For John, BLUF: If you restrict speech someone may eventually come along to restrict yours.
At the Popehouse blog, "a group complaint about law, liberty, and leisure", there is [another] post on free speech and the First Amendment.
The story begins with Erik Loomis, an associate professor of history at the University of Rhode Island. Professor Loomis also blogs at Lawyers, Guns & Money and has — well, had — a twitter account.Here are two of Professor Loomis' tweets:Last Friday, as the unspeakable tragedy in Connecticut unfolded, Professor Loomis got upset. As described at Twitchy, he tweeted or retweeted violent rhetoric about the NRA, and then began to engage angrily with people who criticized his rhetoric:
First [person] to say the solution is for elementary school teachers to carry guns needs to get beaten to death.Professor Loomis is for gun control and strongly so. He is trying to convey that. I think Professor Loomis has this by the wrong end of the stick. In fact, I strongly disagree with his position. But, he has a right to express his views. He doesn't have a right to expect me to agree with him, or even listen to him.I was heartbroken in the first 20 mass murders. Now I want Wayne LaPierre's head on a stick.—
Some have reacted to Professor Loomis' exercise of free speech by contacting his boss. That is the wrong thing to do. It is bullying. The fact is, these are speech and not credible threats. Popehat blogger Ken summarizes the situation regarding those who are apoplectic about these tweets:
[I]f you think those tweets are criminal threats outside the scope of the First Amendment, then (1) you're ignorant, probably willfully so, of fundamental American civil rights, or (b) you're not too bright, or (c) you're blinded by partisanship, or (d) more than one of those.Our right to Free Speech is very important, almost sacred. We may not like the words used, but we should be prepared to stand up and support everyone's right to free speech.
UPDATE: I guess this is getting out of hand, given this post at The Other McCain, which was noted at the Althouse blog. There is some data on Professor Loomis' PhD dissertation, not that you would wish to know.
Regards — Cliff
I would only add....there is free speech...and there is civility. Quite often, the two are not synonymous. However, FREEDOM dictates that incivility must be protected as well...otherwise...we have crossed the line into dictatorial rule.
ReplyDeleteThat is a curious thing about being in a free society.....you must acknowledge a fellow citizen's right to be absolutely abhorrent in both word and deed. A good friend of mine who shall remain nameless observed that days ago...long ago....in the military we had "an officer and a gentleman." Today, we've become modern and now only have officers. Not sure I fully concur...there are a few left that qualify for both tags.....a few.......
The good professor’s right to free speech has not been abridged. He violated Twitter’s user agreement which is why they yanked his account but he is free to blog away or stand on a soapbox on top of Federal Hill in Providence and rave to his heart’s content.
ReplyDeleteBut when you bare your ass on a public forum in such an incendiary way the Constitution does not guarantee you will not suffer any consequences. Any utterance put forth on the intertubes is inviting global reaction. I would assume any individual capable of enduring the academic rigor the University of Rhode Island is renowned for (as evidenced in the disciplined rhetoric and debating skills of its faculty) would understand and accept this reality.
Now Professor Loomis is remunerated for his lofty scholastic acumen by the good hard-working taxpayers of Rhode Island. If they find his Twitter screeds offensive their only redress is to contact his supervisor to give voice to their concerns. This is also free speech.
Bullying is being over-used. Anytime someone is being challenged for the viewpoints they offer to the public and they don’t or can’t defend their position they claim they are being bullied. Senator-Elect Warren’s apologists did this when she was pressed for a cogent explanation as to why she checked the box. Prof. Loomis is not being bullied – he’s being challenged.
BRAVO Eric J.!!!!
ReplyDeleteBullying and racist(ism) are both way overused and terribly inflammatory in different ways that achieve the same end point. It is quite telling about the character of the responder when someone challenges his or her position, their response is something along the line of "you are an idiot" or, "what color is the sky in your world." Well...of course its always a good defense to be offensive, and most of the time, successful in that it changes the subject radically and quickly.
I will always defend a persons absolute right to be a complete boor, and to say things that are offensive and lack even basic civility. Small minds often resort to name calling in order to prevail. I am not saying that I won't respond, only that I defend someone's right to be a jerk.
What seems to be missing in this society in greater degrees with each passing day is an appreciation for what genuine freedom is all about. I have absolutely no respect for the act of abortion. I will however vigorously defend a person's right to the CHOICE of abortion or not. AND...I will just as vigorously and continually campaign to end that choice by convincing other to abhor the act. Beyond that, there is little I or anyone else can do.
We can make laws and rules, as in Twitter's user agreement, but all those tactics accomplish is to drive the "offense" into a different venue. Some folks are just bound to be different.....the way God makes folks.
I find focus group tested propaganda, parroted by well intended, but gullible compatriots, to be some of THE most offensive forms of speech in existence.
ReplyDeleteNews Corp, the Lobbyists and conjoined industries cash the checks, while we throw bombs at each other.
"Divided We Fall." Divided, They Profit, grotesquely.
Solidarity!