Salman Rushdie: “The moment somebody says, ‘I believe in free speech, BUT,’ I stop listening”

[kpete]

“The moment somebody says,
‘I believe in free speech, but,’ I stop listening,” he said before lampooning what he referred to as
“the but-brigade.”

“‘I believe in free speech, but people should behave themselves.
I believe in free speech, but we shouldn’t upset anybody.
I believe in free speech, but let’s not go too far.’”

The problem with that logic, he said, “is the moment you limit free speech, it’s not free speech.”

“You can dislike Charlie Hebdo,” Rushdie concluded,
“because not all their drawings are funny.
But the fact that you dislike them has nothing to do with their right to speak.”




http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/salman-rushdie-defends-the-absolute-right-to-free-speech-against-the-but-brigade/

[bravenak]

1. I believe in free speech,

But I also believe in talking shit about the speech if I don't like it. And I will.

[Initech]

35. +1

Ted Nugent is a blithering idiot and a raging asshole who shoots his mouth off on more than one occasion, but should we take away his right to say what he says? Hell no!

[bravenak]

38. I still don't know why he's not in jail or dead like he promised.nt

[Initech]

47. That is a good question.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Not like I ever respected Salman Rushdie before, so my opinion of him is unchanged.

Anyone who 'stops listening' because they don't want to hear any nuance at all, and only accepts absolutism isn't going to be worth paying attention to in most cases.

[oberliner]

4. Why didn't you respect Salman Rushdie before?

What has he done to incur that perception?

[brooklynite]

6. Absolutism on free speech doesn't bother me at all...

...if you're not an absolutist, what basis do you have in drawing a line between acceptable and non-acceptable?

[hifiguy]

16. It becomes a matter of "taste" or what personally "offends" someone.

I have never noticed in the text of the Constitution a right not to have one's tender sensibilities offended and have always been an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment.

Rushdie is absolutely 100% correct.

[CJCRANE]

24. Not exactly. There are two discussions going on.

Do you agree that Charlie Hebdo have the right to say whatever they like?

What is your opinion of the cartoons themselves?

For example, what is your reaction to cartoons that depict racial caricatures?

[hifiguy]

27. 1. Yes. Charlie Hebdo has a right to say

whatever the fuck they want to say.

2. They certainly didn't bother me, at least the ones I saw over at Kos.

3. Such cartoons are stupid and unpleasant but they should never be censored.

[CJCRANE]

34. There's the "but". Ergo having a different opinion is not the same as trying to censor someone. nt

[closeupready]

13. +1.

[jollyreaper2112]

3. I like free speech

I'm a big fan of free speech and discussion of ideas. Here's where the but comes in. But sometimes, the other guy isn't so into that.

There are many issues where there are two sides and the questions are complex. An open dialogue can really help clarify things, find some common ground. But not everybody is into that. Some people are more into the argument than the solution. People like calling them trolls but you can also just call them true believers, impervious to logic and reason.

I will shut down anyone who comes at issues like gun control or climate change or economics who are citing Republican talking points and conservative journals. Why? Because that shit's dishonest. You look at a study funded by Big Tobacco and cite it for cancer and addiction rates? Fuck you. There's an agenda going on.

The problem here is whether or not you are being hypocritical about shutting down the debate. The very same principles I just referred to when deciding whether or not someone is arguing honestly, they could take a look at my sources and say I'm full of shit.

It's kind of like pornography, the judge can't define it but he knows it when I see it. I know when I feel someone is not debating honestly or is not even engaging the points raised with rebuttals, just gish-galloping onto some other form of arrant nonsense.

I'll call it as I see it but I don't really like it because the judgment still feels too subjective. I know I'm right but it's not like I have a geometric proof to show to someone else to prove it.

Funny thing, we're likely going to have to rename the Barbara Streisand Effect because the Charlie Massacre has done more to popularize these cartoons than anything else could. These images have been reprinted more times, discussed in more places, been occupying more minds and eyeballs than anything else in the news cycle.

The only question is whether or not the terrorists were hoping for more of a wedge issue. On 9-11, Osama was hoping to goad the US into doing something stupid. By god, we jumped in with both feet. He got more than he could have wished for, us acting like fools and alienating the world. Our hamfisted terror war has done more to radicalize than a million ranting imams. Are the terrorists hoping the French will be goaded into something ignorant, help sharpen the divide between us and them, force the moderate muslims into picking sides?

[oberliner]

5. Do you think offensive cartoons of the prophet should be avoided?

What would be your take on that?

[jollyreaper2112]

26. nope

It's a venue for public discussion. It would be rude to go into a muslim service and start screaming about how Muhammad was a camel-humper. But to make fun of their religion in a public forum, no problem.

The proper line of judgement for a satirist is determining whether you're accurately skewing someone else's ignorance or being ignorant yourself. If you don't like the hypocritical stance of ultra-orthodox jews who violently support all of Israel's wars while refusing to serve in the military to fight those wars, you need to draw a cartoon that makes fun of them without looking like old jew-hating stereotypes. Likewise, you want to call out the hypocrisy of the Jews banging on about how bad the Holocaust was while refusing to recognize the Armenian Holocaust due to politics, you have to be careful with how you draw it.

There's an old saying "It is the duty of a newspaper to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Humor that skewers the powerful, the oppressor, the side in the wrong, that feels just. Humor that crushes the weak, rubs salt in their wounds, smirks at misery, that's not very helpful.

Look at it this way. The Japanese were fucking monsters in WWII. The whole country was gripped by imperialist, fascist madness. It was too deeply entrenched, too ingrained for it to be dealt with peacefully. They were on a collision course with war, someone was going to end up fighting them. That being said, there were good Japanese and bad Japanese. Those in the grips of this war fervor tried to do what was fitting and proper based on the morality they were raised with. You can't blame the kids fighting and dying for starting this war.

That being said, and with no love for the Japanese government and military that brought the war about, this is pretty racist.



And Dr. Seuss drew it.

Love the German, hate the Nazi, you know? Hate the right people for the right reasons and don't let it turn into a general bigotry that does more harm than good.

[oberliner]

29. Can one draw a caricature of a non-white person without it being racist?

For instance, there are a lot of images one can find of Bush looking like a chimp - whereas similar images with Obama would certainly be considered racist.

Can one draw a cartoon attacking, for instance, Kim Jung Um that makes him look bad but isn't racist?

[jollyreaper2112]

36. yes

A good drawing says "Ha! Look at Kim! He's the only fat man in a country full of walking skeletons. He's a vestige of a strange dictatorship in a strange little hermit kingdom." You don't start by saying "Well, the first problem with Kim is he's funny-looking, even for a Korean."

You criticize Obama for saying he's sold out on his campaign promises, he's more of a moderate republican than a democrat, he's not fighting for the common man. You don't start by saying "Well, the first problem with that black man is..."

The specific problem with drawing Obama as an ape is that it's been a racial slur used against blacks and asians. You could draw Richard Nixon as a rat but you really couldn't draw a jew or a japanese person that way because, again, preexisting racial slurs.

Much of the power of the racial stereotypes comes from the oppression of minorities. Words have power there. If a black man called me a cracker or peckerwood it's like "Oh, that's right! I do have white privilege! I was feeling down. Thanks for the happy reminder!" It's not the same dynamic as the other way around.

[oberliner]

40. But I'm looking at your Dr. Seuss example

Do you think the drawing is racist or do you think it is just attacking those two particular individual leaders?

[jollyreaper2112]

41. yes

Yes, it's racist. We don't really have any hateful physical stereotypes of the Germans because they pretty much look like what most eugenicists aspired to. But for the Japanese, squinty eyes that don't work too well, buck teeth, yeah that's hitting all the stereotypes. You could draw a frenchman as unwashed with a striped shirt, beret and a cigarette hanging off his lip but that doesn't have the same historic weight. We don't call "frog" the f-word.

[oberliner]

42. It seems challenging to draw an unflattering cartoon of Tojo then

Here's a picture of Tojo:



You want to draw an unflattering cartoon version of him along with an unflattering cartoon version of Hitler.

You are free to exaggerate any of Hitler's traits without being accused of racism or stereotyping, but not Tojo's.

It seems to put a cartoonist at a pretty serious disadvantage if they want to skewer the guy who bombed Pearl Harbor in cartoon fashion.

[bravenak]

48. I loved your last paragraph. It was brilliant.nt

[hifiguy]

30. +1

Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 06:39 PM - Edit history (2)

[RufusTFirefly]

7. The First Amendment is a bit like loving thine enemy

It's relatively easy to defend speech you agree with. In fact, if that were its purpose, the First Amendment would be pointless.

It takes courage and principles to support free speech when that speech threatens or offends you. And that's exactly why the Bill of Rights is such an amazing component of the Constitution.

[hifiguy]

20. An excellent quote on the matter

"Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.” ― Neil Gaiman

Says it all, really.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. That is a great quote from a great writer

nt

[CJCRANE]

8. He's just joined the "but-brigade"...

“You can dislike Charlie Hebdo,” Rushdie concluded,
“because not all their drawings are funny.
But the fact that you dislike them has nothing to do with their right to speak.”

That's pretty much what I said, but the other way round. They can say what they like but I don't like some of their cartoons. Or maybe it was the same way round. I don't like some of their cartoons but they have a right to say what they like.

[tulsakatz]

9. anytime someone says 'but'...

...they're really saying, forget about what I just said!

Like when they say 'I'm not a racist but....'

[CJCRANE]

14. That's a good point but...Salman Rushdie said "but" when he gave his opinion:

“You can dislike Charlie Hebdo,” Rushdie concluded,
“because not all their drawings are funny.
But the fact that you dislike them has nothing to do with their right to speak.”

[Martin Eden]

18. See post #17

The word "but" doesn't always mean what you think it means.

[closeupready]

10. Is that why so many of his wives divorced him?

Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

If not, it's clear from his 30 bazillion marriages that he's not good at listening much to ANYONE. He gets a lot of practice at it, I presume.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. He's been married 4 times. Same as my mother. The Pope says insult my mother, you deserve a

punch in the nose. I mean, what are you a Baptist or something? Do you claim for yourself some great moral rectitude and right to judge the lives of others?
So petty, cheap personal destruction attempts when you can not manage to argue with the points he makes, you attack his marriages.

[closeupready]

28. He arbitrarily ignores those with whom he has a relationship. Control Freak Alert!

You don't GET to just sort of go, oh, you said something I didn't like, I am going to ignore you now. Not when you are in a adult affiliative relationship with another adult. If his wives are his employees, then that's another matter. But NOT in a marriage, and not in public discussions about current events with other interested parties.

[BainsBane]

11. The French government says "but"

54 arrests for speech violations in the past week. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-30829005

[GusBob]

12. ?should women and children rape victims have their names broadcast

On TV, radio or in newspapers?

Why

[Bonx]

19. What an odd response

Is it public information ?

[GusBob]

43. So "but for the right to privacy" ?

I really don't know so I am asking. An enterprising reporter could easily find out the victims name yet it is censored. Consider the rolling stone / university of Virginia story for example

Are there other examples as well?

--I could post something that an alerter and jury decide to censor

-- there are laws (?rules) concerning libel and slander is that a but?

--during wartime soldiers letters are censored lest they reveal sensitive information. Embedded reporters agree not to reveal. Technically their right to free speech is suppressed by the govt

Am not trying to be cute, just thinking of times maybe when there is a "but"

[Ykcutnek]

15. And those who work to make it socially unacceptable to say things

are just as bad as those who push for legislation restricting speech.

Sometimes I feel that way and sometimes I dont, but today I feel that way.

[Martin Eden]

17. Salmon Rushdie: I believe in free speech, BUT not if the word "but" is used after the first part

Consider the same opinion expressed two different ways:

1) I believe in free speech, but I think Charlie Hebdo's Mohammad cartoons were bigoted and dangerous.
2) I believe in free speech. I also believe Charlie Hebdo's Mohammad cartoons were bigoted and dangerous.

Is Rushdie OK with #2 but not #1?

Should I be censored or ignored for expressing this opinion?

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Religion does not want your respect, it wants your fear....

‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.” –Salman Rushdie

[hifiguy]

33. That is a quote I am going to save.

Thanks!

[kpete]

37. thanks for the additional quote

peace,
kp

[LanternWaste]

25. I would think as a writer, he'd entertain dependent clauses and contrasting conjunctions.

I would think as a writer, he'd entertain dependent clauses and contrasting conjunctions.

[Boreal]

31. Perhaps

Rushdie should speak up for all of the people prosecuted under French hate speech laws, then.

Nothing but empty rhetoric.

[RadiationTherapy]

32. "Freedom defined is freedom denied."

Shea and Wilson's The Illuminatus! Trilogy

[dhill926]

39. not gonna hijack this thread but…..

I really need to re-read that….

[RadiationTherapy]

45. The audio version is amazing, aside from some sadly racist accents by some actors.

It is much clearer to me in audio. I have the entire work on MP3 and I can shuffle the 100+ parts and it still makes sense. For me, it is the most influential literature of my life. I have read and listened to it probably 2 dozen times.

?list=PLB804C20EAE7A33F0

[longship]

44. Rushdie gets it. Many here do not. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. I support the right of Nazis to march through a Jewish suburb of Chicago that is home to a number of

holocaust survivors. BUT, I wish they wouldn't and I am NOT going to proclaim, "Je suis Nazis!"

Is that an acceptable position or am compromising free speech too much?

[oberliner]

50. Do you think Charlie Hebdo is in some way similar to Nazis?

If not, your use of the "Je suis..." certainly implies otherwise.

[Skittles]

49. THANK YOU

[thucythucy]

51. How about "I believe in free speech BUT

when the Iranian clergy calls for the death of a writer because of words he's written, I say they're taking it too far?

Would a statement like that be a problem?