There is now a controversy about “speech” and who can have it.
Joe Rogan had someone on a Spotify podcast who has degrees from respectable institutions, and a long career, but whose opinions are deemed wrongthink by many establishment figures. Mr. Rogan has been criticized for having the man on to voice his opinions. Fair enough.
Whoopi Goldberg from the View was suspended for saying the Holocaust, horrible as it was, was not racist, as Jews, according to Whoopi are not a race.
I have only watched a Rogan podcast once, and that was when he had an author of a book I was reviewing. The episode was informative, and he came off as a competent interviewer.
There has been no temptation to watch him again because even though I am singularly adept at wasting time, his shows are a bit long and there are other things to do.
I do not remember watching the view. I think they had Ron Paul on, the memory fades. Maybe something profound happens there, but who cares?
So, maybe Whoopi and Joe are truly disgusting or maybe not. They should not be canceled by soi disant progressives. Only the most naïve do not believe that canceling is about power.
Below, is my column on the question from the March, 2011 Sturbridge Times.
Free Speech Means Free Speech
“The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast; --all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make everyone at their ease and at home.”
Cardinal Newman
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
H.L. Mencken
The two quotes above illuminate a problem inherent in democratic society. When does civility, become totalitarian? The words of Newman tell a person how he or she can become part of the nobility without being born to the aristocracy. Mencken lets us know what happens in constricting the freedom for those who we don’t care about, or even despise.
It is a dilemma. Well, it isn’t really. The definition of a dilemma is a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives. One of the choices, civility is desirable. The other, in your face confrontation is jarring and disturbing, but someone has to be willing, on occasion, to be the skunk at the lawn party.
So what’s the point? In the state of Arizona, a young man opened fire on a gathering of Representative Gabriel Giffords’ "Congress on Your Corner" event. The bullets were hardly out of Jared Loughner’s gun before comments were out of people’s mouths.
First out of the box was Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, the man in charge of investigating the tragedy. Your man hit out at the "irresponsible" political rhetoric of conservatives. Why if commentators of the right had only shown love, the tragedy would never have happened. If only Limbaugh had a “hugs not drugs” bumper sticker. If only?
Not far behind was economist Paul Krugman. Little more than a couple of hours after the shooting, Professor Paul wrote, "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. " Of course he jumped to a conclusion and he was not suggesting that blame not be assigned. Krugman is an economist and won the Nobel Prize for it. That should not impress. It is said that the great writer of satirical songs, Tom Lehrer gave up because when Henry Kissinger won a Nobel, satire became obsolete.
I think that obtains here. It turned out that the shooter, Mr. Loughner, was a garden-variety nutter. He did make ideological comments, but they were all over the place.
For some, that did not matter. It seems that Sarah Palin had a map of congressional districts that had supported the health care bill. The office holders who had voted for the legislation were targeted in the crosshairs of what appeared to be gun sights. I’m not sure why her opponents felt the need to bring this up other than Congresswoman Giffords was in one of the targets. Was the implication that young Mr. Loughner was some kind of Manchurian candidate set off by a secret signal?
Sarah is no shrinking violet, and came out swinging herself. Well, not exactly. She gently spoke a stream of platitudes. Obscure before the last presidential election, she has learned how to kiss the camera. There would have been nothing noteworthy in her speech except she used the term, “blood libel,” to describe the actions of those who attacked her. That is a term others claim and she was pilloried for using it. Unfortunately, it was out of the bag.
Congressman Steve Cohen used blood libel to describe anyone who suggested that the health care bill was anything but good old laissez faire. So what will we see now, controversy on any issue condemned as “blood libel?" Now I’ve had it. The Long Hill Stile Buk for Gud Riting will have an entry for phrases that have become hackneyed and are thus verboten. First on the list is the above-mentioned “blood libel.” Other candidates, “just sayin,“ “it is what it is,” “teachable moment,” “saying truth to power.” There are so many examples. Who knew? Okay, add, “who knew.” We have to think outside the box.
There is always a foreigner who will be happy to tell us what’s wrong with America. No one’s opinion should be dismissed out of hand, especially if they are right. We Americans love the Brits, if only because they have better accents. Well one of them decided to take the time to set us right after Tucson. Simon Jenkins is an Oxford graduate and has been knighted. Also, he has a sinecure with the BBC. In an article for Britain’s Guardian, he came to the conclusion that “Free speech cannot exist without chains.” All that education and he does not get his own contradiction. Oh, don’t be impressed by that knighthood. After all, there is a “Sir Bono.”
Free speech is messy, and often obnoxious. There are better ways. Certainly, it would be nicer to say, “My opponent has not always displayed absolute fidelity to the truth,” than “He is a lying snake.” Still, sometimes you just have to call the snake a snake.
The call to civility is little more than an attempt to control speech under the guise of niceness. When Orwell’s 1984 arrives in this country, we won’t have the “Two-minute hate.” Rather the daily event will be the “Two-minute love.” It will really be the same thing.
Relevant interview: