How We Will Lose Our Freedom of Speech
By Selwyn Duke
MichNews.com
Dec 1, 2006
If people were asked about actor Michael Richards' epithet-laced outburst at a Los Angeles nightclub, there would be a lot of focus on the verbal assault but very little on an assault on freedom of speech. In truth, however, if there's anything at all relating to this story that rises above gossip-column fodder, it’s that it’s also fuel for demagogues who seek control over discourse in America.
Representing the two targets of Mr. Richards’ bile, Frank McBride and Kyle Doss, “civil rights” attorney Gloria Allred appeared on Hannity and Colmes Thanksgiving eve. The stone-faced Allred opened with a very telling assertion, boldly proclaiming, “This is not free speech, this is hate speech!”
This was no spontaneous statement. No, it was well-crafted and calculated and, I believe, designed to serve a far more insidious end than simply extracting money from a goofy comedian. Let’s examine this with the introduction of a subject that on the surface seems unrelated.
As a dissenting justice in the 1958 Baer v. Kolmorgen case, one Judge Gallagher is quoted as having warned that “If the court does not stop talking about the separation of church and state, people are going to start thinking it is part of the Constitution.”
But the courts didn’t stop, and the result is that four decades later this “fact” is imprinted upon the American mind. So much so, that now the average Joe has been inured to the denuding of the public square of historic religious symbols out of respect for this “principle” of the Constitution.
And this is why Allred’s statement bears mention. There are social engineers in our time – and I count Allred among them – who are trying to imbue the American mind with the notion that so-called “hate speech” is not protected under the First Amendment. Now, let’s try to understand how these puppeteers will transform America by taking a lesson in social engineering 101.
First, use the term “hate speech” as much as possible so as to burn it into the lexicon and establish it as a category unto itself. And it’s not hard. This has already been accomplished with terms/concepts such as “sexual harassment” and, the concept of which hate speech is a corollary, “hate crime.” Then, be sure to juxtapose the two terms frequently, as beautifully illustrated by Gloria Allred herself. Saying “This is not free speech, this is hate speech!” creates further separation between the two, cementing the notion that they are starkly different verbal species. Once this is accomplished, the idea that the latter is protected by the former may seem laughable.
Understand in its entirety what is being achieved here. Not only will this strategy persuade many legislators and judges that hate speech isn’t protected under the Constitution and therefore can be criminalized, it will also influence the man on the street. And this harks back to the old advice, “If you really want something, act like you already have it.” As long as you continually condemn “hate speech” and juxtapose it with “free speech,” more and more people will assume that it already is illegal. And once enough Americans believe this, all that is left is to make it official. And the beauty of this is that you don’t even have to lie. Success hinges mainly on the positioning of words, timing, tone and, most of all, re-pe-ti-tion.
Oh, you think it won’t work?
To a great degree it’s already a fait accompli. After decades of “positioning” (this refers to Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s idea about the placement of leftist ideologues in positions of influence for the purposes of altering the culture), with social engineers in academia, the media, entertainment and various organizations and activist groups, it isn’t uncommon to find Americans possessed of this lie. I myself have met them, and even pundit Bill O’Reilly uttered this misconception on his cable television show. Remember, as nineteenth century philosopher William James said, “There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it.”
Ah, but there is that impediment called the Constitution. Or, not really. Although some fancy it to be an insurmountable bulwark against tyranny, it erects no wall so high that it cannot be scaled by justices corrupted by popular swill and emboldened by popular will. Just as they were able to perform the intellectual contortions necessary to read the separation of church and state into the First Amendment, so will they read freedom of speech out of it. Although, how it will happen is not entirely uninteresting.
Since many western nations, such as Australia, Canada and England, already have hate speech laws, there is precedent for them. But foreign precedent doesn’t constitute American legal precedent, you say? Well, then you forget that there is precedent for the idea of considering it precedent. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself once said, “We must look for inspiration beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations.” And she is no lone gunman. Sandra Day O’Connor and others have expressed similar sentiments.
Hate speech laws will come in like March goes out: Like a lamb. Most people won’t object because, after all, who should be using offensive epithets anyway? I mean, common decency informs that a “good” person would prohibit such things. But it will be more like the ides of March.
But what am I talking about? Well, if you really take Ginsberg’s advice and examine the “laws of other nations,” you’ll see that hate speech legislation was quickly broadened beyond the proscription of epithets to encompass unfashionable beliefs.
“Aha! So this will be the poison pill that disenamors people of this scheme! Surely the average person doesn’t want to see legitimate dissent squelched,” you say? Ah, you have much to learn.
A good salesman doesn’t give specifics, knowing full well that many won’t read the fine print. When we first sold people on the separation of church and state, we billed it as a defense against the imposition of religion. If we had told Americans that this principle would expand inexorably and one day be used to tear crosses off city seals and property, remove religious statues, ban the singing of Christmas carols in schools, rename Christmas Trees “Holiday Trees,” and that ne’er do wells would seek to remove the word “God” from the pledge and currency, they would have balked. So we just marketed the idea as a way to protect Americans’ rights. And that’s exactly how we’ll peddle this.
And you don’t have to worry about people uncovering our machinations. Most don’t think about the law of unintended consequences – or the law of intended consequences of unintended motivations – and “most” is all we need to effect our will. Most people, be they laymen, legislators or judges, will know no better. And many of those who will, will be our well “positioned” operatives.
And what of the rest? What of those troublesome prophetic voices of doom? They won’t be a problem. Oh, they’ll warn of how hate speech laws in other western nations have been used to imprison people for speaking in accordance with their consciences. They will mention how Canadians Mark Harding and Hugh Owens were punished for, respectively, criticizing Islam and homosexuality. They’ll cite the story of English schoolgirl Codie Stott, who was jailed on a “racial offense” after requesting to be seated with English-speaking students. Or, they may mention the case of Ake Green, a Swedish pastor who was jailed for criticizing homosexuality in a sermon. And they’ll also point out that freedom of speech is not freedom of speech at all unless it protects even the most unpopular speech, for popular speech’s popularity is protection enough. Yes, they’ll warn about the perils of setting dangerous precedents and that one thing leads to another. All to no avail.
You see, good chess players are rare. Most don’t think a few moves ahead. And the “watchdog” of the mainstream media? Surely you jest; it’s more like our lapdog. We can count on it to print neither articles like this one nor stories like the above, lest such admonitions rouse Americans from their slumber. Instead, along with Hellywood and academia, it will do its best to convince all that the grand imperative of silencing the occasional acid-tongued bigot justifies the rending of the First Amendment.
Thus, those prophetic voices will remain in the darkness, a location from which credibility is ever elusive. After all, if some a half century ago had predicted that the principle of the separation of church and state would be used as it has been, they would have been thought crazy. Likewise, mere laughter and a rolling of the eyes will suffice in answer to today’s prescient minds.
In summary, once support for the criminalization of hate speech has galvanized, we’ll have legislation. And once the legalistic rationalization that allows for it permeates enough jurists’ minds, we’ll have it upheld in court. Then, with the principle of hate speech enshrined in American law, it will be open season on positions contrary to those of the positioned. Once an unacceptable belief is identified, our culture-shapers in the media, entertainment and academia will simply define it as “hateful” and beat that drum until it becomes the next supposition. And then the legal definition will be sure to follow.
And hegemony will be ours. As it is, the media, entertainment realm and academia sing our tune. Even corporations feel the pressure, as evidenced by their sensitivity training classes, support of politically correct causes, refusal to support traditional ones, and the limiting of the dissemination of politically incorrect ideas by certain Internet entities. Yes, we have done our best to imprison dissenting voices in that small, dark box. The last piece of the puzzle is the destruction of that box. And then America will be a beautifully dark place indeed.
2nd December 2006 02:32 PM
glencar
Another long boring screed but what I read of it makes sense. I know nobody wants to be offended but we've reached the depths of ridiculousness with what happens every time someone acts stupid. It's a safe bet that Michael Richards hates black people or at least has a problem with them to some extent. Why should the rest of us care?
2nd December 2006 02:56 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:glencar wrote:
Another long boring screed but what I read of it makes sense. I know nobody wants to be offended but we've reached the depths of ridiculousness with what happens every time someone acts stupid. It's a safe bet that Michael Richards hates black people or at least has a problem with them to some extent. Why should the rest of us care?
Cool. Pretty good banter. We could be the best act here since Joey n Josh went under. And I've got the perfect formula too. I tell the jokes and you laugh at 'em. You in?
2nd December 2006 02:57 PM
glencar
No, I do the jokes. Dryly, natch.
2nd December 2006 03:05 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:glencar wrote:
No, I do the jokes. Dryly, natch.
Oh. Let me think about it. I could, under certain conditions, live with being a Straight Man. In honor of one of my heros. Stan Laurel..."The Greatest Straight Man thats ever been".
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels]
2nd December 2006 03:06 PM
Joey
quote:glencar wrote:
the joey was completely right about the debacle in Iraq , natch.
That is right .
Blue -- You just keep reading ....... that is it .... keep reading ....... You still there ... ?!
Good .... Please .... Blue .... just keep reading and I will CONTINUE to post all that GOLD that you have growned so accustomed to these past thirty - three years .
People think they're losing freedoms, when the truth is, we never really had them...
Slavery, genocide and oppression where stronger forces then our supposed belief we have some freedom of speech or that the government actually serves the people.
3rd December 2006 02:05 AM
Bitch
3rd December 2006 08:41 AM
Bruno
I´m probably the only one who agrees.
3rd December 2006 12:34 PM
Riffhard
That's a pretty good read really. He nails it too. Look at the Justices he cites. Ginsberg and O'Connor!! LOL! Gee,I wonder were their ideology lies? Left baby! Far left. “We must look for inspiration beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations.” ,are you fucking kidding me?! I mean hell in Venezuala if you bad mouth Hugo Chavez you get arested for "hate speech". The author is right. Hate speech laws will,indeed,come in like a lamb,but the havoc they will ultimatly reek is devastaing. Who decides what is "hate speech" anyway? A bunch unelected justices with lifetime terms with their own set beliefs that may,or my not,jibe with my own beliefs. A very conservative peice for you to post TTM! I'm proud of you! Micheal Richards should be shunned and publicly rejected not arrested.
Riffy
3rd December 2006 12:39 PM
Taptrick
laissez faire
3rd December 2006 12:43 PM
Riffhard
quote:Taptrick wrote:
laissez faire
Indeed! That pretty much sums up my position as well.
Riffy
3rd December 2006 06:08 PM
glencar
Michael Richards was already shunned & publicly rejected before his rant. His post-Seinfeld show was a fast bomb & he's done little else since the demise of that show. I think his frustration at performing at a loserish comedy club & then being heckled by some "urban youth" led directly to what happened.
3rd December 2006 06:19 PM
stonedinaustralia
good point glen - what the hecklers were saying would be interesting to know too?
3rd December 2006 07:04 PM
Taptrick
Seinfeld's Lost Episode:
3rd December 2006 07:30 PM
sirmoonie
Fucking ridiculous article - hyper sensitive, over alarming, fear based nonsense. The author is doing exactly what he accuses Gloria Allred of doing, which only means he's as a big a pain in the ass as her loud mouth is.
The cheap out of context quote regarding the U.S. Supreme Court looking to extra-territorial law, and linking it to a hypothetical shrinking of our rights was wrongly done. In the first instance, its widely accepted common law that foreign jurisdictions can be reviewed for insight. And the case that quote came from was a difficult one, with very little Constitutional, common law, or historic guidance - hence the need to see what others were doing.
That is NOT the case with speech, and freedom thereof in the United States. The First Amendment is First because its First. Its clear and the law of the land. "Liberal" and "conservative" judges alike - classifications that make even less sense than when they are applied in politics - have resolutely defended the First Amendment from legislative and executive attacks. If anything, its "conservative" Supremes that have taken shots at the rights Americans are guaranteed - "liberals" usually invent new ones.
There is no threat whatsoever to American First Amendment jurisprudence - the U.S. Supreme Court - one of the finest institutions man has ever created - has conquered them all, and in far worse climates than the one this shill for some imaginary cause is trying to pretend exists. There will NEVER be a "hate speech" exception to 200+ years of First Amendment law, you would have to be a wee, little weenie dick, pee wee induced, fuckstick to write an article on that.
3rd December 2006 08:41 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
>There is no threat whatsoever to American First Amendment jurisprudence<
OK. I hope you're right.
3rd December 2006 09:01 PM
sirmoonie
quote:Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
>There is no threat whatsoever to American First Amendment jurisprudence<
OK. I hope you're right.
Its relative Mote, the Hun may attack the English speaking people yet again, but its relatively unlikely that they will at the moment. Some misguided idiot may propose some weird "hate speach" laws, but its reltively unlikely (I'd say impossible at this point) that they get passed, much less that any Court of good standing will uphold them. That article you posted was all whining, that bit the author said about he wouldn't get written up and popped in the media? Speaks for itself.
4th December 2006 01:32 PM
Riffhard
Well Moonie I certainly hope you're right as well,but I still think the article has merit. There can be no doubt that the author makes a very valid point about the "seperation clause". There are many Americans,mostly liberal/progressive,types that have pushed the false notion that the Constitution forbids any form of religion in the public square. This is an outright lie,and also counters the original "spirit" of the law. Progressives just want to have a completely secular state. Thus they have hoisted this lie upon an uniformed American populace that hears the term "seperation of church and state" and eat it right up without question. I agree with you that any threat against the First is not likely at this time. However,if SCOTUS was filled with a couple more Ginsberg's and O'Connor's I would not be so sure. With good judges like Scallia,Roberts,Thomas,and Alito on the bench I'd say there won't be a real threat any time soon. Thank God for that.
Oh and one more thing, This quote right here---->“We must look for inspiration beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations.” from Ginsberg should be enough to scare the hell out of any American with brains!
Riffy
4th December 2006 01:51 PM
monkey_man
quote:Riffhard wrote
Oh and one more thing, This quote right here---->“We must look for inspiration beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations.” from Ginsberg should be enough to scare the hell out of any American with brains!
There are more than a few democracies that are rated higher on the democracy index than the US. Perhaps Ginsburg was refering to these?
The Economist's Democracy index: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf
Their methodology: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf
The global spread of democracy since the 1970s, especially after the collapse of communism, has been impressive. According to Freedom House, an American organisation that tracks global trends in political freedom, at the end of 2005 there were 122 “electoral democracies” (64% of the world’s states, compared with 40% in the mid-1980s). On a more stringent criterion, 89 of these were rated as “politically free”—46% of all states, compared with only 25% in 1975. However, the spread of democracy appears to be coming to a halt.
Negative examples abound. The weak response in the Middle East to pressures for democratisation, as well as the experience with imported political change in Iraq, is making a mockery of George Bush’s “freedom” agenda. In Asia, the coup in Thailand was a reminder of democracy’s fragility. The promise of the multi-coloured revolutions around the former Soviet Union remains unfulfilled, and a slide into authoritarian ways in Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues. Political crises in central Europe have raised questions about the strength of the region’s democratic transition. In Latin America populist forces with dubious democratic credentials have come to the fore, in Venezuela and elsewhere. Even in the developed West, a lack of interest in politics and security-related curbs on civil liberties are having a corrosive effect on some long-established democracies.
A new democracy index devised by the Economist Intelligence Unit illustrates some of these trends. Compared with Freedom House’s measure, it delves “deeper” into the texture of democracy, looking at 60 indicators across five broad categories: free elections, civil liberties, functioning government, political participation and political culture. Free elections and civil liberties are necessary conditions for democracy, but they are unlikely to be sufficient for a robust democracy if unaccompanied by transparent and at least minimally efficient government, adequate participation in politics and a supportive culture. It is not easy to build a sturdy democracy. Even in long-established ones, if not nurtured and protected democracy can corrode surprisingly quickly.
The index provides a snapshot of the current state of democracy for 165 independent states and two territories. (Click here for a complete list of countries and a full explanation of the methodology.) Although almost half of the world’s countries can be classified as democracies, the number of “full democracies” is low (only 28). Almost twice as many (54) are rated as “flawed democracies”. Even a flawed democracy is better than no democracy at all; of the remaining 85 states, 30 are considered to be “hybrid regimes” and 55 are authoritarian. As could be expected, developed OECD countries (with the notable exception of Italy) dominate among the full democracies, although there are also two Latin American countries, two from central Europe and one African country.
Sweden, a near-perfect democracy, comes top, followed by a bevy of similarly virtuous northern European countries. More surprising are the relatively modest scores for two traditional bastions of democracy—Britain and the United States. In America there has been a perceptible erosion of civil liberties related to the fight against terrorism. Long-standing problems in the functioning of government have also become more prominent. In Britain, too, there has been some erosion of civil liberties but also a shocking decline in political participation. Britain’s score in this area is the lowest in the West and is reflected across all dimensions—voter turnout, membership of political parties, willingness to engage in politics and attitudes towards it.
Why the setbacks in democracy’s spread and quality? The pace of democratisation was bound to slow after the easy gains that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall. China and Middle Eastern autocracies were always going to be a more difficult proposition. Many autocrats preside over energy-rich states and have been strengthened by high oil prices. And America, which should be a shining example, has damaged its liberty-enlarging cause: its military intervention in Iraq is deeply unpopular around the world, Mr Bush is widely loathed and Guantánamo and other cases of prisoner-abuse have led to charges of hypocrisy against the United States.
There have been reversals before—a wave of democratisation after 1945 ended with more than 20 countries sliding back into authoritarianism. We are not witnessing that sort of regression, but in 2007 the threat of backsliding outweighs the likelihood of further gains. Accompanying our new index is a watchlist of significant changes in 2007: nine countries are on negative watch and only one (Hong Kong) on positive watch.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to be too pessimistic. Democracy as a value retains strong universal appeal. Creating democracy by external intervention has not gone smoothly. But trends such as globalisation, increasing education and expanding middle classes favour its organic development. These underlying forces suggest that any retreat from democracy will be temporary.
[Edited by monkey_man]
4th December 2006 02:22 PM
caro
quote:Riffhard wrote:
This quote right here---->“We must look for inspiration beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations.” from Ginsberg should be enough to scare the hell out of any American with brains
You could become wildly popular among the Iraqi guerilla with statements like that!
4th December 2006 03:20 PM
Riffhard
quote:caro wrote:
You could become wildly popular among the Iraqi guerilla with statements like that!
No,no,no caro you do not understand where I am coming from at all. The fact is that SCOTUS should NEVER look to other nations for examples pertaining to US law. That is not their job. These judges can not legislate from the bench. Period. If any foriegn laws are to be examined then that duty must fall to the legislators that write law. The legislators have to answer to the people that elected them. They are not as likely to adopt laws that are not accepted by the populace. When I read of any judge even tip toeing near the line about legislation I see red flags. Be that judge be conservative or liberal it matters not. Judges enforce laws. They do not make laws. This is why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is such a joke. They constantly try and blur the line between the judicial branch and the legislative branch.
Besides exactly what do mean by that little Iraqi guerilla line anyway?
Riffy
4th December 2006 03:25 PM
monkey_man
quote:Riffhard wrote:
Judges enforce laws. They do not make laws.
Riffy
I thought law enforcement enforces the law. . .
4th December 2006 03:29 PM
Riffhard
quote:monkey_man wrote:
I thought law enforcement enforces the law. . .
LOL! You know what I mean monkey man! That was a great article by the way. I just don't like to hear judges talk about how laws should be written. Plus given the fact that Ginsberg has shown a propensity of being influenced by the ACLU types she's the last one that I want writing US law!
Riffy
4th December 2006 03:45 PM
lotsajizz
quote:Riffhard wrote:
With good judges like Scallia,Roberts,Thomas,and Alito on the bench I'd say there won't be a real threat any time soon.
...and the trains will run on time...and isn't that what REALLY matters?
OK now
Cazart!!!!!!!!!
4th December 2006 03:45 PM
monkey_man
quote:Riffhard wrote:
LOL! You know what I mean monkey man! That was a great article by the way. Riffy
You know me . . . if I can bust balls, I will! Glad you enjoyed the article.
MM
4th December 2006 04:08 PM
Riffhard
quote:lotsajizz wrote:
...and the trains will run on time...and isn't that what REALLY matters?
OK now
Cazart!!!!!!!!!
Yeah God forbid we actually have judges that are originalists with regards to the US Constitution,huh Jizzy? The Constitution is notmalleable. It is not a "living breathing" document! At least not in the hands of the judicial branch. It can not be shaped or shifted for the benefit of convenience sake. That is why I do not like the idea of an overreaching judicial branch. Leave the "living" "breathing" aspects of the US Constitution in the hands of the legislators who must vote on ammendments as they arise. Only the legislators have to answer to "We the People..." This shouldn't even be a partisan issue as far as I am concerned.
Riffy
4th December 2006 04:12 PM
monkey_man
quote:Riffhard wrote:
Yeah God forbid we actually have judges that are originalists with regards to the US Constitution,huh Jizzy? The Constitution is notmalleable. It is not a "living breathing" document! At least not in the hands of the judicial branch. It can not be shaped or shifted for the benefit of convenience sake. That is why I do not like the idea of an overreaching judicial branch. Leave the "living" "breathing" aspects of the US Constitution in the hands of the legislators who must vote on ammendments as they arise. Only the legislators have to answer to "We the People..." This shouldn't even be a partisan issue as far as I am concerned.
Riffy
How do you feel about the executive branch shaping or shifting it's powers for convenience's sake?
4th December 2006 04:39 PM
Riffhard
quote:monkey_man wrote:
How do you feel about the executive branch shaping or shifting it's powers for convenience's sake?
A fair question given the current administration's recent history. I would answer by saying that in a state of war the president must have the ability to adapt and change as the situation deems nessasary. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for example,and he never involved the Congress at all. FDR also bypassed many laws when nessasary to protect US interests during WWII. They were hounded and criticized for it big time too. However,hindsight proved that they made the right call. And no,I am not comparing Bush to Lincoln or FDR so don't play that card! LOL! The jury is out on many of Bush's policies here. However,one that I feel is perfectly fine is the NSA program. It has been effective. So too may have been the terrorists bank/finacial tracking operation had the NYT not completely "outed" it and thus ruined it's effectivness. That's five classified intel reports that the NYT has leaked in the last four years,btw!
I don't think that there is any evidence to suggest that the US goverment has knowingly or willing denied any Americans thier Constitutional rights. I won't get into the Abu Garibe and Gitmo arguments other than to say that I don't really care to much about the right's of non-American prisoners that were found on the field of battle trying to kill Americans. Fuck em! We know what they do to American GIs that they capture afterall. At least these radicalized fucks get three hots and a cott. Not to mention a Koran,a prayer rug,a skullcap,prayer beads,muslim specific diet,.......the list goes on and on.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
