I think Cathy Young gets it right.
…on freedom of speech, hypocrisy and double standards are rampant across the political spectrum…
While it is true that most of what people defend fervently as “free speech” is precisely that (meaning speech that is protected by the First Amendment), in practice whether it is defended depends on whether the defenders happen to agree with what is said. Similarly, people who demand censorship almost always seek to suppress statements and opinions with which they disagree.
So, if some TV star is fired for issuing an anti-gay rant, his free speech rights will be defended most vociferously by those who agree with him. Unfortunately, those who disagree with him will generally look the other way. If, OTOH, a TV star were to issue an anti-black or anti-Jewish rant, he would have few if any defenders, and they would be from the lunatic fringe.
Yet the First Amendment issue is the same. We have the right to be anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Jewish, anti-adultery, you name it, and say so. And of course private companies can fire whomever they want for having opinions they do not like without violating the First Amendment.
Why is it that concerns about “free speech” depend on the popularity of the speech involved?
Comments
6 responses to “Does “free speech” just come down to a popularity contest?”
We see the same on other issues:
Arguing prohibition with conservatives is like arguing economics with liberals. At least that has been my experience.
Let me say this about that.
Liberals argue PERFECTLY (or nearly so) the economics of prohibition. Conservatives are generally unable to do so.
And then I ask liberals to apply that analysis to the rest of their program and they suddenly get stupid.
OTOH drugs make conservatives stupid.
The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm
======================
When it is a faith magical thinking abounds. Humans is hilarious.
http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=108997#p108997
[…] asks why there is a double standard from all sides when it comes to […]
I can’t say I feel any sympathy for A&E or Robertson over the brouhaha his statements have wrought.
A&E has spent the last few years turning the Duck Dynasty bunch of “God and Country” Southerners into “reality” TV stars. Did they think they were dealing with Ivy League progressives?
And as for Robertson, unless he’s been living in a cave for the last 40+ years, he can’t be dumb enough to think that the comments he made would pass without remark from those who disagree with his views on such a personal hot-button issue.
People like Robertson who see their world view as God ordained are certain they hold the moral high ground because of the religious foundations of their views. What they don’t understand is that more and more folks don’t automatically defer to the alleged moral high ground that religions and its adherents claim for itself.
One can look at history and see that dogmatic and unquestioning adherence to religious dogmas can lead to repression and abuse. Modern believers recognize these past moral failings, but they are confident that they themselves aren’t wrong like they religious forefathers were in the past. Given the historical pattern of religions having to finally accept many things that they initially rejected, I think modern believers exhibit a confidence in their current moral standing that isn’t warranted based on that history.
IOW, the religious never seem to learn the lesson that just because they believe in God, they aren’t necessarily morally right in their political and social views. This has been demonstrated countless times throughout history.
The Abrahamic religions don’t teach morality, they make moral proclamations. For the betterment of all, most of those ancient moral proclamations are rightly ignored here in the West, even by believers. If we had stayed true to the moral proclamations of the Abrahamic religions, we would be stoning people for all manner of things that aren’t even crimes. If you want a pretty good idea what it might have been like to live under the religious teachings of 2000-4000 years ago, look no further than fundamentalist Islamic nations. (As side note to you Saw fans, if you like torture porn, read the Old Testament.)
With that pleasant note, Happy Holidays to one and all.
@Randy
‘I can’t say I feel any sympathy for A&E or Robertson over the brouhaha his statements have wrought.’
Phil Robertson would not be seeking any sympathy and it is certain that reaction to his comments, including any by A & E, would cause him no concern. He says these same things while testifying frequently, just not to the GQ audience.
A & E’s action, otoh, is almost beyond understanding unless their executives already have a deep-seated agenda supportive of the gay activist cause or some other not public agenda. It makes no business sense.
Freedom isn’t free in fact it is most exspensive! Voltare “I disagree with every thing you say ;but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” Look at the vilification of the aclu for trying to let people exercise their first amendment rights! Pastor Neimoller when he got out of a concentration camp at world war 2’s end. “When they came for the communists I was not a communist so I said nothing! When they came for the homosexuals I was not a homosexual so I said nothing! When they came for the jews I was not a jew so I said nothing! When they came for the catholics I was not a catholic so I said nothing! When they came for me there was nobody left to say anything! Robertson is a bigot and since he was not fired by the government he takes his chances like everybody else. He is free to start his own show and say what he wants fox business channel should love to have him their ratings are so low! Ask phil donahue martin bisher keith oberman and mie malloy about freedom of speech!
The worst part is that now what’s allowed changes all the time and often depends on who’s talking.