the following is an object lesson from our friends to the north as to why the concept of "hate speech" is so goddam dangerous:a couple years ago a canadian magazine featured as its cover story an article which argued that, fuck terrorism-- through ambition and sheer numbers alone, islam will overrun europe within a scant few generations without firing a goddam shot--and then it's on to the new world.
and even though said article makes its point not with inflammatory rhetoric but with logic, demographic statistics and (believe it or not) sardonic wit, it was labeled "hate speech" in canada, and its publishers were hauled into court for daring to say such mean things about the poor defenseless radical-islamicists. the trial is playing itself out as we speak (which is why it came to my attention today).
there are two seemingly disparate issues in play here: first, the notion that viral islam might pose a threat to our vaunted way of life; and second, the notion that it might be criminal to even posit such a theory in a public forum in a western country.
and it's the second notion that scares me more--because if we in the west really buy into that, then if the first notion is also true (and i have no doubt it is), we have no chance against an ideology which not only has more people and more passion, but is burdened by no such morally-relativist qualms about good and evil.
and i know we're talking about a country whose free-speech laws are very different than our own, but there's a growing movement afoot here in our own country to similarly emasculate the first amendment of our constitution--you know, that troublesome little provision that gives any asshole in america, within certain limits, the leeway to express him/herself in pretty much any thoughtless, dumbass way he/she so chooses (a right pretty much unique in western civilization, btw).
and the reason i know the sentiment to change this status quo is running high is because i read your blogs, folks.
i read all you well-meaning right-wing bloggers who are ready to make flag-burning unconstitutional, and i read all you well-meaning left-wing bloggers who are ready to make yelling "nigger" in a crowded theater unconstitutional, and i scoff at you equally. at the same time, i see all the impassioned commenters you have rallying to your respective causes--and i look at the various polls regarding free-speech issues in america--and i fear for my country.
please, folks, i urge you to read the article--and then the article about the article. each are--for totally different reasons--compelling and scary, and, no matter what you think you think about the two seemingly disparate issues raised in this post, do the assigned reading and i guarantee you'll get a new perspective. and i'll have lots more to say about this because it's a hot-button issue here in guttermoralityland.
[oh, and more bad sex soon--or whenever.]
there are two seemingly disparate issues in play here: first, the notion that viral islam might pose a threat to our vaunted way of life; and second, the notion that it might be criminal to even posit such a theory in a public forum in a western country.
and it's the second notion that scares me more--because if we in the west really buy into that, then if the first notion is also true (and i have no doubt it is), we have no chance against an ideology which not only has more people and more passion, but is burdened by no such morally-relativist qualms about good and evil.
and i know we're talking about a country whose free-speech laws are very different than our own, but there's a growing movement afoot here in our own country to similarly emasculate the first amendment of our constitution--you know, that troublesome little provision that gives any asshole in america, within certain limits, the leeway to express him/herself in pretty much any thoughtless, dumbass way he/she so chooses (a right pretty much unique in western civilization, btw).
and the reason i know the sentiment to change this status quo is running high is because i read your blogs, folks.
i read all you well-meaning right-wing bloggers who are ready to make flag-burning unconstitutional, and i read all you well-meaning left-wing bloggers who are ready to make yelling "nigger" in a crowded theater unconstitutional, and i scoff at you equally. at the same time, i see all the impassioned commenters you have rallying to your respective causes--and i look at the various polls regarding free-speech issues in america--and i fear for my country.
please, folks, i urge you to read the article--and then the article about the article. each are--for totally different reasons--compelling and scary, and, no matter what you think you think about the two seemingly disparate issues raised in this post, do the assigned reading and i guarantee you'll get a new perspective. and i'll have lots more to say about this because it's a hot-button issue here in guttermoralityland.
[oh, and more bad sex soon--or whenever.]
8 comments:
OK.
I get your point.
Having been an absolutist on free speech for so long, I agree.
Right now in Los Angeles, there is a trial going on to judge whether some material is obscene or not. Basically, these are videos/movies depicting people urinating on each other and sex with animals.
They had the jury watch hours of this stuff.
The distributor is contending it has artistic value -- shocking you with disturbing images. From what I heard, it is quite disturbing.
Anyway, the trial is off today because the Los Angeles Times reported that the judge, Alex Kozinski, had pornographic video on his personal web site. In his defense, he did not think these images were viewable by the general public. Kozinski, by the way, is a chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, a very powerful position and he just happens to be sitting by special designation for this trial.
So, guttermorality, there is much more here to it than just hate speech or civility codes.
What say you on this one? Let the people have their sexual charged peeing videos or not? Sex with animals porn or not?
rob: yeah, i heard about this case the other day (john & ken were all over it, naturally).
as regards the obscenity issue in general, i'm not a fan of censorship--and besides, i think the horse has so long ago left the barn that it's a little late to try to lock that particular door now; you can find stuff like this all over the internet without even trying too hard.
and as for this particular case, why they're going after a guy who, from what i understand, restricted access to his material fairly drastically (by today's standards, anyway) i'll never know.
as far as the judge is concerned, i think instant karma's gonna get him.
of course, discussions such as this will be moot in a few years once the muslims take over and clean up this sordid mess once and for all.
Well, the irony of the Canadian trial is that it is something you would expect from a Muslim country as a sort of show trial concerning a magazine accused of defaming Islam.
Free speech is a rather daring concept in most Muslim countries.
Given how much hate speech flows out of some imams--death to Jews, homosexuals, women without veils, etc.--I think it'd be amusing if Canada tried prosecuting them under its hate speech laws. It won't happen because Canadians, whose armies in World War I killed proportionately more Germans with fewer casualties than any other Allied nation, have been emasculating themselves for decades. The farcical human rights tribunal won't pick on a group that might fight back physically.
rob & hubbard: far as i'm concerned, this trial is emblematic of a much bigger picture--the oh-so-civilized west bending over backwards to accommodate the sensibilities of an implacable enemy who views such accommodation not with the hoped-for conciliatory appreciation, but as nothing other than what it is: weakness.
and each successive accommodation does nothing but strengthen their contempt for our soft, corrupted decadence and embolden them to push for more.
this is pretty much how rome fell, and this is how we'll fall.
Mark Steyn is brilliant.
That said, I completely agree with your last statements, Mike.
Oh, and I'm back from the land of free sin and debauchery. I was sinful or debauched.
In other words, the trip sucked--but I met *the* gayest gay man ever, and he laughed when I said it to him. He was so gay he didn't know what a labia was (we were discussing piercings).
How come The Savage One hasn't weighed in on this topic yet?
welcome home, judibabie
two things:
1. i would've suggested spending less time on the fags and more on the groomsmen; and
2. why are you so sure he hasn't?
1. the groomsmen were both married, and the only one i would have been interested has a pregnant wife at home in NY
2. has he changed his name and I don't know it?
and that should have read that I WAS NOT sinful or debauched, although I got ass-raped on drink prices in South Beach.
Post a Comment