Mark Steyn on free speech:
At 6:20, he describes investigations by Scotland Yard against a Muslim cleric for homophobia after the cleric denounced homosexuality, and a simultaneous investigation by Scotland Yard against a gay group for Islamaphobia after it accused Islam of being homophobic.
More about Steyn’s remarks here.
While his most egregious examples are from Britain, Canada and Australia, they serve as a cautionary tale. Despite the First Amendment, there are many ideologues on both the left and the right would like to stifle speech they view as “hurtful” or “offensive” here in the U.S.—which is why vigilant support for free speech remains so important.
7 Comments for “Free Speech vs. the Tolerance Enforcers”
posted by Tom on
The Commonwealth would be well served by constitutional protection of freedom of speech.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to Thomas Jefferson and the others who insisted, correctly, that free speech was the cornerstone of freedom. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the ACLU and other legal groups that fight in the trenches, defending extremely unpopular speech, to preserve that freedom.
Westboro Baptist’s speech (and particularly its locus) may be “distasteful and repugnant” to 99% of Americans, but I was heartened by the Synder decision, and by the fact that the decision was 8-1, with only Alito dissenting.
Styne’s train of thought goes back years and years, but I think that he (and others, including the religious right, who can’t seem to get it through their heads that speech, even when it is “hate” speech, is constitutionally protected in this country) mistakenly conflate (a) the Commonwealth’s lack of a tradition of robust free speech with our long, and constitutionally protected tradition of permitting — perhaps, insisting upon — robust free speech, and (b) legal suppression of speech with public “acceptability”.
Styne would be well served if he gave more thought to the issue.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm. Well. Yes, we do have protection in the US. I read the abstract of an interesting Supreme Court decision that came out this week about the First Amendment, about whether a public employee may be protected under the First Amendment from retaliation for filing a grievance or lawsuit against the his government employer on an issue of private concern. He can’t. But they discussed he is protected if he makes a “petition” on a matter of public concern. Yes, the Snyder language.
So what I took from that is if you have a gay boss or co-worker, you can proclaim Santorum for President.
I reluctantly agree with point b. I think that certain ideas have profoundly evil and destructive effects, and that a certain level of community leadership is required to address that. A generic free speech defense does not do that.
posted by Jorge on
So what I took from that is if you have a gay boss or co-worker
…and you’re a public employee.
posted by Tom on
I think that certain ideas have profoundly evil and destructive effects, and that a certain level of community leadership is required to address that. A generic free speech defense does not do that.
Well, Jorge, that’s the role of community pressure in the marketplace of ideas, not the role of government.
I don’t have a problem with people arguing that some speech has profoundly evil and destructive effects and denouncing them with clarity and vigor – I do so myself – but government suppression of speech is always unacceptable in my view, except in the most limited of cases (e.g. clear and present danger, incitement).
I think that it is very important for gays and lesbians to remember that the initial battle in our struggle for equality was a battle fought in the 1950’s for constitutional protection of our free speech, for reversal of government laws and regulations banning distribution of our publications.
posted by Matthew Grice on
His name is Mark Steyn, not Mark Styne.
posted by Houndentenor on
I can’t be the only person who is repulsed by the word “tolerance”. I don’t care to be tolerated. We all have the same rights and responsibilities. We all have the same first amendment rights. So long as there is no real harm (like libel or slander), people are free to say whatever they want. That does not mean, however, that people are free from criticism for their speech. Tracy Morgan is free to say despicable things. I am free to choose to turn off my television when he comes on. That is but one example. But I would agree that I don’t like the government enforcing what can and can’t be said. I think that creates more problems than it solves. It’s better to protect everyone’s freedoms.
posted by esurience on
Why would you want to make an argument about free speech in such a divisive way? Mark Steyn is only pretending to be arguing about free speech laws here, he’s actually arguing against anti-discrimination and hate crime laws here. We can have both of those *and* keep our free speech.
In his argument he calls certain groups “privileged” and yet one of the groups he considers privileged, gay people, is not actually considered equal before the law in many places. If conservatives wanted to actually defend free speech, perhaps they should stop their anti-gay pandering *while* making an argument for free speech. And perhaps they should stop sneaking in arguments against anti-discrimination and hate crime laws, both of which can exist in a society that protects free speech.