The answer is that the left has never been in favor of free speech, except for themselves.
[Update a few minutes later]
I should add that I used to be a great fan of Robert Wright. I thought that The Moral Animal
[Update a few minutes later]
As someone notes in comments over at Ann’s site, this is a perfect example of why leftists aren’t entitled to the label “liberal.”
Was Robert Wright suggesting Beck’s speech be legally restricted? It seems like he’s calling on Fox News to fire him because he’s a nutbag, rather than calling on the government to censor him because he’s a nutbag. It wouldn’t be a setback for free speech if Fox voluntarily fired a man who entertains ignorant Americans with nonsense about an anthropomorphic God creating the Earth.
Actually I think Glenn Beck has some good points on American exceptionalism, limited government and the like, but he probably does more harm than good to these ideas because he associates them with his nutbag Christianity. So, yes, people should engage his arguments with logic, but Fox also need not employ morons just because they’re popular.
No one is ever for free speech, except for himself. It’s unpleasant and often wearying to put up with brain-dead sloganeering from the other side that, strangely enough, seems to influence what you would have assumed were rational people in the middle.
Wise men, however, tolerate free speech in others so as to preserve it for themselves, recognizing the Gods of the Copybook Headings rule that what goes around comes around, as it were.
I’m for free speech. I learn so much that way. And hearing a dumb argument for the 1,000th time is no skin off my back. I just close my ears.
But then I’m more interested in being informed than believing I already know everything. I recognize I’m odd that way.
This issue though is typical Leftism. They realize that a certain phrase is popular with the people (e.g., Free Speech), and thus use the term, but insist that it actually means something completely different from its original meaning. Often, it really means the opposite.
So, here’s a funny thing. The Left loves Derrida, but their very actions prove they know that words do have meaning, and that control over this meaning is power. George Orwell called it, as he did so many things.
True, but those who command a lot resources in a free economy (Fox News) have the privilege of choosing whose voice they air. It’s one thing to silence a voice in an absolute, legal way, and another for an organization to give priority to a different voice.
By the way, The Moral Animal is a highly entertaining book–especially Darwin’s note about how if he didn’t marry his cousin he wouldn’t be forced to visit relatives.
Didn’t Beck get Van Jones fired for the things Jones was saying in speeches? There is a distinction between government worker and media pundit but the situation is similar.
I like how Beck diagrams the relationships between leftist organizations. If he did the same to conservative organizations, he would be winning awards but because he does it to liberals he is a “nutbag”.
It would be great if there was someone else who did what Beck does but for some reason traditional media isn’t concerned with the organizational structure of leftist organizations.
He is a nutbag independent of his politics because he does things like have children who are suffering from horrible disorders and diseases come onto his show, and then he prays to God for a miracle to save them. If his diagrams on the relationships between leftist organizations were not preceded and followed by such travesties, they would have more credibility.
And hearing a dumb argument for the 1,000th time is no skin off my back.
It’s not the truly dumb arguments that make people hesitate about free speech. It’s the very good arguments to which your only response is to call them “dumb.” That’s what I meant.
If you don’t yet have teenagers (or maybe an ex-wife, disgruntled former employee or lover, et cetera) let me advise you to hold off on declaring your unallowed enthusiastic support for free speech until you experience those joys. If you already have — well, congratulations, on either a very sanguine temperament or a very selective memory, ha ha.
Carl,
Hold on tight,”teenager “is a temporary mental illness.
It gets better my “Teenager” is now 24 and I’ve magically gotten a lot smarter than I was a few years ago š
Paul
Hold on tight,āteenager āis a temporary mental illness.
That’s like the old psychiatrists’ saying that children are midget sociopaths with a good prognosis.
Thanks, Paul. There’s hope for me yet.
Was Robert Wright suggesting Beckās speech be legally restricted? It seems like heās calling on Fox News to fire him because heās a nutbag,
Seems like a distinction without a difference. If you’re in favor of free speech, then you tolerate the occasional nutbag on the occasional nutbag TV station.
“…he does things like have children who are suffering from horrible disorders and diseases come onto his show, and then he prays to God for a miracle to save them”
Link, please. Given your demonstrated hatred of Christians above, please forgive me if I don’t grant your assertions on faith alone.
Also, since you seem unclear on the concept of prayer, there is a difference between praying for somebody, and the type of cultish “wave-my-hands-over-you-HALLELUJAH-you-are-CURED!” prayer that you seem to be implying. I know the latter exists–I’ve seen it on TV while flipping channels–but I have never actually seen it in person.
What Big D said. I’m not religious, but what’s the harm in praying for someone’s health?
I do tolerate Glenn Beck. Not tolerating Glenn Beck would be having the government force him to quit or force Fox News to shut down. I’m in favor of free speech because I think he should be legally allowed to say whatever he wants. However, even though I tolerate him, I still think he’s a nutbag who is doing more harm than good to some of the principles he stands for–like limited government.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/glenn-beck/transcript/finding-true-meaning-christmas-wilmington-ohio?page=7
In this episode he’s suggesting that there are miracles in the world that are not just coincidences, like in the restoration of lost hearing. If there’s a difference between these two types of prayer, it’s not all clear to children. If Glenn Beck gives money to a kid to try to restore his hearing, that might help, but not because it’s a miracle. What’s the help in giving false hope based on Dark Age superstition? There are still (plenty of) people in the world who go to witch doctors for medical problems, and Glenn Beck is promoting this nonsense with all his miracle talk.
heās suggesting that there are miracles in the world that are not just coincidences
I would be very interested in your definition of a reliable experimental test that could distinguish between miracles and lucky coincidences. Do you have one? Or is just a matter of faith that you don’t believe in miracles, and Beck does?
I do tolerate Glenn Beck. Not tolerating Glenn Beck would be having the government force him to quit or force Fox News to shut down.
That’s nice…I guess, but we’re really not talking about you, we’re talking about Robert Wright, who thinks Beck should be fired because he expresses points of view and beliefs that are incompatible with his. To me, that’s not someone who really believes in “free speech”. Truthfully, I my opinion, your view of “free speech” is rather narrow. I think that desiring that someone be fired because they express beliefs in conflict with your’s is not supporting “free speech”.
It’s not necessary. The burden of proof is always on those who make extraordinary claims. It’s like trying to prove God doesn’t exist; that would be impossible but it is not necessary. It’s like trying to prove some humans can’t fly, or that flying saucers didn’t visit us in the 1950s. Occam’s razor is about the simpler explanation being a better explanation, and unlikely coincidences are far simpler than “miracles.”
Well, I’m not sure what exactly he supports, but if what he’s doing is calling on Fox News to fire him, rather than the government, then that is compatible with free speech. It would be his free speech! If, on the other hand, he’s calling for government action, then I wouldn’t hesitate to call him a nutbag too.
It can still be supporting free speech if you’re just trying to convince a private organization to do something. Otherwise promoting a boycott would be incompatible with free speech.
The burden of proof is always on those who make extraordinary claims.
Oh no doubt, no doubt. And of course you feel the “extraordinary” claim here is that a miracle has occured.
And yet, oddly enough, an equally plausible hypothesis is that the “extraordinary” claim is yours — that the perfect juxtaposition of prayer and an amazing event, say, is merely a remarkable one in a million coincidence, and no evidence at all of any cause yet unknown to rational man.
When it comes to miracles granted by prayer, you’re certain the hypothesis of an unknown cause is lunacy. But I would venture to guess when it comes to, say, big jumps in the stock market, you’re equally certain that the hypothesis of pure chance is lunacy. If you were an M-5 computer, this is where sparks would start to shoot from your logic banks as they short-circuited.
I am not necessarily saying you are wrong about the existence, or not, of what are commonly called miracles. But I do say you are carelessly dogmatic about the competing hypotheses, indeed no less so than any medieval monk pontificating on the virgin birth of Christ.
If there were enough miracles or coincidences you could conduct a statistical study–get a small number of groups that claim they can influence the rate of miracles (magic, voodoo, intercessionary prayer, homeopathy, whatever), randomly assign each of them some victims, see if there’s a statistical difference in the rate of miracle cures. The experiment would have to be blinded–neither the victims nor the people judging the victim’s improvement could know which group (if any) was operating on the victim (some sham technique would have to be concocted if the benefactor group needed personal interaction with the victim–healing touch, for instance, or acupuncture so the victims couldn’t tell if they were in the control or the test group).
I don’t have any problem with a cause yet unknown to rational man. I’m pretty sure that whatever amazing events Glenn Beck is talking about are exactly that–biological causes yet unknown to man. But I’m also pretty sure that by miracle Glenn Beck is imagining a personal God selectively intervening in the world to work medical miracles. Now that is just not an equally plausible hypothesis.
Actually, when you think about it, a miracle would be if one in a million coincidences did not ever occur.
The answer is that the left has never been in favor of free speech
So what else is new?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_code#Speech_codes_in_U.S._universities
On miracles: You do also have to consider the placebo effort. If a positive attitude, feelings of solidarity and support, etc. help someone recover from a condition, then there would be some correlation with “miracle talk.” However, in the case of hearing loss I sincerely doubt the placebo effect would help.
On speech codes: They almost certainly violate the first amendment, and are probably not worth upholding in any country. But do private universities have an obligation to uphold the first amendment for people who voluntarily sign up?
“he does things like have children who are suffering from horrible disorders and diseases come onto his show, and then he prays to God for a miracle to save them”
This has happened exactly once, at Christmas time this year. As I recall it, the miracle he referred to was the fact that a new procedure and device for the boy’s rare hearing impairment had just been developed, and that money had been found (mainly from Beck’s contacts, I surmised) to allow the child to be treated. Beck also stated that there was no guarantee of a cure. You should actually watch Beck’s program, rather than parroting what you’ve heard about him elsewhere. He, at least, admits to his radio and TV audiences that he’s been mistaken about something he’s said, if that happens to be the case.
I do find Beck’s religiosity off-putting at times, but don’t doubt its sincerity. He goes to great lengths to help his viewers understand who’s who in domestic and foreign political circles, and what they’re up to. He does this by letting those people speak for themselves in the voice recordings and video clips he airs, and with quotes from their policy statements. The evidence is right there, irrefutable, and that’s precisely why he is so hated by those on the Left.
A good summation danae. They hate him because he is effective. I don’t have to share his beliefs to benefit from the information he provides. I like that he acknowledges his own limitations.
but if what heās doing is calling on Fox News to fire him, rather than the government, then that is compatible with free speech. It would be his free speech! If, on the other hand, heās calling for government action,
Both these positions are anti-free speech, the only difference is one of degree. Someone who uses his “free speech” to try to restrict another’s speech is not in favor of “free speech”, it’s silly to try to argue otherwise.
But Iām also pretty sure that by miracle Glenn Beck is imagining a personal God selectively intervening in the world to work medical miracles. Now that is just not an equally plausible hypothesis.
Why not? It’s only less plausible if you pre-emptively reject the possibility of the existence of God. Given that thoughout history the vast majority of people have believed in some sort of personal god that selectively intervenes in the world, I would argue that your position is the outlier.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you. Someone who has been fired by a news organization has lost a huge megaphone for his free speech, but he can still find another one.
Someone who has been muzzled by law, has been silenced. Only the government has the power to censor, and the First Amendment restricts Congress for that reason.
Wha? “Free speech” “guaranteed audience?” RaciHomophoFascism!
WP ate my “does not equal” sign!? RaciHomophoFascism X-treme!
I don’t hate Glenn Beck…I mentioned earlier that I think he has some good points, but that he’s doing more harm than good to these by associating them with Christianity. I don’t consider myself “on the Left.”
No that just doesn’t make sense. It is not just a matter of degree. Think about an economic boycott of a company that refuses to sell to one race or creed or whatever. If you couldn’t use your free speech to try to convince people to boycott the organization, then you would be powerless to even voice your opinion. You wouldn’t even be able to say “hey, why don’t you stop being racist or I’ll stop buying your crap” because that would be “anti-free speech.” In the same way, people can try to boycott Fox News if they think Glenn Beck is an idiot who is spewing Dark Age superstition. But it would be silly to not give their reason for boycotting it, i.e. to stop giving Glenn Beck the resources to spread his superstitions so easily.
Less glib: this blind spot, this inability to see the difference between a government prohibiting a person to speak his mind and boycotting, appears to be a side effect of teleological thinking ā that is, if the *effect* is the same, then the acts must, morally *be* the same, or be different only by matters of degree. We saw this malady at work during the Obamacare ādebateā: āgovernment rationing is the same thing as insurance company rationing!ā It is pernicious and has facilitated Marxism and all of its innumerable bad children.
Wha? āFree speechā āguaranteed audience?ā
Where did I say Beck (or O’Reilly, or Olberman, or Maddow……) is guaranteed an audience or even a show? What I said is Wright (in this case) is opposed to free speech because of his desire to take Beck off the air due to political disagreements. That he doesn’t advocate government censorship of Beck, et.al., is only a difference of degree. How hard a concept is this, if you favor free speech, you don’t try to silence your political opponents?
Iām afraid I have to disagree with you. Someone who has been fired by a news organization has lost a huge megaphone for his free speech, but he can still find another one.
This isn’t about somone getting fired from a job. If Fox chooses to fire Beck because of low ratings, advertiser complaints, or even because they want to go in a more MSNBC direction, I don’t particularly have a problem with that (those are business deciscions), but none of that is the case. In this case you have an independent actor, who disagrees with Beck politically, and rather than engage him in debate, or not watch him, he chooses to insert himself into the process to try to make sure that no one is able to watch him. That’s anti-“free speech” no matter how you look at it.
Less glib: this blind spot, this inability to see the difference between a government prohibiting a person to speak his mind and boycotting
I actually do see the difference, but both are anti-“free speech”. By your logic, I could organize a mob, tear down the Fox satellite towers and still be in favor of free speech, because I didn’t ask for the government to do it for me.
FIFY
Okay Titus, you’re obviously a smart guy, so explain to my benighted, straw-manified self how one can be in favor of free speech and in favor of silencing political opponents. While your at it, perhaps you could explain how my views leading to “Marxism and all of its innumerable bad children” is less of a strawman than my free speech inspired mob.
Seriously, I think we can agree that there’s nothing illegal or unconstitutional about Wright’s position, where we disagree is that his desire is in any way conducive to free speech. Wright wants to have Beck kicked off the public airwaves because he disagrees with him politically, how is that pro-free speech?
The difference between the two positions is the means used to achieve a similar end. Robert Wright might “want to silence” Glenn Beck, but there are two very different ways to do it. One of them is government censorship and the other is try to convince Fox News to voluntarily choose to do it.
Even if Robert Wright calls on Fox to fire Beck, and they listened, it would still be a business decision by Fox. And you might add to your list of approved reasons to fire Beck the one where Fox managers want to sleep at night. They might decided they would rather sleep at night than do whatever they can to get the highest ratings.
The difference between the two positions is the means used to achieve a similar end. Robert Wright might āwant to silenceā Glenn Beck, but there are two very different ways to do it.
It sounds like we agree that Wright is against free speech, the difference is you’re okay with it because of the process he uses to get to his end, the restriction of speech he disagrees with it.
And you might add to your list of approved reasons to fire Beck the one where Fox managers want to sleep at night. They might decided they would rather sleep at night than do whatever they can to get the highest ratings.
I think your hatred of Beck is coloring your judgement, and Wright’s for that matter. I doubt Wright would be quite so sanguine about Beck’s free speech rights if he tried to get Wright fired from his profession.
No argument there.
No problem, but first we must untangle desire from actions. Wanting someone silenced is certainly not a āpro-free speechā sentiment anymore than wanting an innocent man dead is a āpro-lifeā sentiment. Iām not addressing wants, but actions. The act of boycotting is still a free exchange since all one is doing is refusing to participate with a speaker and his sponsors while making arguments to persuade others to do so. It would cross the line if, say, physical threats, libelous statements or other forms of coercion/fraud were to come into play. If Wright has done those things, then he is, in fact, an ass.
Because it was a tangent ā I wasnāt directing it specifically at your argument, and Iām sorry if you thought I was. I was pontificating on the dangers of “outcome based” morality, and not attributing it to you personally.
I doubt Wright would be quite so sanguine about Beckās free speech rights if he tried to get Wright fired from his profession.
Wow, this is silly, Wright already doesn’t care about Beck’s free speech rights, it’s crazy for me to assume that he would be more concerned about them if Beck were trying to do to Wright what Wright is trying to do to Beck. I suspect in that case he’d even be willing to advocate government intervention to silence Beck.
Titus, I agree there’s nothing illegal or unconstitutional about Wright’s desire to have Beck kicked off the air and it seems to me that you agree that his desire is not āpro-free speechā, so what are we arguing about?
What do you don’t seem to get, Rob, is that it is not an infraction on free speech rights for organizations to stop financially supporting certain people. Beck is paid by Fox News and provided an outlet through which his words can easily reach millions of people on a daily basis. I have free speech rights, but I lack the resources to and the sponsorship to leverage my message as strongly as Beck’s. Which might explain why I’m talking on an internet forum with 3 other guys. If Fox fires Beck, he would still have the freedom to try to start up again, talk to his neighbors or whatever else he wants.
What do you donāt seem to get, Rob, is that it is not an infraction on free speech rights for organizations to stop financially supporting certain people.
Has Wright ever financially supported Beck? Have I said the Wright should be forced to financially support Beck? Have I said that Fox is obligated to provide Beck a forum? Well, no, I haven’t, have I?
What you don’t seem to get is that you can’t claim to be in favor of free speech while advocating that someone you disagree with be silenced.
What I can do, if I want, is try to persuade Fox News to get rid of Beck. Robert Wright can also try to do the same thing and still be in favor of free speech. If they got rid of Beck, they could give a microphone to someone else. So it wouldn’t be a defeat for free speech. If you like Beck, you can try to persuade Fox to keep him. This kind of debate is what free speech is.
No one will be able to fully silence Glenn Beck…that would be anti-free speech. But they could convince Fox to end its relationship with him.
this inability to see the difference between a government prohibiting a person to speak his mind and boycotting, appears to be a side effect of teleological thinking
A very insightful point, T.
That aside, I think there is a bit of a gray area between things like organized boycotts and government censorship, a place where the notion of free speech can get muddled.
The problem is that we are social creatures: we obey the law (when it conflicts with our own desires) generally only because of the severe disapprobation we would incur from our friends and family and neighbors if we did not. This is why it’s not necessary for police to be watching us all the time for us to obey the law, and why when social disapproval is missing — e.g. when we drive 5 MPH above the speed limit — the law is rarely obeyed in the absence of direct coercion by police.
But that means there is a fair amount of similarity at the margin in results, and even in means, between mass informal disapproval (as expressed by hostile letters, boycotts, et cetera) and the formal passage of a law and its enforcement. After all, the way a law gets passed is just for majority disapproval to convey itself to elected representatives who codify it. Being an empiricist, I do not consider mere definitional distinctions important: if the means and end of a powerful informal social disapproval and a law are very similar, to me they are similar phenomena. That they have different labels is of no interest.
From this point of view, I do think at some point an effort to cut someone’s voice off by informal methods (particularly if those methods make use of social coercion, e.g. shaming, bandwagoning, quid pro quo, does becom an infringement on the principle of free speech, even if it does not technically violate the First Amendment (and it is important in this context to not equate the First Amendment with the principle of free speech).
I donāt have any problem with a cause yet unknown to rational man…But Iām also pretty sure that by miracle Glenn Beck is imagining a personal God selectively intervening in the world to work medical miracles.
The fact that you can write these two sentences one after another without mentally stumbling — that you completely fail to realize that “a personal God” is by definition also “a cause yet unknown to rational man” — is for me sufficient proof that your thinking is far too superficial to be worth the engagement thereof. You’re a prisoner of your unfounded faiths no less than any fire ‘n’ brimstone Baptist.
Thanks, CP. That means a lot coming from you, the Tupac to my B.I.G…
That may be statistically significant if you are just describing behavior in a naturalistic, objective way. But it doesn’t mean I have sympathy for people who just follow the crowd. I wouldn’t have sympathy for Glenn Beck if he were shamed off the stage. After all, what about all the atheists who are shamed out of the public spotlight because their beliefs are not mainstream? Children, especially, will tend “shy away” from expressing their doubts because people like GLENN BECK help spread ridiculous theories about the cosmos.
It is an absolutely ridiculous explanation of phenomena. It is no stronger a theory than Santa Claus delivers presents to people’s houses on Christmas. If people cannot evaluate this as a weak theory, then there is absolutely no point in engaging in rational debate. I can just say, “The Sun God did it!” or “Apollo did it!”
I’m somewhat reluctant to drag Our Esteemed Host into this mess, even by name, but I would like to point out the contrast–said Host has repeatedly welcomed and respected Christians and other theistic persons over the years, and has respected–even advocated–certain of our values as being useful for a society no matter what it collectively or individually believes. I like to think that most of us on the other side of the matter have tried to show respect in return, by not overtly proselytizing, nor condemning an immortal soul which he does not accept that he has (I also hope that he will forgive the occasional prayer in private that he some day find the Creator :). I know a few others who are of similar sentiment, and in general, they seem to have a similar relationship with believers.
You, on the other hand, seem determined to preach fire and brimstone towards anyone who might happen to believe in a Creator, particularly if *gasp* such belief might include a personal (even sometimes active!) relationship. I could throw Pascal at you, but I doubt that he’d have any effect other than to make you sputter some more. Therefore, I reluctantly conclude that there is no further enlightenment to be gained from this conversation. All that I ask of you in the future is that you attempt to treat me, and others like me, with the civility and liberty that you seek for yourself.
Which, of course, is a religious precept to some of us.
Wrong, monte. Santa Claus is rendered very unlikely by the fact that the world’s parents know damn well who put the presents under the tree in every case anyone’s actually examined, including a number of cases with which I am personally familiar. Do you know anyone who is responsible for a supposed “miracle” and can say how he did it? Do you actually think out the random analogies you fling about, to see if they actually make sense? Good grief.
If people cannot evaluate this as a weak theory, then there is absolutely no point in engaging in rational debate.
This is name calling, not a “rational debate,” and I agree folks would not readily engage in it with you. Why should they? Your arguments are devoid of facts, figures, or logic, and boil down to it seems ridiculous to me. Well, big deal. I expect a lot of stuff seems ridiculous to you, just as heliocentrism seemed ridiculous to Pope Urban VII, or the idea that tiny invisible living things caused disease seemed ridiculous to Louis Pasteur’s colleages. But why you imagine your random instincts for believability should carry any weight whatsoever with other people is beyond me. Seems a trifle narcissistic, actually.
I can just say, āThe Sun God did it!ā or āApollo did it!ā
You can, yes, and in your case there’s no reason not to. It means about the same thing as when you intone “the laws of physics did it!” or “it’s just a coincidence!” It’s the same kind of god, just a different name. You have, it seems, no genuine rational base for your beliefs — they are simply adopted from the dominant paradigms in your surroundings, no less than a peasant child of 1550 would absorb Catholicism from his mother’s milk. Fair enough; human beings are often creatures of faith, and they get along pretty well that way. But don’t expect respect for your critical empirical thinking when you have exhibited no such thing.
Montejo
You do know that Glen Beck is Mormon don’t you?
http://deseretbook.com/Unlikely-Mormon-Conversion-Story-Glenn-Beck/i/5005573
There goes Matula again, calling people names.
Oh, wait…morMon. Never mind.