonders as Osama Bin Laden's palace in Pakistan."

That would be a serious defense - not having candlelight vigils saying "we're not afraid" in the name of free speech so that some 55-year-old French buffoon can think up cartoons making fun of Jesus and Mohammed like he is 15.

I think you have invented a straw man. Who says free speech is the cornerstone of western civilization? I would also remind you that up until the 18th century, the Islamic world was far more economically prosperous than the west, so I am not sure it is something inherent to their philosophical world, so much as general longue duree economic ebbs and flows.

Also not sure why the dead french satirist is a buffoon in your world view...

 

[Kieran]

RE: The myth of "free spech".....

I am pretty surprised with you Kieran for not being more skeptical of "free speech" itself when the only reason the term was coined was frankly to insult the Catholic Church in the 18th century.

I only made a brief comment regarding free speech so far, so I wonder where you're drawing conclusions from. I agree with anyone who mentions free speech and democracy as being failed ideals, or myths. However, to misquote Churchill, they're still better than the alternatives, which would be Putin, China, or the Middle East.

My only point made so far is that the victims in this attack, the satirists and police, are in no sense to be blamed for it. Satirists can be "buffoons" and childish, and make unfunny jokes just to insult people's piously held beliefs, which is horrible, when you think about it, and some of them would be the lefty sorts who'd shut down dialogue if you disagreed with them. But none of this means they're at fault, a cause, a motivation, a factor, or anything relating to the madness of these killers. If it wasn't funny pages or cartoons, they'd find another reason to kill. And I agree with your post about taking them on ideologically, especially at home. These killers are French born, and yet they've developed a hatred for their own. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, indeed. They put bullet holes through that one. People are slipping through the cracks and being allowed to believe some monsters agenda while they're living in conditions which are absent in the Middle East.

But the west has lost confidence in itself, it's history, and it's institutions, so things may only get worse...

 

[britbox]

Absolutely right, and it truly is amazing when you actually study the Enlightenment how silly its political ideas so often were. The gushing mindset about "free speech" and "democracy" is case and point. These terms are so hollow and meaningless, and yet they are treated with religious reverence by secular government leaders who have to find something sacred to believe in.

You make some good point Cali, but I would ask, what is your solution or goal? Free speech like democracy has tended to be an ideal not a reality, but I would still say working towards that ideal is a positive. If you are suggesting, there is hyposcrisy in the West on this issue, I completely agree. I will say there are far more center-left Democrats than Maoist in academia. For that matter, there are way more center-right republicans than socialists in academia (see Louis Menand's The Marketplace of Ideas). As a socialist, I wish there were more of us, but that is sadly not the reality.

What do you propose in exchanging of reaching for but failing to achieve free-speech a return to inquisitors. The political-correctness witchunts are bad enough.

What I propose is that in defending ourselves from "Islamic extremists" we invoke more tangible and more real virtues of our civilization than the innocuous concept of "free speech". We could bring up our superior achievements in culture, economy (i.e. WEALTH), education, architecture/infrastructure, political systems, law, education, scholarship, science, art, music, literature, athletics - you name it. (I would throw Christianity in there, but obviously too many Westerners no longer believe in it for there to be consensus on it as something to be proud of). But it is the aforementioned that define us, not something hollow and arbitrary like "free speech".

I would have more respect for Western leaders saying the following to Islamic subversives, rather than the current claptrap that comes out of their confused mouths:

"Our societies are wealthy and prosperous and you envy them; yours are generally dirt-poor and depressing. We have proven ourselves over the centuries to simply be more effective in creating a prosperous civilization, so we don't want your inferior ideas polluting our culture. Shut up and assimilate, or go back to your native Arab country to continue building the world's 180th largest GDP and such magnificent cultural wonders as Osama Bin Laden's palace in Pakistan."

That would be a serious defense - not having candlelight vigils saying "we're not afraid" in the name of free speech so that some 55-year-old French buffoon can think up cartoons making fun of Jesus and Mohammed like he is 15.

Really? You honestly believe these attacks are because some muslims are jealous of your 55" HD Television and other material trinkets of a prosperous society?

Suicide attacks, random killings et al, cannot be explained away by "envy of western civilization". Absolute rubbish. Western civilization is considered satanic by many of the islamic fundamentalists.

The problem the west has, is that left-wing liberalism has lead to the fundamentalists being given the "velvet glove" treatment on our own shores and right wing neo-hawks run the foreign policy creating blowback. The two don't mesh.

If you look at foreign policy - fermenting absolute chaos by direct or indirect western interventions in arab countries - Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria (to name a few) coupled with the fact that the west is a totally dishonest broker in any dispute or issue involving Israel then you ferment the whole anti-west ideology.

OK, people were gunned down in Oz, France etc... and that's a sorry state of affairs but also consider the number killed (for instance - and this is one example out of hundreds) by unauthorised drone strikes by America in Pakistan. You are talking hundreds of civilian deaths. When the US , UK and partners intervened in Iraq, Madeline Allbright said the deaths of half a million women and children was a price worth paying (it's on tape).

The collateral damage of western policy is that it breeds "terrorists"/"freedom fighters" (same thing - just depends what side you are sympathetic too).

What we are now seeing is BLOWBACK to all intents and purposes and it could get a hell of a lot worse.

On domestic policy, I'm more with the right wing camp - civil liberties of the native population come before civil liberties of suspected terrorists. You come down on the fundamentalists like a ton of bricks.

Basically, the west needs to swap hands. A more pragmatic "velvet glove" policy abroad and a far tougher policy at home.

I'll give you an example - Abu Hamza was preaching hate in the UK for years. The Home Office said the couldn't deport him because of human rights laws (as he may be executed in his home country)... He totally abused the privilege of living in the United Kingdom - he was fed, clothed and housed by his adoptive country. The guy should have been put on the first plane out. It took an extradition order from the US to get rid of him. Pathetic. Yet compare that treatment with the indiscriminate bombing overseas. The two don't add up. Ditch the velvet glove for the hammer at home and vice versa overseas.

 

[britbox]

As for the initial post - yeah, freedom of speech doesn't exist by it's definition. It never did.

Only this week, a right wing British journalist is being investigated for racism after referring to scots as "sweaty jocks" on Twitter. Ridiculous.

 

[calitennis127]

I think you have invented a straw man. Who says free speech is the cornerstone of western civilization?

Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, the neoconservatives, and actually everyone at MSNBC too. Left and right, all agree that America was founded on certain key principles, "freedom of speech" being one of them.

I would also remind you that up until the 18th century, the Islamic world was far more economically prosperous than the west

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

Who writes the history books that you read, seriously? Care to justify that one?

Maybe if you didn't believe such nonsense about history you wouldn't be a "socialist".

Also not sure why the dead french satirist is a buffoon in your world view...

I don't know all the details of his life, but as a general matter, I don't see why obscenely insulting the images of Christ and Muhammad is supposed to be considered highbrow or deep. All too many pseudo-intellectuals in the West think they are being Isaac Newton by insulting religion, when their own worldviews are about as dumb, mythical, and fairy-talish as anything could be.

 

[Riotbeard]

I think you have invented a straw man. Who says free speech is the cornerstone of western civilization?

Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, the neoconservatives, and actually everyone at MSNBC too. Left and right, all agree that America was founded on certain key principles, "freedom of speech" being one of them.

I would also remind you that up until the 18th century, the Islamic world was far more economically prosperous than the west

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

Who writes the history books that you read, seriously? Care to justify that one?

Maybe if you didn't believe such nonsense about history you wouldn't be a "socialist".

Also not sure why the dead french satirist is a buffoon in your world view...

I don't know all the details of his life, but as a general matter, I don't see why obscenely insulting the images of Christ and Muhammad is supposed to be considered highbrow or deep. All too many pseudo-intellectuals in the West think they are being Isaac Newton by insulting religion, when their own worldviews are about as dumb, mythical, and fairy-talish as anything could be.

Read pretty much any history of ottoman empire constantly knocking at the door to Vienna and their conquest of the Byzantine Empire.... Not to mention before that first Islamic Empire nearly took out most of Europe until they were stopped far away from home in by Charlemagne. This is all pretty accepted history. To be fair by the early modern era, many European empire had stronger sea-faring empires, but on land, nobody wanted a piece of the ottomans.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I understand another look at history through the actual intentions of the crusade, but re-writing history by denying the advancement of the Muslim world prior to the 19th century is flat out ignorance. These are accepted facts, by everyone. Not open to interpretation or debate. Read about the Ottoman empire, Persia, etc...as well as the Muslim world's contributions to medicine, math, and philosophy. All the sarcastic laughing emoticons in the world don't change that. That's the danger of having strong opinions about topics one isn't completely informed about.

Also, the notions that these attacks are carried out because of jealousy of the west is utter nonsense. The gunmen are/were pieces of human garbage, but they weren't acting out of envy. Have Americans slaughtered millions of Arabs (yes, literally) in the past 50 years out of envy too?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I read this article and found a lot of things I agree with, regarding what happened in Paris:

http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html

 

[Riotbeard]

I think you have invented a straw man. Who says free speech is the cornerstone of western civilization?

Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, the neoconservatives, and actually everyone at MSNBC too. Left and right, all agree that America was founded on certain key principles, "freedom of speech" being one of them.

I would also remind you that up until the 18th century, the Islamic world was far more economically prosperous than the west

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

Who writes the history books that you read, seriously? Care to justify that one?

Maybe if you didn't believe such nonsense about history you wouldn't be a "socialist".

Also not sure why the dead french satirist is a buffoon in your world view...

I don't know all the details of his life, but as a general matter, I don't see why obscenely insulting the images of Christ and Muhammad is supposed to be considered highbrow or deep. All too many pseudo-intellectuals in the West think they are being Isaac Newton by insulting religion, when their own worldviews are about as dumb, mythical, and fairy-talish as anything could be.

Also i guess to be fair, while I did not celebrate pat robertson's death, nor did I mourn it....

 

[DarthFed]

Third - "free speech" was simply invented as a weapon for insulting the Catholic Church in France by the anti-Catholic bigots of the Enlightenment. It had nothing to do with a universal environment of unfettered tolerance. Ask those murdered by Robespierre's regime if the Enlightenment was a movement for tolerance.

Robespierre's Reign of Terror had nothing to do with the Enlightenment, other than the fact that Enlightenment ideals played a role in bringing about the French Revolution. Robespierre, Marat and their ilk simply replaced one totalitarian system with another.

You can call free speech a "weapon" for insulting the church, but it was more like having the right to criticize those in power without taking a trip to Switzerland or the Bastille or the guillotine.

As for free speech in general, the U.S. allows any speech other than incitement to violence, precisely the type that Wahhabis, terror groups, and other violent jihadists preach in their mosques. Threats of violence shouldn't be tolerated.