Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The First Freedom
http://townhall.com/columnists/emmetttyrrell/2012/10/18/the_first_freedom ^ | October 18, 2012 | Emmett Tyrrell

Posted on 10/18/2012 3:52:32 AM PDT by Kaslin

I am grateful to George Washington University professor of Law, Jonathan Turley, for pointing out that a growing number of world leaders find the First Amendment's right of free speech to be an inconvenience. He cites, for instance, U. N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's warning that "when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected." Turley makes the valuable -- and if you think about it, obvious -- observation that free speech becomes intolerable not when it is used recklessly but when one person or a group of people object to its use, especially when they object violently.

Thus the Secretary General's neat formulation utterly collapses when, say, some heiress to Mother Teresa asseverates in public that "God is the source of all good." It is a harmless utterance, until some indignado, say, a venerable witch, gets wind of it and objects with hurt feelings or, more preferably, with violence by burning down Mother Teresa's chapel. Possibly this Mother Teresa happens to be influential worldwide and she has a whole string of chapels to burn down, possibly some are diplomatic installations. Free speech is difficult to limit. Without limiting it, it can be disagreed with. It can be ridiculed or it can be ignored. But as soon as we come up with some nice neat formulation for limiting it, a la Ban Ki-moon, along comes a mob of brutes and they put free speech to the test. Under the Ban Ki-moon formulation free speech gives way. In fact, it is extinguished.

That was the lesson from the eruption of violence around the globe to the idiotic YouTube masterpiece of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, "Innocence of Muslims." In America hardly anyone saw it. In the Arab world my guess only the makings of a small mob or two saw it. Yet it was used as a pretext for violent protest and thus for such lawyerly poppycock as was spewed by Ban Ki-moon. And there are others. Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia has said, "Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred." Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has delivered an equally muddled declaration on tolerance and free expression, arguing for the adoption of a U.N. resolution that would simultaneously guarantee "the right to practice one's religion freely and the right to express one's opinion without fear." Try enforcing that resolution in Benghazi, Madame Secretary of State.

Freedom of speech is being diminished, says Professor Turley, "not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony." I am not sure they are "well-intentioned." Rather I consider them the fatuous efforts of politicians intent on riding out the storm. They hope the enemies of freedom will be placated temporarily or at least until the politician retires. I am not so sure they will get their way. As Turley says, there are thousands of cuts. Eventually free expression could be extinguished.

He cites opposition to blasphemous speech, to hate speech, to discriminatory speech, and to deceitful speech. That accounts for a lot of "paper cuts." The aggrieved groups keep growing and the defenders of free speech keep fighting off ever more enemies. Now we have the opponents of unhealthy diets opposing commercial free speech. We have already disposed of tobacco advertising. Will chocolate be next?

It seems to me freedom of speech must be absolute. Let anyone say anything they please. Let Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, or whatever his name is, make any film he desires. We do not have to watch it. We can protest it. We can ridicule it. We can even ridicule his idiotic name, replete with its redundancy. Call it hate speech if you will. Call it discriminatory. Just let free expression reign. As for the mob that protests him, so long as they do not break the law, they too are free to utter whatever they want in public or in private. That is the way we should do it in America. It is, as we say, the land of the free. Keep the lawyers, the busybodies and the government away from the First Amendment. That is the American way.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: bankimoon; firstamendment; freedom; freespeech; sourcetitlenoturl; uselessnations

1 posted on 10/18/2012 3:52:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
a growing number of world leaders find the First Amendment's right of free speech to be an inconvenience...

Each and every one can kiss my ass.
2 posted on 10/18/2012 3:54:58 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

>>a growing number of world leaders find the First Amendment’s right of free speech to be an inconvenience

The consent of the governed is dangling by a thread...


3 posted on 10/18/2012 4:00:12 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Explain to me, again, why the UN shouldn't be bulldozed into the East River...

If we are nice, we could give all the thieves in the building advance notice.

4 posted on 10/18/2012 4:02:39 AM PDT by jonascord (Democrats are the people on the Left Side of the IQ Bell Curve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The more authority we dump on our governments to control “moral” issues to achieve national conformity, the closer we come to loosing our rights.


5 posted on 10/18/2012 4:05:00 AM PDT by vet7279
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

> General Ban Ki-moon’s warning that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”

This is the very reason that free speech and the right to humiliate need to be protected rights; without free speech you have tyranny.
Tyrants oppose free speech and the right to bear arms, because these are the means provided to the people to oust bad rulers and governments. A populace cannot rally against a bad government without free speech and they will fail without the right to bear arms to protect their free speech.


6 posted on 10/18/2012 5:02:57 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (Obama loved the poor so much, he created millions more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Good read, thanks!


7 posted on 10/18/2012 6:03:08 AM PDT by Wpin ("I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
A populace cannot rally against a bad government without free speech and they will fail without the right to bear arms to protect their free speech.

Well said BJack, well said.

FMCDH(BITS)

8 posted on 10/18/2012 7:35:02 AM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson