American Consulate Attack in Libya

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Martina

I am with Dreadgeek on this. I am a strong proponent of free speech, but I think that the Al Jazeera article is probably factually correct. I disagree with the author's intent -- that we (the U.S.) as outliers ought to move more toward the middle.

I'm actually rather concerned that in the US there is so much sympathy for the viewpoint that we should have laws that protect people from hearing things they might find offensive. I say that because as a minority of a minority of a minority the chances that I will say something offensive to *someone* in the majority is very high. If I write about atheism or, for that matter, evolutionary biology I will offend many religious people who would just as soon not have to be reminded that there are atheists. If I write about queer things then I am in danger of offending people for whom the very statement "I'm here, I'm queer, I refuse to apologize for either" is an attack on the very foundations of their most dearly held religious beliefs. If I write about racism, I'm in danger of offending the white majority. So operating *simply* from self-interest, I am opposed to almost all forms of censorship including the most subtle and insidious of them which is self-censorship.

If, one day, we should listen to the siren songs of censorship which will tell us that there will be peace, justice and harmony if only people can't say things which might give offense, we queer people will quickly find ourselves in an untenable position. Such laws--or social codes--will never be such that it would be the case that as a minority I can say "<insert slur against whites here> hate black people and live only to oppress us" but a white person couldn't say "<insert slur against blacks here> hate white people and live only to <insert anti-black stereotype here>". Never. Majorities simply don't do that to themselves. Rather, what would be more likely is that if I spoke out against racism I might quickly find myself in the dock. Why? Because, as the many threads about white privilege here amply demonstrate, whenever you start pointing out racism or privilege someone is going to get offended. Should *offense* be the touchstone we use to decide what goes to far or should it be something else? I would submit that it should be something *other* than offense.

Yes, I understand that other cultures look at the issue differently but my own reading of history leads me to not trust human beings in large groups and to hold majorities suspect. I fear not for the person who wants to praise Jesus loudly and long but for the person who does not believe in Jesus. I do not fear for the person who wants to wave the flag and shout USA! USA! at the top of their lungs. Rather, I fear for the person who wants to talk about the people who are 'faces at the bottom of the well'. They need free speech and they need to be able to speak out without fear of governmental retribution.

Speech that gives succor to the majority and those in power will never need protection, it is the minority report, the lonely voice, the voice of the outsider and the free thinker that need protection. All the protests at all the embassies in all the world doesn't change that.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

One other point I wanted to make. In his 2012 book, "You Can't Read This Book" British author Nick Cohen (a man with as sterling left-wing credentials as you can find in the West) takes the reader on a tour of how speech is constrained in the UK. Now, this might sound weird to Americans but one thing Cohen pilloried was that in the UK something can be prevented from being published by prior restraint. Let's say that someone wanted to publish a book about Rupert Murdoch or David Cameron or Tony Blair. Those men could set their pet lawyers loose upon the hapless author and her publisher and have them sued so that they couldn't publish their book even if every word in it was true and sourced to the heavens. Simply the fact that the subject of the book might be offended by it is enough for a UK court to shut down publication. Chilling? Yes, as a matter of fact, it *has* had a chilling effect and one effect of this is that the powerful in Britain need not worry overly much about articles or books coming out that put them in a bad light. This goes from MPs to the banks to Murdoch media octopus.

Censorship favors the powerful, not the powerless.

Cheers
Aj