Replies

"The thing is, though, that as Americans we must be willing to defend the right of others to say and believe what they wish, even when they are spewing that which is most disagreeable.

It is possible to disavow an idea while still defending the right of (a jackass) to say it."

I would agree that Free Speech must be protected by the law of the land. However, I expect society at-large to operate on a reward-shun schema. Instead of the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright having a wealthy church with members as socially prominent as Oprah Winfrey, he should have long ago been shunned to the point of finding social acceptance among none but a handful of like minded sociopaths hiding out in some remote wilderness compound.

Some would frame the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright's dogma as patriotic dissent. Perhaps, his dogma would be socially protected and sanctified if his rhetoric did not color every reference to human beings with racial bigotry. I am not speaking of patriotic dissent here. I would posit that patriotic dissent is alive and well in every political party. There are lines in the sand, however, that encourage us to be socially responsible.

Racism is one of those lines drawn in the sand.

However, I expect society at-large to operate on a reward-shun schema. Instead of the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright having a wealthy church with members as socially prominent as Oprah Winfrey, he should have long ago been shunned to the point of finding social acceptance among none but a handful of like minded sociopaths hiding out in some remote wilderness compound.

OK.

AFAIC, you're welcome here. You are speaking a common language, logic.

Allegra, do you think we should get this poster some socks?
I have an extra pair.

I expect society at-large to operate on a reward-shun schema.

he should have long ago been shunned to the point of finding social acceptance among none but a handful of like minded sociopaths hiding out in some remote wilderness compound.

Those statements (actually this entire post) agree 100% with my viewpoint. Deviation from social norms should lead to society shunning the offender. Our problem is that the deviators are celebrated by the media and extremists rather than shunned in our society.

Never let government regulate individual behavior...this is a function properly served by society as a whole. The pendulum should swing the other way by and by.

I expect society at-large to operate on a reward-shun schema.

Agreed. No question.

I am not speaking of patriotic dissent here.

I understand, but think about it: All dissent must be allowed. That is the nature of free speech. Short of the whole "fire in a movie theater" thing, we must be prepared to defend the right of everyone to say anything. You have the key to the whole thing with the shun comment above.

There are lines in the sand, however, that encourage us to be socially responsible.

"A line in the sand" implies government intervention. But WE are the government, and the government should have no comment (or law or policy) on what is political, what is patriotic, or what is appropriate speech. It's the only way it can work. There is no law against using the N-word (well, maybe it falls under some hate speech law), but anyone who uses it now is shunned by a huge portion our society. (I almost typed it in here, but couldn't bring myself to actually use the offensive word.)

Rev. Wright's congregation did not shun him because he convinced them they are victims. Being a victim breeds the hope and eventually the expectation of a payback or a reparation. The congregation was led to believe they are going to get something. Money, unearned status, revenge, whatever. From whom? From the government, of course.

When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you always have the support of Paul.