We're Dune-ed

“When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

The above quote is from the science fiction author Frank Herbert, who penned the classic Dune. It was first brought to my attention by my eldest son. There is much truth to it.

At the risk of kicking up the sand, although as I've said before (in intent if nothing else) I see no reason to allow a chance of controversy to get in the way of my blog, the quote is an on spot indictment of the modern American Progressive. I mean it.

Do you think it not so? Well, consider this: years ago when I would decry the reprehensible or gratuitous content of music or television programs I would be told by my liberal friends something like: 'Just turn off the radio' or 'Change the channel'. If you don't like it, don't listen to or watch it. Why was I told this? So that I would not suppress freedom of expression. Because it would be wrong, obviously, to keep anyone from expressing something in any way or manner they deemed fit for themselves. Didn't I, after all, believe in Freedom? To that challenge I reply with one name.

Dave Chappelle. 

Why, my dear progressive comrades, can he not be afforded the same freedom of expression, the same platform as the depraved scripts and tunes of yesteryear? Why can you not simply change the channel? The only reason I can see is that because your ox is being gored this time around. The obvious conclusion is that the thoughts and actions with which you disagree can be questioned, denigrated, and denied a seat in the arena. Why is this?

Because the modern progressive doesn't really believe in freedom. It is merely a tool for their use when their side isn't carrying the day. Yet when it feels as though it is winning the culture wars, freedom is out the door. It's that simple.

I really think I must read more Dune. It makes me wonder what other gems Mr. Herbert has among his volumes.

Charlie Hebdo and hate crimes

Okay, we realize that we've railed a lot about the Charlie Hebdo lately, but then, hasn't most everyone? So we almost hate to write about it again today. So we won't: we'll write about an interesting tangent.

France has announced that it will crack down on 'hate crimes'. This means that, according to French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, '...reprehensible words or acts of hatred or contempt made because of religious affiliation must be fought with the utmost vigour,". What are we to make of that?

If we're supposed to identify with Charlie Hebdo on free speech grounds and freedom of speech is supposed to be absolute, how can the western world justify a condemnation of any words, even the reprehensible ones? Isn't that why so many people support Hebdo to begin with, that even though much of what they have said is reprehensible, they have a right to say it, print it, and yell it from the mountaintops? How is it that the French Justice Minister no less can call for a 'vigourous' prosecution of any speech under these or any given circumstances?

The fact is that the right to freedom of speech, just like any other right, is not absolute. There are legitimate parameters which can be placed against it: we recognize that in our laws against libel and slander, for example. Without that understanding, how can we condemn hateful speech? Isn't that what Charlie Hebdo was itself practicing?

What we have here is a prime example of how the West has lost its moral grounding. When we preach that there are no boundaries to personal behavior, at least within supposedly and wholly personal matters, we ignore that it's a hop, skip, and jump towards someone saying: Well, if it's all about me and what I want, why should I care about what anyone else thinks or does? I'll say what I want...and perhaps do worse.

We are no longer shocked at extremism of any kind. It feeds quite naturally upon the moral confusion which the West, especially Europe, has foisted upon itself. When society tolerates disgusting things such as Charlie Hebdo, you're going to bring all the extremists out of the woodwork.

Charlie Hebdo and responsible speech

Personal responsibility is important; that goes almost without saying, as it is really a truism of the finest sort. But does personal responsibility mean more than responsibility for one's self? Perhaps the Charlie Hebdo incident can offer us enlightenment on the question.

Ahmed Merabet, A French Muslim police officer, was killed as a result of the attack on that satirical publication's offices. He was by all accounts simply doing his job, and was viciously murdered as he lay wounded on the ground. This part of the attack plays firmly into the matter, as we will see in a moment.

What is the principle right spoken of with regard to our friends at Charlie Hebdo? The right to freedom of speech and expression. This right is praised by the left and the libertarians, and even some conservatives we fear, seemingly without regard to whom and by how it may affect people. Basically, they are defending free speech without regard for what responsible speech may mean.

Charlie Hebdo routinely attacked not just Islam, but religion in general, with cartoons and remarks which can only be viewed by any civil society as rude if not downright vulgar. Indeed, the paper joked in ways which any rational standard of decency would label repulsive. The publication can only be seen as acting, or, perhaps better, wallowing, in its own brand of self righteous tyranny. As such, the question as we see it becomes, was Charlie Hebdo acting personally responsible for those around them? Did it ever consider how its actions might affect others? Did it ever ask whether the staffers had obligations towards others, either out of charity or respect?

This brings us back to Officer Merabet, one of the real true heroes of the attack. We are going to ask two questions about him. Did Charlie Hebdo have any responsibility towards him as a person? And, would he be alive today if the magazine had acted with the proper restraint we should expect of anyone seriously concerned with the betterment of society?

Please do not misinterpret this: Charlie Hebdo is not directly responsible for his murder nor the murders of anyone else, even of their own. We cannot stress that enough, although we guarantee that we will be accused of it and worse. Yet there are also other things which we cannot stress enough. One, there is a huge and significant difference between attacking Islam, the Jews, Christianity and what not, and merely criticizing or chiding those or any given creed. Two, our rights to speech and expression do not mean that we are not responsible for where our actions may even unintentionally lead. If we do not judge what our actions might mean towards others, then we use our rights poorly indeed.

We will go on record, for not the first time, and assert that it is senseless to speak of rights without speaking of responsibilities. Charlie Hebdo and its supporters seem only to recognize the first part of that statement as legitimate. It would do us well to remember that more than a dozen people are dead, at least indirectly, due to that attitude.

The Folly of the Anti-religious

Oh ye of little...lack of faith? How else might we address the latest trampling of religious free speech rights? It seems that an Ohio school district has voted to keep a portrait of Jesus on display despite a lawsuit seeking to have it removed. The ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation insist that it must go, as it promotes one religion. The District asserts that the portrait belongs to the student group which put it up, and as as such, is a reflection of their right to freedom of speech.

We've never understood the threat to anyone's core beliefs based on the display of symbols on public property. We don't pass mosques or temples on private property adorned with Islamic or Jewish symbols and immediately begin to question our Christianity. But we should, shouldn't we, if a simple symbol might shatter our beliefs? Quite frankly, if a religious symbol or icon in a public place should be such a threat to any given person's world view, then it should be a relatively equal threat anywhere. It makes more sense to be against all religious symbols displayed anywhere at any time than to be so vehemently opposed to them merely because they are on a school or courthouse wall.

To be fair, symbols can be very powerful things, particularly religious ones. That's why Christians like portraits of Christ in the first place. Ye even then the meaning sort of pre-dates the symbol; it's infused into the symbol based on beliefs already extant. Why should we thus expect that a non-Christian would automatically and inevitably become drawn towards the creed it represents, beyond his own free will to accept it? It simply doesn't wash. Symbols, though powerful, aren't catch all be alls. Few people become Chicago Cubs fans merely because of the cute little bear symbols the club at times might display.

Still, it will of course be argued that religious symbols on public property constitute an establishment of religion. Even taking that as a given, which we don't, but, for the sake of argument will this moment only, what does this matter say about freedom of speech and expression? Shouldn't we be able to openly express our sentiments on public grounds more so than anywhere else, if freedom of speech is to be truly prized? Especially when we consider that freedom of expression is so often covered by 0ur tax dollars, and in ways which vary from the merely insipid to the truly degrading, why can our tax dollars not support a simple portrait of Christ in a public school hallway?

So we have a clash of rights. The question then becomes: which is the more important right? Freedom of speech or the so called freedom from religion? All else being perhaps equal, it is better to support a positive right than a negative one. Our vote is for freedom of speech, even if causes someone to cower at an image of Jesus Christ.

True Free Speech

We Americans boast routinely about free speech, being so proud of the right that we put it smack at the top of the Bill of Rights. So, perhaps, it should be. But there are unfortunately degrees to which it must be seen negatively.

There are folks who opine that free speech means the right to say offensive things. They forget that there are two ways in which someone is offended: either when the listener is a fool, or when the speech in question is genuinely offensive.

No one has a moral right to voice offensive remarks solely for the sake of making offense; that is simply rudeness at best and insulting and vulgar at worst. To say that they have such a right under the guise of free speech is really only to hide irresponsible behavior behind a pretty face. As rights only grow from responsibilities, it is reasonable to argue that the right to speak freely comes from the obligation to speak truthfully, in the reasonable interests of ourselves and the general society, and considerately, so far as circumstances may allow.

Still, the only way to really stifle morally offensive speech is censorship, and the problem with censorship is that it is only good when good people are in charge. When bad people hold the reigns, then good and necessary free speech will be prohibited. It is a risk we cannot take.

In the end, though, no one has the right to say offensive things, but merely the practical option of expressing them freely. No one has the right to be wrong in the truest sense of the term, but only the free will to be in the wrong. Until we understand that, we really won't understand the importance of a well regulated freedom at all.

Rights must be viewed in their proper perspective. They are not, not a one of them, open ended and subject to mere personal interpretation. We may treat some select few of them as absolute, but only due to abject necessity. Actions which beg the true nature of free speech do not promote but instead denigrate the right. They make us less than we can be and less than we should be. We should be good and decent people.

Hecklers at Speeches

Does the First Amendment apply to hecklers? That is a question facing a group of students, administrators, and law enforcement officials at the University of California at Irvine. It springs from verbal barbs thrown last year towards Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren by a group of Muslim students while he spoke on campus. Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas is considering pressing charges against the group.

The first thing which must be said is that heckling is just plain rude. Further, if the only way to get your point across is by drowning out the other guy, then it must argued that your own point cannot be very compelling on its own merits. Yet these are not the real issue here. The real issue is whether free speech rights go that far.

They do not. Beyond the rather compelling irony involved in trying to defend freedom of speech by denying it to another, no one has the inherent right to say whatever they want whenever they want. There are times when simple courtesy demands that you sit down and shut up when someone else is talking, even or perhaps especially when you disagree with them. There are times when a genuine public safety question is at hand (the fire in a crowded theater scenario) and others where the right to free speech simply does not exist. The Constitution may well protect your right to express your opinions publicly, but I have every right to stifle that expression on my property.

The public university is not a place where that idea can be tossed aside lightly. What happens within its confines still essentially private, and as such the school has the right to censor certain activities and expressions inside its territory.

We are not arguing that the so-called Irvine 11 should face criminal penalty, as the University appears to have acted rationally in dealing with them. But we do say that true freedom of speech questions do not apply in the manner which their defenders are attempting to frame them. Freedom of Speech is simply not absolute.