The Bipartisan War on Free Speech: the Loss of Liberty is the Price of Freedom

In response to almost any given event, the immediate reaction of Democratic and Republican party leaders is to stage an attack on fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.  Radical Florida evangelical pastor Terry Jones provides us with a case in point.  In March, Jones and his followers held a mock trial in which the Koran was accused of promoting violence and found guilty.  The book was then consigned to the flames.  Apparently determined to prove Jones right, Islamic radicals in Afghanistan waged violent protests in response to the action, leading to multiple acts of arson and the murder of more than twenty people, among them a number of United Nations workers.  Today, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid and Republican Sen. Linsey Graham took to the Sunday talk shows and announced that they would be "looking into" the matter to "push back" against the free exercise of free speech.  Transcript via Althouse:
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you introduced a resolution to condemn this by the Congress... or where do you go from here?
SENATOR HARRY REID: We’ll-- we’ll take a look at this, of course. John Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has been on top of this. He’s made many trips to Afghanistan. And I think we’ll take a look at this as to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.
          Later in the show, Lindsey Graham opines on the same issue:
BOB SCHIEFFER: I want to get to this Afghanistan thing.  General Petraeus today condemned the actions of this Florida preacher, who burned the Koran.  You heard what Senator Reid said . . . Is there anything that actually can be done along this line?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: You know I wish we could find some way to-- to-- to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So burning a Koran is a terrible thing. But it doesn’t justify killing someone. Burning a bible would be a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify murder. But having said that, any time we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk we ought to do it. So I look forward to working with Senator Kerry and Reid and others to condemn this, condemn violence all over the world based in the name of religion.  [Emphasis added.]
Allow me to repeat that: "Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war . . . any time we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk we ought to do it."  The so-called war on terror – including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – was sold to the American people in part as a means of expanding freedom and liberty abroad, but it has resulted in a dangerous erosion of respect for freedom and liberty at home on the ground that freedom and liberty at home endangers troops abroad.  The war on terror has become one of the primary reasons cited by Democratic and Republican lawmakers to justify their ongoing war on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they are not above instrumentalizing soldiers in the field to legitimize that war.   Freedom isn't free, as the slogan goes.  But for the Orwellian double-thinkers in the Democratic and Republican parties, the loss of liberty is the price of freedom.

Update: George Will provides a choice quote underscoring the "horror" of an elected official in St. Louis at the prospect of free speech.  Alderman Phyllis Young objects to a property owner's display of a sign denouncing eminent domain abuse:
St. Louis Alderman Phyllis Young is distressed that Roos’s speech might escape government control: “If this sign is allowed to remain, then anyone with property along any thoroughfare can paint signs indicating the opinion or current matter relevant to the owner to influence passersby with no control by any City agency. The precedent should not be allowed.”

11 comments:

TiradeFaction said...

Bi partisanship is often when two mob bosses come and cooperate on fucking you over...

But this reminds me of numerous bi partisan attempts to limit the Westboro Baptist Church's freedom of speech exercises. Clearly neither party seems very committed to one of the cornerstones of our constitution....

Also, what the hell were Muslims doing protesting in *Afghanistan* over this issue? Did Terry Jones all of a sudden become a Nepalese UN worker?

Samuel Wilson said...

The Founders believed in freedom of speech, but a lot of them also believed in dueling. Words and expressions had consequences back then. Our American commitment to freedom is really a concern with immunity from consequences. The question is whether that's really accomplished much beyond empowering assholes. The mobs in Afghanistan are savages but so is Jones. We don't need to make laws against his idiocy, but I'll shed no tears if a mujahid catches him someday.

TiradeFaction said...

Sure, the dude's a total fuckhole, but I think there's a very big difference between burning a book, and going out and killing people who had nothing to do with said book burning. If anything, they just proved Jones right. (On this issue at least)

d.eris said...

I agree that there's no comparison between burning a book and arson/murder, but it seems like there were a lot of exaggerations on the Afghan side, not to mention the war itself. Don't mention the war! ;-)

And maybe there's not much of a comparison between dueling and mob violence either. I would not object if the Christian Jones and his Islamic analogues agreed to a duel. And it would be interesting to see how a Jones would react to a public call for a duel from Afghanistan.

Assholes seem to be empowered on both sides. My problem is that recognizing the right not to be offended by the speech of another, as implied by the offended and those who defend them in this case, is the end of free speech, since there are so many people like Jones and his ilk, who make a living off of being offended.

Samuel Wilson said...

I don't recognize a right not to be offended, but I question the implicit assumption that Jones should not be called to account by anyone for his self-indulgent antics. Everyone would agree that the Afghans should change their ways, but why shouldn't Jones change his?

TiradeFaction said...

That's a bit of a dangerous line of thought. Are you suggesting Jones should be held culpable for the actions of people in Afghanistan? Let's draw an example. Say I get into a heated argument with someone else, say my brother, I was a total asshole, and in rage, he goes out and shoots his neighbor in the face. Should I be held culpable for that action?

d.eris said...

I think it is true that Jones has moral/political responsibility for the provocation, since that was his act and intention, but I don't think he can be held accountable for crimes committed by others reacting to his deed. If Afghan protesters had simply gone out and burned a truckload of bibles in response, that would have been fine. (btw, a lot of people talking about this topic make a point of stating that they are against the burning of holy books. The burning of holy books does not actually bother me very much. Or at least, in my book, the burning of holy books is no more offensive than the burning of any book.)

I've also seen a report or two in which it was stated that the Taliban were using the protests as a kind of shield from which to launch attacks they had in the works anyway, ex. at the UN compound. Also a number of people have been killed by riot police during the protests.

But the point I wanted to bring up in the post is the ease with which Democratic and Republican Senators are willing to allow mobs in Afghanistan to dictate the limitations of free speech in the US. And I do not like the fact that the president, Senators and military commanders have taken to the airwaves and broadbands to denounce the speech/acts of an individual American. What's next? Will Obama declare Jones an enemy combatant and have him kidnapped and assassinated to placate the bloodlust of foreign populations?

I have a better solution to this problem: end the war in Afghanistan.

Samuel Wilson said...

TF, this issue is unanalogizable. Jones did a specific thing that guarantees a certain response, and I'm not sure he didn't expect or look forward to such a response.

d., I like your better solution, of course.

TiradeFaction said...

And what certain response is this?

I agree with d.eris solution just fine as well :)

d.eris said...

I don't think a violent, murderous, response to a mock trial and symbolic punishment is guaranteed or certain. If anyone is responsible for inciting the riots in this case, it is none other than Hamid Karzai and other assorted Afghan Islamic ideologues who explicitly fanned the flames on the issue for days leading up to the protests.

Samuel Wilson said...

In the world we currently live in the consequences of Jones's stunt are actually fairly predictable. If I seem unreasonable or intolerant on this issue, it may be because I worry that absolute immunity for assholes will result in assholes dominating the discourse -- or am I worrying too late about that? I'll agree that it's Karzai's fault that Jones has his sixteenth minute of fame and that innocent people are dead, but I simply can't absolve Jones of blame as completely as you might like. Since I can't do anything about my feeling I may as well let the matter drop.

 
http://www.wikio.com