FWIW, I think racism sucks. Not only is racism irrational, but it is — and was — the antithesis of the ideals on which the country was founded. (Hence the Civil War, the seeds of which were sown by the founding principles and the compromises thereof.)
Bad as racism is, I think that sooner or later it needs to be recognized for what it is.
A bad idea.
Bad ideas have plagued mankind since the beginning of history. We can argue against them, but in a free country, in a country with freedom of speech and freedom of expression, bad ideas — whether having them, entertaining them, or expressing them — are nonetheless legal.
Racism (absent actual violations of the law) is as legal as burning the flag. Having racist thoughts is as legal as drawing Muhammad cartoons.
The way certain academicians talk, though, you might get the idea that racism was as immoral as, say, pedophilia. And ought to be just as illegal.
But such thinking does not square with the First Amendment, does it?
Comments
34 responses to “If there is no right to be wrong, then there is no freedom.”
Sometimes it will serve you well to read the editorial that your article is quoting. A simple “CTRL +F” (if you choose not to read the editorial, as you have clearly demonstrated) would show the professor does not want to make racism illegal. You are simply throwing words in his mouth, and then building an idiotic strawman about the 1st amendment when the quoted academic did not delcare his intention to make racism illegal.
What he DOES want to do, is record racist actions by racists. Bring them out into the public and humiliate them and own up to their actions. I’m not sure if that’s the best solution, but I am sympathetic to it. Do you think SAE members chanting racist songs should not be exposed? Isn’t this professor calling for society to do the same thing you and Simon wish to do to cops? To expose them when behaving badly?
“We must document the significance of race and racism before we can address it. Make it routine to collect evidence that allows us to address it.”
fits very much in line with
“Bad as racism is, I think that sooner or later it needs to be recognized for what it is.”
He’s calling on the public to record instances of racism so that we can recognize it for how bad it is.
Your need to find enemies prevents from you from recognizing any chance of common ground with someone who’s ideology is different from you. And then you wonder why no one elects libertarians.
And btw, racism is pretty fucking immoral. I’m not sure why the comparison to pedaphilia is even made – they are two completely different things. Silly comparison.
Theag, from the Good Professor’s article in The Tennessean:
“The take-home message here applies to every person exposed to the disturbing videos, and text and emails showing the significance of race and racism. The issue is not about any white person’s heart or motivations or intent. Those things are hidden from sight. It’s about their actions—which let me remind you—speak louder than their words.”
I’ll take him at his word that “the issue is not about any white person’s heart or motivations or intent” and start the documentation process:
White folks was in caves while we were building empires…. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos ever got around to it.
Reverend Al Sharpton
That’s all Hymie wants to talk about is Israel. Every time you go to Hymietown that’s all they want to talk about.
Reverend Jesse Jackson
The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know (pause) there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.
Sen. Barack Obama
All black leaders are the same, AMIRITE? Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are THE ONLY BLACK LEADERS EVER. All black people are Al Sharpton!
Uncle ben carson is a tom not a sharpton as are the faux news toms. Rupert and roger open up their check books and their they are!
Racism is, at its core, lazy.
There are so many reasons to hate people it’s just lazy to focus on stuff they can’t help.
But Theag, I was just doing what you said to do:
“He’s calling on the public to record instances of racism so that we can recognize it for how bad it is.”
I’m a member of the public and I’m recording intances of racism so that we can recognize it for how bad it is.
I think it’s despicable that an Obama Administration advisor and frequent White House visitor (72 times, according to WaPo) is denigrating homosexuals and Greeks and white folks. And I’m just documenting it per the Good Professor’s wishes.
And aren’t you overlooking President Obama’s “typical white person” comment? Isn’t that racist? And shouldn’t it be thoroughly documented?
@Veeshir – that should be a truism someday.
I agree.
“If there is no right to be wrong, then there is no freedom.”
As to that – of course. But only if it’s opinion. If your “right to be wrong” includes initiating violence, I prefer you go the way of the Texas “jihadis”.
BTW – WHY was that security guard NOT ARMED?
CapitalistRoader
Here’s another one for the list!
http://popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/FullDickensPost.jpg
Threatening to kill people or urging others to kill is no more “free speech” than is a death request made to a hit man or a demand that a bank teller hand over money. It is not opinion, but conduct. I do not have a free speech right to threaten to kill people. But (sick as it may be) I have the right to opine that I wish they were dead, as well as rejoice in their deaths.
CapitalistRoader:
I will throw you a bone – Sharpton and Jackson are trash who have no business being anywhere near the Whitehouse.
To follow on that, I applaud your capacity to dig for racist comments from the 80s. These quotes have never been heard before, ever. Your investigative service is appreciated.
I find your persecution issues more worrisome than Obama’s comments. Lighten up.
Thanks Kathy.
I find there are too few people I can like to let stuff like race, creed or any of that stuff restrict the pool of potential friends.
@Theag:I find your persecution issues more worrisome than Obama’s comments. Lighten up.
That’s rich, considering the parochial, schoolmarmish nitpicking in your original post. You’re not used to defending your arguments, are you?
Pointing out that the professor was not calling for racism to be made illegal, contrary to the OPs assertion is nitpicking?
freedom to make choices is an illusion anyway. b.f.skinner
Veeshir,
Again, I agree.
Eric,
You are right – in a sense – I wasn’t actually talking about speech at all, but about actions. But too many people nowadays are confusing the two – burning down a city is free speech? NO.
The question is: when does free speech become incitement to violence? Was Hitler just a rabble-rouser free speech advocate while the SA & SS stormtroopers carrying out his pogrom were the real culprits? Were the people in the streets who egged them on only practicing free speech?
Mob law ruled in Berlin throughout the afternoon and evening and hordes of hooligans indulged in an orgy of destruction. I have seen several anti-Jewish outbreaks in Germany during the last five years, but never anything as nauseating as this. Racial hatred and hysteria seemed to have taken complete hold of otherwise decent people. I saw fashionably dressed women clapping their hands and screaming with glee, while respectable middle-class mothers held up their babies to see the “fun”
The reporter for The Daily Telegraph, Hugh Green’s account of Kristallnacht.
I reluctantly believe that there is a line crossed when hate speech becomes the tool of the provocateur and agitator. Yes, Pamela Geller has a 1st Amendment right to free speech. But she has also become a provocateur, which is what I think she intends.
Instapundit posts the following:
THE IGNORANCE, IT BURNS!: The New York Slimes Times editorializes about “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech.” Versus? Ugh. The progressive stupidity about free speech is actually getting dangerous. So-called “hate speech”–which is defined by progressives as speech they deem “hateful” (i.e., which disagrees with their worldview)–is fully protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court said in the Westboro Baptist Church case, Synder v. Phelps:
Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment , it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Indeed, “the point of all speech protection … is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”
Exactly. But the NYT editorial is just the tip of the progressive iceberg to roll back free speech. That’s what totalitarians do.
Posted by Elizabeth Price Foley
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/206436/#respond
Count me a Totalitarian then. The Supreme Court was wrong on this by opening the door to an avalanche of uncivilized behavior masquerading as free speech. Hey, how about we all show up naked after taking Viagra at the next city council meeting? After all, we’re only showing off our free speech protected opinion, right?
@Frank:
Was/is Piss Christ uncivilized behavior masquerading as free speech? The Death of Klinghoffer?
I guess what I’m asking, who is the ultimate judge of what is or isn’t uncivilized behavior? In the US, anyway.
The founding fathers figured it out. Congress shall pass no law restricting freedom of speech. Morons think it is to protect speech they agree with not speech they don’t.
Oddly, I find myself agreeing with the captain yet again. Such is life.
Bottom line: “Congress shall pass no law restricting freedom of speech.”
[…] As does Eric. And Eric is right. People should be allowed to be racists. But government should be color blind. And ours is not. At least when it comes to enforcing Prohibition. And funny enough – laws born from racism are enforced that way. […]
X2. Captain’s spot on.
Oddly, I find myself agreeing with TheAJ, especially this:
Your need to find enemies prevents from you from recognizing any chance of common ground with someone who’s ideology is different from you. And then you wonder why no one elects libertarians.
Libertarians:
Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone
“Libertarians:
Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone”
May it be so, someday. But, (and I may be an old curmudgeon) I’ve noticed too many humans who want to be Da Boss. AND, worse, even More others who want Someone to Tell Them What to DO.
I approve of the Libertarian ideal. I just think they are WAY too optimistic about the human race.
@Frank.
First, Elizabeth Foley is an idiot. This comes back around to exactly what I was saying about the OP – the Times is not calling for “hate speech” or be made illegal. Its a stupid strawman argument. The point being made is that the *act* is what is free, not the content. The content can be judge. The act is not up for debate and nobody is trying to take that away from her. But there is no freedom from criticism or even judgment.
Second, you are wrong. The Supreme Court’s job is to protect the act of free speech. The viagra thing is irrelevent – there are no federal laws against indecent behavior as you described. These laws are set by local communities and they have the right to set them as they please.
AJ, let me state my position on “free speech” and you can judge.
The Supreme Court has ruled that speech which directly leads to harm or violence such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, is prohibited. They have indeed set limits. So what is the difference if someone like say Jerry Falwell goes before a group of fundies and inflames them to murder? The position of the absolutest libertarian is that his free speech supersedes anything, that Falwell in no way is responsible no matter what he says, for the actions of others. Sounds reasonable on the surface.
But logic gets in the way. If yelling fire in a crowded theater leads people to panic and trample children to death, then surely Falwell should be held responsible for the violence that follows his inflammatory speech. In fact he should be held more responsible because demagogues like him incite to violence after thoughtful reflection and study, knowing full well that their most ardent followers will have a few crazies ready to be set off.
The Christian Right in this country is ripe for civil disobedience. They have stated so publicly in the past few weeks. When it happens, when the targets are assembled and taken out, their leaders will hide under the 1st Amendment, just as Pamela Geller is doing.
And on the left, you have allowed the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons, and many others in and out of academics, to bring this country to riots and racial unrest not seen since the 1960’s. They can say almost anything to incite knowing that they will never be called on it, by law.
The opinion piece you defend is a farce. What possible good will shedding light on hate speech do? What we need is for those people who purposely inflame mob violence to be held responsible, by law. They should be fined and jailed. Canada has it right.
Post Script, AJ.
I’m too old and not wealthy enough to emigrate to Canada. Had I known 40 years ago what I know now, I’d be out of here, and good riddance.
Frank – I get it. You trolled me. Congrats.
No, I didn’t troll you. I genuinely disagree with the libertarian position on free speech. That they might have something in common with your left of center views is fine. I’m all for finding compromise to achieve common goals and agree with your criticism of libertarians as individualists first and damn the common good. If I read you correctly. Perhaps I didn’t.
What I staked out is my personal, and I hope non-ideological view of free speech. Beside the fire in a theater example above, it should also be a matter of law to prohibit utterly gross, demeaning, and uncivilized acts performed in the name of free speech which in other circumstances, without the umbrella of the Constitution, would be judged totally unacceptable. Phelps and crew are able to circumvent harassment and stalking laws by claiming 1st Amendement right. Fuck them. They should be hauled off the jail.
I don’t know what to tell you. If Mohammed the imam tells Ahmed the terrorist to “go kill the infidel” he would be arrested, prosecuted and thrown in jail as well. If Fred Phelps tells Maude Phelps makes a speech and incites immediately someone to “go kill some faggots” he will be arrested, prosecuted and thrown in jail as well.
now if either of them say “fuck the infidel” or “fuck faggots” and then something happens later down the line, there is no way for this legal system to draw any connection for racial incitement or whatever. Legally there is no way to connect those two events and throw people in jail.
What more do you want?
I read that a lot, about how people, usually on the left, praise Canada and want to move there. Or Australia. Or New Zealand. Or one of the Scandinavian countries; Norway is probably the most popular.
One thing all those countries have in common: they’re all really, really white. Much whiter than the US. And, I must say, it’s probably very easy to pass hate speech laws in those countries, countries in which everyone—except for a few, coddled minorities—pretty much looks, talks, and thinks just the same.
Not so in the US with its very racially and ethnically diverse population. No, here in the US of A we’re used to ignoring racists idiots of all colors and going about our business. We don’t have any choice. We’re too diverse to ever have a governmental body decide what’s too offensive. Hate speech laws could never work here. On a governmental level, anyway. The only place they can possibly work are in smaller institutions, like universities, and then the result is the creation of close-minded, intolerant people who get offended at the drop of a hat and have to completely reorient themselves when they go out in the real world.
CR, not on the left, I have relatives who are Canadian. The reasons go way beyond what you call speech code, which is simply their effort to enforce decency and civility. It’s because I see this country breaking into waring factions. I would vote for Rand Paul but at this point wouldn’t be surprised if we had an “event” before the 2016 elections that brought about martial law. I believe it is that bad. The left is consolidating power and will not let it go easily.