For spotting a free speech poster on Capitol Hill with this message:
No individual, nation, or religion has the right to tell another what to say or what not to say, what songs to sing or what songs not to sing, what images to display or what images not to display.
The statement illustrates, as you may have guessed, one of the more controversial Danish cartoons showing Muhammad. It is good to see support for freedom of speech, whether it comes from the right or from the left.
And kudos, of course, to the anonymous person who put up the posters.
Posted by Jim Miller at February 07, 2006 04:24 PM | Email ThisToo bad Franz had such a lame owner!
See she isn't fit to have a dog! She can't take care of a dog let alone the State of Washington!!!
And I don't think anti-war posters, or lefty ones in general, would have much of a half-life in, say, Bremerton or Spokane.
Posted by: Dan Savage on February 7, 2006 05:13 PMLet's carefully parse this statement. An accurate redaction with emphases would produce the following indefensible proposition:
"NO individual... has the RIGHT to TELL another [INDIVIDUAL]... what to say or not to say..."
1. Any individual has the RIGHT to TELL another individual what to say... and that other individual has every right to tell the first to take a flying leap.
2. An individual does not have the RIGHT to threaten violence, in reaction to what another person says or does not say.
But freedom of speech allows for criticism, thus protests of all kinds are legitimate exercise of free speech. They even have the right, while exercising free speech, to demand censorship: but the rest of us don't have to obey or heed this call.
"No... nation... has the right to tell another what to say or what not to say..."
3. Certainly the courts have specified realistic limits on free speech: you can be sued for publishing lies and secrets... arrested for threats, but do they have a right to tell another nation what to say? Well, diplomats make those requests all the time, via appeals to self-interest. They have little power to make demands but even that is within their "rights," again it is when they MAKE THREATS that they do not have a right.
I understand the spirit behind the poster: the intent is to tell Islamofascists that they have no right to expect unconstitutional abridgement of individual and press liberties... but the verbiage negates the right to make the demand-- which is in itself a denial of free speech!! Certainly the violent protestors are wrong, and I may disagree with even the peaceful protestors, however this poster is saying that they have no right to express anger, offense, or criticism.
It's a logical error to claim that criticism of another's speech is denial of rights.
Posted by: Brian Crouch on February 7, 2006 05:18 PMI was all ready to compliment savage regarding the publishing of this poster on his site, when I encountered this: "I think ripping down a poster is a form of speech."
Cool.
And I think bashing queers is a form of speech, too. Just not a very intelligent one. Couple that with the pre-emptive liberal projectionist notion that leftist drivel posted in presumably sane territory would be in high jeopardy.
I know that you try to aspire to some sort of trendy affectation with your writing, but all to often you just come off as stupid...
Posted by: alphabet soup on February 7, 2006 06:25 PMThe left would rather sit down and try to negotiate with them and they along with the ACLU (American Criminal Liars Union), which would be a waste of time, because they lie worse than the leftwingnuts. They would like to give them the same civil liberties as citizens and try them by jury - sometimes I wonder who's side they are on in the War on Terrorism. Their actions show that they are not backing the US and trying to undermine our security - because Bush is President, which is a lame excuse and plain stupid and an endangerment to the rest of us.
Even if the cartoon was not smart and not PC, I hope the Denmark stands up for their freedom of speech and repudiates the demonstrations as the demonstrators are trying to intimidate their freedoms.
The more the Moslems demonstrate violently against this, the more they fulfill the "prophecy" conveyed in that cartoon.
And it would be "all TOO often you come off as stupid," not all "to" often. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Dan Savage on February 7, 2006 07:05 PMLet's not lose focus of the main issue here. There are a bunch of primitive animals that abuse women, kill people, and burn buildings over cartoons in Danish newspapers.
If a rabid raccoon jumped into your house, would you call an Liberal arts major-pacifist to reason with the animal, or would you call a gun-toting redneck like myself to deal with it?
"Human beings understand dignity, compassion, and respect... Predators understand strength" ~unknown~
Raccoons are cute unlike liberal arts major's they usually are ugly and ware them hippy clothes!
Posted by: dcat on February 7, 2006 08:32 PMAnd thanks, Dan, for posting this.
And many thanks to the anonymous poster.
With the Danish cartoons, Islamofacists want to behead people for doing it, and do not even acknowledge the liberty others have to create such cartoons even when it is on their own dime.
BIG DIFFERENCE, yes?
Posted by: Misty on February 7, 2006 10:48 PMWhat is more telling is that the explosive reaction to the publication of these cartoons by the "faithful" just reinforces the message that Islam is a "religion" for violent fanatics. For all the blather that our press puts out about how "most Muslims" don't feel this way, there is very little effort made on the part of this "majority" to counteract what the rest of the world is seeing right now. Only after international outcry have a few clerics decided maybe they should request that the lunatic fringe tone down their actions. So far not only has most of the civilized world seen the cartoons, but the reaction by the offended ones just reinforces the message in the cartoons and will hopefully encourage our allies to stand fast with us in the middle east.
Posted by: Burdabee on February 8, 2006 12:17 AMGood analysis.
I really doubt there is a "moderate" Islam. Islam is a counterfeit religion founded on ignorance, violence, fear and oppression. Islamofascist regimes kill and maim those who do not bow to their god, Allah, and his prophet, Muhammad. Moderates, if they exist, must keep silent or die.
In the U.S., one political party believes Islamofascism, whose followers are sworn to kill us, is our primary enemy. The other party believes George Bush is America's worst enemy. Which party's candidates do YOU support? And remember this when you vote, liberals, Islamofascists are sworn to kill you too!
I remember 9-11!!! I will never give in!
Posted by: dcat on February 8, 2006 06:46 AM"I think ripping down a poster is a form of speech."
That sounds as though you accept some forms of the "heckler's veto" -- which most free speech supporters would not. I see tearing down a poster as an attack on free speech, just as I see destroying free newspapers (which happens from time to time on college campuses) as an attack on free speech. Do you see the two as different?
And I would be interested to know where to know exactly where you do draw the line.
(For the record, I suppose that I should add that I consider both assault and defamation outside
the bounds of free speech.)
Jason:
Though I suspect this sort of thing is a subject of some of your fondest fantasies, I would not be inclined to "call a gun-toting redneck" under those circumstances. I'd hate to imagine the outcome, or the resulting mess.
It sounds little like you would equate these protesters with rabid racoons and would simply shoot them in situ. That strikes me as just about as intelligent as their actions that offend you so.
Surely we can do better than that.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 8, 2006 09:52 AMOH, we all have a right to tell others what to say and what not to say, and they have a right not to listen.
No individual, nation, or religion has the right to threaten violence while presuming authority to command another what to say or what not to say, what songs to sing or what songs not to sing, what images to display or what images not to display.... I would agree with it.
But the idea, proposed by the original poster, is that none have a right to respond to another's free expression, which is fallacious. I cannot 'amen' that idea.
Every individual, nation, or religion has the right to tell another what to say or what not to say, what songs to sing or what songs not to sing, what images to display or what images not to display. And the others have a right to laugh and ignore the demand.
I'm not defending the nuts who are bombing embassies over spilled ink, or the cretins threatening terror over the publication. I am saying that the poster's original formulation is inherently illogical and needs revision.
Posted by: Brian Crouch on February 8, 2006 11:12 AMI don't have a beef with my landlord, other than the fact that he doesn't want Republican signs, or Old Glory in MY apartment window.
My neighbors have a freaking RAINBOW flag dancing around OUT of their window, and I'm supposed to take mine down, while their's poses NO PROBLEM?
This isn't calculus here Unkl Witz!
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on February 8, 2006 11:34 AMOh, and nice job plugging your own blog with the link.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 8, 2006 01:40 PMUmmm, Patrick... it's not YOUR apartment, you just rent the place. Your landlord owns it. And unless it's spelled out in your renter's contract, he has no obligation to allow his building to be used to express speech he may or may not agree with.
Sorry, I've been in the same situation as you, so "I feel your pain", but private property is private property, and you can't force him to use his property to express speech he doesn't agree with.
Posted by: Mike H on February 8, 2006 01:58 PM