National Review's O'Beirne On The Wrong Side Of Free Speech Debate

[JABBS]

Two seemingly disaparate stories -- Muslim anger over anti-Muslim cartoons in the Danish press, and eulogies offered at Coretta Scott King's funeral -- provided an unusual forum for a discussion on free speech on Tuesday's edition of MSNBC's Hardball.

On each story, the bulk of the show's guests came out strongly in favor of free speech. The Danish cartoons, even if repugnant, should be protected. Political speech at a funeral for a political figure should not be frowned upon.

Consider what MSNBC's Tucker Carlson said about the Muslim protests:

CARLSON: (I)t seems to me it‘s the role of the United States government at that point to help teach the rest of the world the lesson about the freedom of the press, the ability in a free society to disagree with one another without killing each other, the rights of minorities to express their views.

Consider what the Washington Post's Colbert King said about the eulogy:

KING: Of course, that legacy was non-violence. And you can‘t come to a funeral where you eulogize Coretta Scott King and not talk about non-violence, and the presence of violence in the world. You can‘t come to a celebration of the life of Coretta Scott King and not talk about civil liberties and the infringement on her civil liberties by her own government. You cannot do that and be true to the King family.

But with each story, one guest came out against free speech. These guests wouldn't say they supported censorship, instead offering the spin that people should be more "responsible" or "appropriate." In other words, self-censorhip.

Osama Siblani, publisher of Arab American News, wasn't defending the riots, but he did suggest that there should be limits on freedom of speech.

SIBLANI: I think that freedom of speech comes with responsibility and accountability. I think the Danish newspaper does not practice responsibility, nor do they practice the accountability. ... Perfect example of an abuse of freedom of speech.

Siblani is a Lebanese emigrant who came to the U.S. at age 21 and began publishing his newspaper six years later out of Dearborn, Mich. He should have a better understanding of freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- freedoms he takes advantage of each day.

The same could be said of National Review editor Kate O'Beirne, who made it clear that she found political eulogies "inappropriate" at King's funeral.

MATTHEWS: Was there something inaccurate in what they said, either (former President Carter) or Dr. (Joseph) Lowery?

O‘BEIRNE: It doesn‘t matter. It doesn‘t matter if they were reading factual material to make a cheap political point. It totally is contrary to the spirit and we‘re not talking about Coretta Scott King and the incredible legacy of the Kings and her incredibly dignified life, which this runs counter to, I might add.

Ironically, Martin Luther King Jr. offered comments in 1959 that suggest that he would have been proud of the political tone of the eulogies for his wife:

KING: And every now and then I think about my own death, and I think about my own funeral. And I don't think of it in a morbid sense. Every now and then I ask myself, "What is it that I would want said?"... I'd like somebody to mention that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day, that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try, in my life, to clothe those who were naked. I want you to say, on that day, that I did try, in my life, to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice; say that I was a drum major for peace; I was a drum major for righteousness.

***

It shouldn't be surprising that O'Beirne implied there should be limits on speech -- speech that she finds offensive.

Conservatives have a long history of trying to stop people they find offensive. It was conservatives who were offended, and thus sought to stop people from seeing the movie, Brokeback Mountain. Conservatives who were angered, and thus lobby against NBC's short-lived drama The Book of Daniel. Conservatives who were offended, and thus fought to silence a video featuring SpongeBob SquarePants.

And Carlson, who spoke eloquently of free speech and a free press when discussing the Danish cartoons, told Dr. Lowery on Wednesday's edition of his MSNBC show, The Situation, that his eulogy "seemed like bad manners," and questioned whether President Carter's eulogy was "appropriate."

***

JABBS is firmly in support of free speech. A favorite movie moment is the speech given by Michael Douglas' character, President Andrew Shepherd, at the end of the 1995 film, The American President:

DOUGLAS: America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

Some conservatives don't understand that.

***

This item first appeared at JABBS.

[PATRICK]

1. The US press and media looks ridiculous

Saying anything compounds the fact that our squeaks about freedom or responsibility in speech shows we have and deserve neither as long as the arbitrators of public discourse, the "bully pulpit" well named, in effect censor with authority. Things are routinely kept from the airways with not only no thought to opposing views or balance, but none to having such things imagined or troublesome facts plainly presented which might "inflame" someone to an act of ree speech that might make our mouse of a leader uncomfortable or put out in his plans to rape and destroy this nation.

Like those "right to work" states where it means mainly you have a right to starve, a right not to have a union, a right not be heard, a right not to vote, and freedom to say anything they want you to say like at Guantanamo.

The US entering into the cartoon fray is like a blind straight man. Arabic oil owns half our economy. There sure as hell ain't going to be any mainstream insults to get the common Muslim past the boiling points. No OUR permitted way is to preach at, smear and ridicule as a low key acceptable murmur without controversy because it is Ann Coulter or some TV preacher nutjob who can't be criticized harshly by the media. The reason we have the appearance of free speech is because right wing hate speech is not only protected, it is common fare in circles that allow no competition. A blandness of reaction sets in even when some notary talks of crusades or death camps. But even in their setting the rules of apparent free speech etiquette, they don't like to talk about lines they sneak across but won't cross unless some huge crowd gives them cover. Now that people are engaged, under cover of noble free speech, they are free to smack down Muslims again.

So what appears to be incredible hypocrisy is no such thing. It is always about stirring up and following the mob with lies that just have to be told. As for YOUR free speech, decent ordinary citizen of the world, it is for the screwers not the screwed, and for cowards and not the brave, for idiots not thinkers, for the posers not the genuine, for those who control the microphones and the cameras and the presses. Free speech is a whole different animal on the electronic stage.

And it cares not a damn about most people's best opinion or the truth or your right to such.

[JABBS]

2. so are you against the right to "right-wing hate speech?"

[PATRICK]

3. The majority has to be against the hate speech

unless it wishes to be ruled and destroyed by the abusers of liberty. Now what tools must be brought to bear so as not to grant some systemic victory to evil?

The presentation openly by the government and leadership that is elected by the majority? A leadership that with genuine authority calls for Americans to stand up for better values?

The fallback to limited judicial restraint of "dangerous speech"?

Vigilantism or organized protests pitting greater activism against those rallied by hate speech?

Or do nothing and it will all go away so long as all talk is demoted to steam and wind.

I think in the absence of trust in our government and democracy, or its hobbling in various forms of restraint(Constitutionally desirable), weakness or co-option, the natural recourse is to wisely and with energy and as much active numbers as possible oppose the hate message. Normally if one tries a certain kind of undesirable speech one faces ostracism or much worse whatever the noble overall sentiments of the nation's documents and national principles might say which are enthroned in pride in the public's consciousness.

No, what we are talking about really are the protected vehicles and organizations of mass media opinion meant to move(not merely persuade) millions to a political end. No one will allow a million decibel bullhorn because it deafens the listeners. No sane decent person will sanction a message that stampedes or panics people not by the meaning or idea but the manipulation of momentary emotion.

The speech that should be protected is one that is granted an equal access to critical forums and the public square, its enhancements of power or prestige not granted special favor or prominence over the idea. The very notion of freedom is very strange. You know it when you don't have it and when attacked you throw the notion to the winds to defend it. Since any speech can be negative in promoting falsehoods one must work doubly hard at positively reinforcing free speech, because negative constraints reinforce the evils.

Those positive protections are not mere constraints against censorship, which are merely negative matters of ease and rapid protection of society. One must have a healthy, sane national leadership in government, knowledge fields, and other majority representation and the same as much as possible in minority representation(criminal minorities of course, being the cruelest "counterbalance" to sanity and the social welfare. The opinions of the least should be respected and especially gleaned for what they are from various points of views, including especially their own.
a group into disaster. The MEANS of expressing those ideas should be enhanced to level the field. The cost of granting MORE respect to valued experts or dignitaries or celebrities by virtue of favored corporate media dunning has turned free speech on its head more than the particular bad ideas they now champion in the process, excluding now whole areas of naked, pressing truth in a COMPETITIVE fix on the edge. The vaunted principle of choice in this matter has been amply proved to be another creeping fraud.

What for example the alternative media proposal for a new more public network other than to restore the reality of democratic free speech for the presentation and ideas of truths now edited and twisted for what power r of presentation and endlessly repeated propaganda can be undemocratically bought?

We are not a religion that must submit to a secular power because that power plays the docility of hardheld morality tenets against any opposition to the government. We are the very people who are having their principles defrauded then held against our very efforts to reclaim the foundations of those liberties.

But the lazy way that has served the creeping enemies of freedom so well whines that we should or should not reach for: a charismatic leader to deal with controversy, a law to smack down "undesirable speech, a counter-biased fight fire with fire approach that the good inevitably lose unless they become transformed into what they hate. If there is a problem with free speech other than its repugnance and fear then in any event it must be undercut especially in its blindingly narrow emotional context by reasserting the positive effect of forums. That process is what the modern American media pretends to do
for us, a process itself justly brought under criticism and dangerously unresolved and stilted toward the poisoning of thought and speech. No corporate media CAN do this fairly but it never seemed too perilous while it reflected blandly enough the consumer consensus that would not have them boycotting or storming the for-profit fare. Citizen as consumer plus the overwhelming influence of business advertising and ownership(which is not always for freedom or the consumer) has been a dangerous finger on the scale. Today it is a fist and even some consumer revolt, remembering that citizenship is MORE vital, is not enough to right the scales even back to the former dishonest "fairness".

Because of the Coup, pretending to hold principles above the fray means merely fighting among ourselves for the circular manipulation that power speech in this nation has become, and could eventually be exhibited in the mirror of violence. The point cannot be avoided that there is knowledge and truth and opinion- and lies and hate and manipulation for purposes other than the principles of freedom and free speech. To uphold a lazy principle in face of this crisis is to live in a roofless house and not expect it to rain. The guarantee of the right is not springing to the defense of Nazis but to the communications of the human majority and the pursuit of truth. These institutions have to be strongly and universally built because we know when they are not, the freedoms we presume are only the freedom to allow tyranny.

The main problem with hate speech is the sickness of "free" freedom supporting institutions, their hypocrisy and the betrayals of delegation. We sense, rightly, that the normal reassertion of sanity versus evil is routinely used to consolidate the institutional abuses and inadequate fairness. Those abuses will increase and the hate will too because it is part of the anti-freedom dynamic of the few.

While it is raining, therefore, we grimly set about building the roof, not running around shaking our fists and getting wet. Then the balance and respect for functional free institutions can put all the silly and the sordid, the true and the noble of the human condition back back into a competition rigged for a democratic test of whether humanity can earn its right to survive its own fallibilities.

[JABBS]

5. the problem is

If you start censoring right-wing hate speech, then you give James Dobson the right to censor what he calls left-wing hate speech -- such as Farenheit 9/11.

Either you favor free speech or you don't. I'm Jewish, and it kills me when neo-Nazis march in the U.S., or when the "Black Jews" scream through bullhorns in NYC about how they are the chosen people, or when someone says the Holocaust didn't happen. But if I want my speech protected, I have to stand up for their free speech, too.

[PATRICK]

6. If you leave censorship out

that is, the prohibition tactic using legal constraints, for the "public peace and tranquility" or whatever, then you won't have to do a double twist by opposing that tactic and backing up monsters. Censorship is an easy out delgated to the law so the community does not have to rouse its united voice against a speaker. Even if we deserved such protection on the merits of the case it is a luxury the principle cannot afford.

Obviously strong speech will elicit many responses. The government may be on hand to prevent violence and definitely would favor the prevention methods including censorship and denying permits.

It would be better to promote open air forums, town hall meetings, access to media and challenge the community to help it thrive. The nuts will either take over so much they will wake the community up, will get diluted into Central part soapbox oddities who would make the slicker variety look bad by echoing their treasured content, the general dilution would be so humdrum and mundane as to tone down all controversy, the good that people want and what they don't want but must face.

Currently most community conversation is held in small gossip groups, in specialized even pro temp small groups, in the tiny blurbs within business run newspapers which serenely edit and judge, in media political debates, in surrogate punditry of bloated overvalue that tends to tell people what they are thinking as well as discussing in places where few can hear and weighing in mightily against any timid call-ins, in internet chats where the blessing of anonymity still only attracts a clubbish minority.

So my observation is that the ordinary or even extraordinary citizen has few or very niche like opportunities to be heard by the community, squeaking up in the few public events to authority who take more than full advantage of controlling the purpose, the event and the mike(or editorial page). The speech flowing down from above is becoming more controlled, corrupt and manipulative or disdainful and more than draws to itself the prestige, the final judgment and the assumptions of democracy.

The man on the street can react like the idiot consumer in a commercial or take a survey or ask a question, possibly scripted in advance. We are all audience to speaker, not practitioners of free speech. Of course the fact is the community listens when someone speaks, but few are designated(some by celebrity or heredity), few or none by the community, and when one of the designates crosses a big line it IS a big thing by comparison to your jerk neighbor saying the same thing over a beer, except that the gist of protecting the goon in the elite free speech zone is the protection of a delegated, lost forum from the audience taking steps to attack the system. So hiding behind free speech is more complex and having free speech is not so simple. Use it or lose it applies to everyone. Apparently this is true if compared to our right to vote
and the manner the community has surrendered the machinery to an ever more remote, overwhelming centralized and exclusionary system.

We were lazy about the much more easy to understand "voting system". Need I go on about the results? We are not even aware of a "free speech system"(hence this LOOOONG response still seems not too clear) but even more lazily assume that air without the strong words of all free men conversing together for the work of society is still a free air. Hence too the strong fear reaction when something "rocks the boat"
in the stagnant air- and it does not have to be immoral or violent, because the idea of having a free speech in this dead atmosphere and all the other unchallenged illusions by which we live free of the worst anxieties are emotionally threatened.

We would not need so many massive confrontations like MLK forcing himself upon the deliberately inattentive media with people to people rallies and events met with violence if we really had a healthy free speech nation. All the morbidities and lack of practiced rights seem consistent one to the other.

Remember, we are allowed and encouraged to protect Danish cartoonists, while historical narratives unfavorable to the regime are actively repressed here. That is a have not throwing stones at another have not and bigger stones at violent rebels threatening the status quo of our servitude.

[Toots]

4. Without allowing opposing viewpoints ...yes

The "fairness doctrine" needs to be restored because without it our speech is definitely being denied....