Ann Althouse posted this today. It will get a rise out of some of her commentators, but it is a very good clip of Christopher Hitchens addressing the fundamentals of why free speech is so important. People do need to be prepared to defend their positions. And I have seen some abysmal comments in regards to free speech in the last week. I miss having Christopher Hitchens with us and can only imagine what his response would have been.
Happy Birthday U.S. Constitution.
And a few of the comments at Althouse are actually quite good:
I never thought I would see the day when my fellow liberals would allow a grifter politician and his filthy party to con them into flippantly denouncing the inalienable right of freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, as if it were some small and disagreeable thing that only political enemies worried about.
Absolutely shameful and disgusting.
Absolutely shameful and disgusting.
Dave said...
Nokoula B. Nokoula however did convince an untold number of people that America produced and allowed a film to be released denigrating Mohammed.....
So what? If even that were true and those people believed that America was the producer of such nonsensical garbage, then it would still be protected speech. It doesn't matter that content or context of the film, it is speech, it is was made by an American Democrat of Egyptian descent and he has the right to make it. Why is this a problem? The real problem you should be addressing is the absolutely chilling methodology by which Urkel set out his agents to bring this guy in for questioning. The fact that it happened in the middle of the night or that it occurred in front of camera for all of us to see doesn't bother you at all?
Nokoula B. Nokoula however did convince an untold number of people that America produced and allowed a film to be released denigrating Mohammed.....
So what? If even that were true and those people believed that America was the producer of such nonsensical garbage, then it would still be protected speech. It doesn't matter that content or context of the film, it is speech, it is was made by an American Democrat of Egyptian descent and he has the right to make it. Why is this a problem? The real problem you should be addressing is the absolutely chilling methodology by which Urkel set out his agents to bring this guy in for questioning. The fact that it happened in the middle of the night or that it occurred in front of camera for all of us to see doesn't bother you at all?
It would be better if our country went up in flames than for us to cede our responsibility of protecting the natural right of humans to speak and create freely. The responsibility for the effects of speech is borne by the speaker, but the responsibility of protecting the rights of that speaker is borne by all of us.
We deny this at our mortal peril.
We deny this at our mortal peril.
Please note, my use of "fellow liberals" was melancholic sarcasm. No one who ever properly understood and accepted Enlightenment-rooted liberalism would put themselves in the shameful company of the false-flag operation known as contemporary "liberalism". True liberals understand the gravity of this no matter what their political predilections.
Hi Palladian!
ReplyDeletetits.