tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post5450277665947945034..comments2024-03-28T20:14:01.928-05:00Comments on Althouse: "If John Stuart Mill were around today, he would likely ask, 'When did Bob Wright and the left turn against free speech?'"Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39439016584118800282011-03-29T03:08:18.431-05:002011-03-29T03:08:18.431-05:00Otherwise, all bets are off: I'll play by your...Otherwise, all bets are off: I'll play by your ground rules, instead.reader_iamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352836883752091339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38828000187278770932011-03-29T03:02:38.127-05:002011-03-29T03:02:38.127-05:00Missed this one:
When you think about a conferenc...Missed this one:<br /><br /><i>When you think about a conference call, aren't there always ground rules and basic standards of politeness? </i><br /><br />Yes, indeed, there are. The conference calls I think of are on business. I've been paid to know how properly to participate in them; I've been paid to participate in them, period.<br /><br />You want free? Other than being a member of my close family or being a closest friend, there is only one way. Treat me with some basic respect: Lose the ungrounded (not to mention unfounded) assumptions, the knee-jerk challenges, the stupid labeling, and the <i>ad hominem</i>.<br /><br />Easy peasy, innit?reader_iamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352836883752091339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17428665220353586482011-03-28T23:41:26.328-05:002011-03-28T23:41:26.328-05:00When we were kids, it likely never occurred to any...<i>When we were kids, it likely never occurred to any of us that using the terms N__Toe and N__Baby were hurtful or anything but descriptive.</i><br /><br />I'm 50, and it certainly occurred to me, no doubt because it occurred to my family (among a then-smallish circle of others among those with whom we were regularly involved). And yet I heard all sorts of the like in the small-town Indiana and in small Illinois in which my childhood was bred--and similar, though less explicit, and because of that perhaps even worse (due to its hidden-ness)--out East into my teens and even into the '80s. That was my experience. Yours might have been different, and to that I say, "Fortunate you!" But what I just spoke of was mine, what I observed and experienced, and saw experienced, in my own, real life.<br /><br />I hate the pretending and posturing of those who try to rewrite history to say otherwise *for all.* I mean, it's great if you lived in such a different world at the time. It doesn't qualify you to be spokesperson for all. As I'm not for you, of course.reader_iamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352836883752091339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19033661933656402112011-03-28T23:00:32.183-05:002011-03-28T23:00:32.183-05:00However, Brazil nuts were called N---- toes and la...<b>However, Brazil nuts were called N---- toes and labeled that in grocery stores. Certain fireworks were openly labeled N-----Chasers. Now days you can't say the word at all. Are we better off for that?</b><br /><br />There were a lot of colloquial expressions when we were kids that included the N word. I think we're better of without them. I think we're much better off with Brazil nuts and licorice babies. When we were kids, it likely never occurred to any of us that using the terms N__Toe and N__Baby were hurtful or anything but descriptive. Even if that were true then, the use of those terms today cannot be, I believe, without the baggage of the N word itself.CachorroQuentehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13971149640597297640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12934368172669628132011-03-28T22:36:21.100-05:002011-03-28T22:36:21.100-05:00Bob Wright had me banned from bloggingheads becaus...Bob Wright had me banned from bloggingheads because he simply didn't like my words.<br /><br />Pussy, is the actual word that saw me band... not even used pejoratively. His minion called it pornographic. Go figure.Lylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09082051710068390275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72570115117695203712011-03-28T22:30:57.099-05:002011-03-28T22:30:57.099-05:00Speaking only for myself, of course. :/Speaking only for myself, of course. :/reader_iamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352836883752091339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91643290322945749102011-03-28T22:25:57.293-05:002011-03-28T22:25:57.293-05:00Does "all silencing of discussion" mean ...<i>Does "all silencing of discussion" mean the same as "deciding not to listen?"</i><br /><br />No.reader_iamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352836883752091339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5502530220430163242011-03-28T22:23:03.965-05:002011-03-28T22:23:03.965-05:00Does "all silencing of discussion" mean ...Does "all silencing of discussion" mean the same as "deciding not to listen?"<br /><br />Those people over there talking about something I have no interest in discussing doesn't steal time from me.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20638032029553377602011-03-28T22:19:12.689-05:002011-03-28T22:19:12.689-05:00All silencing of discussion is an assumption of in...<i>All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility." I like this quote from JSM</i><br /><br />Much as I like JSM (he's one of the only philosophers I have any use for), he's mistaken on that point.<br /><br />Refusing to discuss a matter doesn't mean you think you can't be wrong. Listening to another person has a cost, even if it is only in the time you spend listening. Refusing to listen to someone can simply mean that you figure the cost of listening to him outweighs the likely benefit of doing so.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37285712556638013252011-03-28T21:49:23.325-05:002011-03-28T21:49:23.325-05:00I've seen "Shut up or I'll punch out ...<i>I've seen "Shut up or I'll punch out your teeth." work very well with little protest or disagreement. Of course it depends on the <b>"quality" of the speaker.</b></i> [emphasis added]<br /><br />But not also on the <i><b>"quality" of the puncher</b>?</i><br /><br />If not, why not?<br /><br />Again, a serious question, not intended as snark in any way.reader_iamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352836883752091339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56977219847559459502011-03-28T21:41:36.119-05:002011-03-28T21:41:36.119-05:00It's forcing choices on other people and findi...<i>It's forcing choices on other people and finding a way to call it virtue by using the magic word "speech".<br /><br />I can chose not to listen, but just as soon as someone else thinks they have the right to decide for me that I must not listen, it doesn't matter if they're carefully not using the government to enforce their will. It's still force. </i><br /><br />Again, in the spirit of wanting to understand your thinking, what if it's not just a public forum (that is, an event open to the public) but a public *public* forum (as in an event held in a publicly owned place by an elected-by-the public official). One example would be a town hall sponsored by an elected official official. Does this change the equation in any way? Should it? Ought it?<br /><br />Thanks in advance, Synova (and also any other who join in) who are helping me to think this through the evolving, additional aspects of this issue, in light of these current times and a greater number of POVs seeing the light of day.<br /><br />Seriously. : )reader_iamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352836883752091339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43817495593137331522011-03-28T20:41:22.658-05:002011-03-28T20:41:22.658-05:00My point is that effective speech and totally free...<i>My point is that effective speech and totally free speech are incompatible.</i><br /><br />There is no right to effective speech, nor, I believe, is AA arguing that. But, we all have the same 24 hours in a day to practice our freedom of speech and to choose whom we listen to.<br /><br />You restrict your hypothetical to absurdly small possibilities that you do create a false dilemma. With a little creativity there are near infinite ways to get your message out, radio, TV, newspapers, fliers, billboards, signage of all sorts, numerous ways on the web, smoke signals, street theater, etc, etc. Effectiveness? Maybe, maybe not.<br /><br />"Totally free speech" is a childish concept. Yelling "Fire!" in the theater has already been pointed out. Libel is a civil offense if damage can be proven.<br /><br />Try dealing with the concept in a realistic approach.DADvocatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621021178600799126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40737256454968053182011-03-28T20:35:15.198-05:002011-03-28T20:35:15.198-05:00I've seen "Shut up or I'll punch out ...I've seen "Shut up or I'll punch out your teeth." work very well with little protest or disagreement. Of course it depends on the "quality" of the speaker.bagoh20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10915174575358413637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72044269565114396742011-03-28T20:27:10.673-05:002011-03-28T20:27:10.673-05:00When I was growing up, we were taught to never cal...When I was growing up, we were taught to never call anyone the N-word. It was impolite and low class. Even though they called themselves that word. We were not to use it if it related to persons. However, Brazil nuts were called N---- toes and labeled that in grocery stores. Certain fireworks were openly labeled N-----Chasers. Now days you can't say the word at all. Are we better off for that?ken in txhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14345764031059905578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9031204098329630122011-03-28T20:01:45.401-05:002011-03-28T20:01:45.401-05:00To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they ar...To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility." I like this quote from JSMroesch-voltairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07802616989806761662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75566600428467993722011-03-28T19:36:41.864-05:002011-03-28T19:36:41.864-05:00When you think about a conference call, aren't...When you think about a conference call, aren't there always ground rules and basic standards of politeness? The thing is when it comes to competing ideologies all decency gets thrown out the window. Which is understandable. If my ideology completely NEGATES your way of life, why should you be nice to me?Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8372211611243819502011-03-28T19:33:44.207-05:002011-03-28T19:33:44.207-05:00Other private citizens don't HAVE to try to fi...<i>Other private citizens don't HAVE to try to find coercive ways to force others to make the choices they prefer be made.</i><br /><br />Of course not, but in a public forum that's what will happen. If the Althouse comments were real-time voice instead of sequential text, nobody would be able to hear anybody through all the people talking over one another.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23443775189229381972011-03-28T19:23:49.423-05:002011-03-28T19:23:49.423-05:00"So private citizens who control forums for s..."<i>So private citizens who control forums for speech HAVE to decide who they want to be heard -- who gets to be on TV, who gets to be on the radio, who gets to speak before the audience. And who has to STFU and listen.</i>"<br /><br />Private citizens HAVE to make those choices.<br /><br />Other private citizens don't HAVE to try to find coercive ways to force others to make the choices they prefer be made.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10853462157722381072011-03-28T19:22:13.863-05:002011-03-28T19:22:13.863-05:00The thing is Bob Wright wouldn't allow us to h...The thing is Bob Wright wouldn't allow us to hear all voices, he is for censorship.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59685393507206617652011-03-28T19:18:44.694-05:002011-03-28T19:18:44.694-05:00I think that the hypothetical of a speech in an au...I think that the hypothetical of a speech in an auditorium is a bit off. Property rights apply, don't they? Someone is invited to speak and the owner of the venue has the right to remove disruptive people... and the invited speaker has the right to insist that disruptive people will be excluded as a condition of their appearance. The owner of the venue has the right to pick and chose who will be invited.<br /><br />True enough that the right of the Westborro Baptists to speak doesn't prevent the bikers from drowning them out. It does, however, prevent the bikers from assaulting them, forcing them off the sidewalk, or destroying their stuff, or following them home. And their right to speech doesn't require anyone at all to allow them inside any of the "events" they are picketing or allow them to block access to others.<br /><br />What we tend to see in those "shouting down" instances we hear of on campuses is one group reserving the venue for their event, inviting a speaker, most likely paid for it, and then others arrive to stop them from peacefully assembling and from speaking. Or they behave in a threatening way until "security" requires the event be canceled. Not because someone wasn't letting them express themselves, or forcing them to listen to something they found abhorrent, but because they intend to prevent anyone who wanted to from hearing what they don't like. <br /><br />Or they get physical and, oh, run the military recruiters off like at that college job fair in Santa Cruz or where ever it was.<br /><br />No one was the least bit interested in stopping anyone from *speaking* about their disapproval of the military but that wasn't enough. It was necessary to make it impossible for anyone else to talk to them either.<br /><br />It's forcing choices on other people and finding a way to call it virtue by using the magic word "speech".<br /><br />I can chose not to listen, but just as soon as someone else thinks they have the right to decide for me that I must not listen, it doesn't matter if they're carefully not using the government to enforce their will. It's still force.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67007020903855850412011-03-28T19:11:13.128-05:002011-03-28T19:11:13.128-05:00I interpret this posting by Meade and Ann as a kin...I interpret this posting by Meade and Ann as a kind of admission of defeat in their argument with Bob. <br /><br />Ann was arguing for an expansive definition of free speech. That is, merely suggesting that a private organization control what it's representatives say is "anti-free speech."<br /><br />Bob was arguing that people these days have a narrower definition of "anti-free speech." When people in 2011 talk about being anti-free speech, the normally mean when people advocate for governmental control of what can and cannot be said. <br /><br />While Bob is wrong on the substance of Mr. Beck, on his narrow point of the common, modern understanding of what it means to oppose free speech, Bob is right. <br /><br />Quoting something from the 1800's, no matter how eloquent, does not help your argument for how people use the concept <i>today. </i> In fact, it weakens the very case.<br /><br />Ann is free to push for her idea of a more expansive definition of free speech. As an academic, her reverence for this value is both natural and honorable. She has some great intellectual backup in the form of J.S. Mills. That doesn't change the fact that, on this definitional point, she is wrong and Bob is right.Writ Smallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956452269460626177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17452000565602409462011-03-28T18:53:47.565-05:002011-03-28T18:53:47.565-05:00We're not going to have to worry to much about...We're not going to have to worry to much about Fox News & Roger Ailes. Now that Media Matters is promising to use "any and all methods" to destroy Fox News, Bob Wright can sleep easier.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63694869684518806072011-03-28T18:49:29.494-05:002011-03-28T18:49:29.494-05:00Blogger Mark said...
But yes, once you start decid...Blogger Mark said...<br />But yes, once you start deciding that Glen Beck should be denied a platform because he might make the idiots think/do Bad Things, then you've adopted the mindset of Puritans and Zealots throughout history.<br /><br />"<i>But that's not what Wright is suggesting, is it? What Wright has suggested, is that Ailes should be ashamed of himself for continuing to put Beck on the air and that he should exercise his discretion and fire Beck because it is irresponsible for Ailes to continue to allow Beck to use the platform that Ailes provides.</i>"<br /><br />It is exactly what Wright was suggesting. Wright was suggesting that Beck be denied a platform to speak because people need to be protected from Beck's bad words.<br /><br />He was just quibbling over the method of forcing Ailes to comply.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72927931351600889642011-03-28T17:58:04.928-05:002011-03-28T17:58:04.928-05:00Couldn't come up with the name Benghazi till t...<i>Couldn't come up with the name Benghazi till the 20 minute mark?</i><br /><br />That happens to me all the time.<br /><br />What I want to know is whether or not Bob has learned to spell Libya yet? Last time I looked, he was still spelling it "Lybia." <br /><br />Maybe he reads too much Robert Farley. For a guy with 4 advanced degrees, that guy Farley is damn near illiterate.Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117933390338651739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90193449465084972692011-03-28T17:57:24.431-05:002011-03-28T17:57:24.431-05:00So he gets to speak, but not necessarily the chanc...<i>So he gets to speak, but not necessarily the chance to be heard?</i><br /><br />Yes. Giving people the chance to be heard is why venues overtly act to limit the freedom of speech of the audience.<br /><br />Althouse is, it seems to me, arguing that it is wrong for the group to decide who does and doesn't get to talk. My point is that effective speech and totally free speech are incompatible. There isn't enough time for everyone to have a turn speaking, and if people don't take turns then nobody gets heard at all.<br /><br />So private citizens who control forums for speech HAVE to decide who they want to be heard -- who gets to be on TV, who gets to be on the radio, who gets to speak before the audience. And who has to STFU and listen.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.com