Wednesday, February 09, 2005
free speech - or is it ?
“we have met the enemy, and he is us”
could standing up for free speech devalue all speech ?
here and there the last couple weeks there are news pieces on the colorado professor's right to state his opinion, no matter how odious. his job is protected by tenure rules - so far.
well, first, i object to the fact that any sort of tenure is required to protect a person's job for making any statement. there's a problem right there.
but on the flip side, statements by “supporters” condemning the content of his statements, yet purporting to support his right to say them, only reinforces the fallacy that “everyone has a right to his opinions” and “all opinions are of equal worth”.
bullshit.
of course, that kind of “support” implicitly says exactly what i'm saying - they are still making it clear that a judgement as to value is necessary. most people - sheeple - seem to miss that critical point.
but i've seen this often flipped around, where some people dismiss issues at will by declaring that it's “just an opinion”, while attempting to deflect objections to that insult by the condescending “and everyone has a right to theirs”.
speech is not free, not in the practical sense. it comes at great personal and societal cost, in some cases. and in others, it is so cheap as to be meangless drivel. but never free.
there is a misunderstanding of “freedom” as “unrestricted”, i think. there is no such thing as a constraint-free existence, nor would such a thing be comprehensible. “cost” is a useful way of expressing that.
and one cost of freedom is the risk inherent in it. the risk of attack. the risk of ridicule. even the risk of success. freedom without risk is not freedom. i say “risk”, not “sacrifice”, especially sacrifice in the cause of reducing risk.
freedom is responsibility, not entitlement. freedom is only found in reality.
is there reality behind what this professor has to say ? sure. odious ? not a bit. controversial ? good. are we so arrogant as to believe that only the insane could take issue with the behavior of americans ? we are far from perfect. everyone is far from perfect. there are perfectly reasonable perspectives where, yes, americans are the villains. and perfectly reasonable perspectives that conclude that violence is the only answer. we do it all the time. why not others ?
but who likes to see their own position weakened ? or insulted ? no kidding. the cost of speech.
in fact, the most valuable speech is probably that which is offered in spite of the lack of freedom, not when blessed by it. the balls to stand against the world, to scream into the wind, to risk all. anyone can be nice, maintain personal, social, political relationships.
is this professor right ? never mind that. why can only a professor be defended ? how free is speech if only the specially protected and cloistered can truly partake ? which is my point: the academics are seen as having earned their “right”. paid a price. the cost.
contradictions and paradox. which basically indicates a poor perspective on the issue, a formally badly posed question. clearly, it could use deciphering.
just wanted to toss some thoughts down before they dissipated. if it sounds like muddling, it's because i'm muddling.
follow up - free speech and blogging:
nasty shit. and yes, i had this on my mind while writing the above; in the periphery, at least.