Free Markets, Free People

Islamic violence brings out our domestic would-be oppressors

Eric Posner wants us to understand that we “value” freedom of speech much too much. Because, after all, the rest of the world doesn’t see it the way we do, and thus, one gathers from his article, we should become more like them.  In the title to his article he says we “overvalue” the right of freedom of speech. Here’s what the hoary whisper of oppression sounds like:

This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order. Our own history suggests that they might have a point.

He goes on to give examples of our history where government has been less than supportive of the right.

Notice what he values more than free speech?  Order.  I wish I had a dollar for every pop-gun totalitarian whose clarion call was for “order” over other rights.

You see one of the acknowledged problems with freedom is it’s messy.  That’s right, people get to make choices you don’t agree with and, even more importantly, get to act on them without your permission.

That’s just too “messy” for some, like Posner.  Instead we sh0uld voluntarily curtail our freedoms to placate mobs and murderers half a world away because they choose to become violent over something someone said.

Posner spends the rest of the article trying to defend his premise and sound reasonable.  Interestingly it devolves into a secondary attack on conservatives who apparently use this wretched overvalued freedom to oppose such wonderful and valuable things like  hate speech laws and political correctness.

Make no mistake about it, at bottom, this is an appeal for speech codes and legal remedy for speech those like Posner find to be “invaluable” for whatever reason – in this case “order”.

Putting this to the old libertarian test, i.e. “freedom = choice”, it flunks.  It limits or removes choice in the face of mob violence half a world away.  It gives in to people who chose to be violent.

Anyone with more than a day on this earth knows that such a move would only encourage more acting out by those mobs.  They sack an embassy, we clamp down on our own rights.  Any time they can dictate a limiting of our freedoms with their actions we essentially play right into their hand and they win.  For some reason, those like Posner can’t see the dark hand of al Qaeda and other violent radical Islamic gangs behind this.  And the first thing these cut-and-run cowards suggest we do is limit our freedoms to placate those who would willingly kill us if given the chance?

No thanks.

~McQ

Twitter: McQandO

Facebook: QandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

39 Responses to Islamic violence brings out our domestic would-be oppressors

  • “This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment.”
    Not quite… It is more accurate to say:
    This is that Americans need to learn that ruling classes in the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment.”
    You Americans somehow managed to let something as powerful and constraining of the ruling classes into your founding document that no other nation has been dumb enough to allow. Maybe your founding fathers were drunk at the time? ;)

  • Political speech is absolutely protected (contrast with pornography, which is not). Islam is a political system couched in a religion, for our purposes. I think that if their terrorists ever succeed in attacking a U.S. city with a WMD that someone has to pay for that, big time. Order dictates that it be so.

  • But Cap thinks I should stand with guys like this….
     
    The rest of the world thinks we place too much emphasis on women’s and gays rights. Let’s get the stonings and clutorectimonys underway!

    • “Let’s get the stonings and clutorectimonys underway”
      You aren’t questioning their religion are you?  If you are, they’re likely to get angry, and you wouldn’t want to make them angry, you wouldn’t like them when they get angry.
       
      Fortunately you probably don’t have an embassy handy for them to gather in front of.  However, you might want to beware of the Justice Department sending some deputies around to ask you some questions on a voluntary basis, inviting the press to take some photos and revealing your true identity.

      • I’m not sure what a “clutorectimony” is but I’m glad you got the point ;)

        • Anyone who knows of some of the practices can guess what you were referring to.   Chances are anyone who hasn’t heard of them isn’t reading here.  And the progressives who do read here view those things as unfortunate aberrations that will have to be tolerated in the name of political correctness until they can usher in the new world order (at which point the progressives will be led to open fields crisscrossed with shallow trenches and those who practice operations like ‘clutorectimony’ will show them how they can finally become one with Gaia)

        • It doesn’t really matter about the word they used. You are right about the point. They just like cutting off body parts. Any part will do.

          • But notice they are fond of cutting off that “naughty thingy” for women.
            I don’t see a big trend in them doing the same for the male “naughty thingy” for men…particularly their own…

          • Awww, they just do that to protect the women from themselves ya know, they’re just being helpful.  It’s always about being helpful…and making life good for men.  Is there any wonder they don’t like western ideals where women are people and have rights and silly stuff like that.

          • Of course not. They have an inordinate fondness for the male member. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

  • I kinda figure ol’ Eric Posner and his Collectivist buds really see this “Islamic” thing as an opportunity more than a threat.
    That ol’ totalitarian urge is strong, and free speech is very inconvenient.  Better to limit that, for the good of order.  Not just everyone should be blogging, for instance.

    • “Not just everyone should be blogging, for instance.”
       
      Hey, there’s this moose squeezer up in Maine….

  • What people don’t get is if you give an inch on speech, especially on the premise it might upset, or offend, you have opened the door to restricting any old speech others “just don’t like”.  To state what should be obvious speech and thought are tied (though in Joe Biden’s case, perhaps not).
     
    Some radical speech/ideas from our own past…Woman’s suffrage!  Free blacks, who (oh my God!) vote!   What kind of talk is that!
    There was a time when either one of those issues would have been useful for firing up and rousing a mob of people who “just don’t like” that kind of talk, who don’t like those ideas. Whip them up enough, you can get violence.  A mob is a mob.  Once you allow that offending, or angering, is enough reason to stop the spoken, and or written use of certain words or ideas you’ve allowed that any ideas, any words, any speech can be restricted.   The burden never seems to be placed on the mob that perpetrated the violence.  Somehow we’re supposed to understand I guess.   We have all those throwaway phrases to prove it “you know how they are”, “well, they were offended”,  “People shouldn’t be allowed to say things like that”.
     
    I understand.  And here’s what I understand.  We ALL were children at one point, and many of us ARE parents.  So, if this were parenting it would work like this.
    If a child throws a tantrum, anywhere continuous whine caliber up to a full fledged throwing themselves on the floor hitting fit.  Semi-justified, completely unjustified, irrelevant.  Give the child what it wants so there can be peace, and quiet (order….)
    Sound familiar?  Ever seen this in action on the aisle of a store, in a restaurant, across a parking lot?
    The only thing the child learns from this is how to manipulate and ultimately master their parents.
     
    Now apply that on a world scale, but remember, you’re not dealing with children.   Still, order, peace, quiet, that’s what we’re willing to exchange freedoms for.  It never changes.
     
     

  • I’m sure everyone else already has it figured out, but it really needs to be said time and time again whenever this kinda crap comes up: Posner wouldn’t be sounding off like this if it were HIS freedom of speech under suspicion. Remember all that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” stuff? Funny how those proclaiming that view through Bush 43’s run suddenly starting singing a different tune once Obama was sworn in. Brain dead, far left liberals only care about their own freedom of speech. If Christians advocated free speech restrictions in response to criticism of Christianity, Posner and the rest would be filled rage that “anyone would dare try to clamp down on freedom of speech.”

    • So now the left has openly shown how willing they are to throw away both 1st and 2nd ammendments. This can’t be overstated enough. But don’t worry….no matter what, no matter what codes they impose, no matter how many ammendments that they override – you will still be 100% free and clear to make all the fun you want of Christians, Jews, Mormons and Hindus. GUARANTEED.

      • We could start pushing the alternative – we start reacting violently.  Seems to work.  We just dress up like the heros from Occupy.   Look at them, they got to camp where you can’t camp, at times when you can’t camp, collected checks and food from supporters, shoot, Free Ben and Jerry’s ice cream even!  Sure, they didn’t burn an embassy, or kill anyone, but still, they were, in many ways, ‘violent’ to good order and see how that worked out.   We’re just not thinking on this the right way Shark.

    • Be it remembered that Crazy Nanny Pelosi has OPENLY called for the 1st Amendment to be amended.
      That would not end well.

  • It’s hard to resist.  You poke fun at the muslim religion and heads explode!Makes me want to poke it again – harder.  Maybe all their heads will explode?

  • These are the EXACT same assholes who go on endlessly about the McCarthy era and the danger it posed to free speech. The same damn hypocrites.

  • Hey, I see where big-ears is attending almost 100% of the Presidential Daily Briefings.  They’re proud of this now…
     
    So….Can someone tell me, am I just flucked up in thinking that a ‘Daily’ briefing for the ‘President’ is something that happens EVERY FLUCKING DAY, 365 days a year and that’s why someone gave it the name “Presidential Daily Briefing”.
     
    Can someone then tell me why “The President”, presumably the person for whom the DAILY briefing is prepared isn’t attending 100% of the flucking things?  Or should I think of this like that philosophical question “if a tree falls in the forest…” only now it’s “If the President’s doesn’t attend his daily briefing, do they have one anyway?”
     
    Or are we kinda caught up in this whole NFL ref thingy?

  • http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/ahmadinejad-and-louis-farrakhan-host-a-meeting-in-nyc-photo/

    Oh, and American “peace activists” met with ACH!mydinnerjacket, too.

    Where are those drones when you have a target-rich environment like that…???

  • You’re right. Many non-Westerns and non-Americans do not believe in our form of free speech. They only want free speech when it fits their agenda, but when it doesn’t fit their socialist-Utopian schemes they kick it out the back door of a moving truck.
    I’ve talked to several Muslims who live in the Middle East and North Africa over the past few weeks and they all say the same thing. . . freedom is over rated.
    Then again you could say that it’s hard for a child to picture the beach when they’ve been playing in the mud their whole life.

    • You’re right. Many non-Westerns and non-Americans do not believe in our form of free speech. They only want free speech when it fits their agenda, but when it doesn’t fit their socialist-Utopian schemes they kick it out the back door of a moving truck.

      “Freedom for me, but not for thee”

    • “Freedom is overrated”   Sure, because they have barely experienced the fringes of freedom, and how could they possibly make an accurate judgement.  To them it’s like us claiming we ride around on winged steeds every day when they’re consigned to ride goats or walk.  When you have to imagine freedom, I’m sure you quickly imagine some fantasy which, if you’re practical, you set aside as foolish.  If they’re good muslim’s they’re not even free to go through the day without reminding themselves 5 times God is great and they’re pretty much crap.
       
       

  • Yeah, let’s mimic the most primitive tribalism in 1500 years. That’s “Progressive”, “Liberal”. Anyone else ever notice that “Progressivism” is essentially a throwback to primitive tribes? No small wonder they’re kindred with the Islamics.
    And imagine if Yeahbut Bush had proposed such a thing!

  • A word of advice to the Posners who want to limit our 1st Amendment privileges: The 2nd Amendment (that’s three, I guess).

  • I acknowledge that the idea of free speech is idealized in America.  But before we claim to foster unmitigated free speech, perhaps we should review some instance where the courts have judge against it:  wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

    • But before we claim to foster unmitigated free speech…

      Which nobody has done, moron.

    • That’s the same argument you use every time.  Are you a child, not to see the difference between “mohammed is a moron” on a newspaper page and “FIRE!!! FIRE!!!!”  in a very crowded room?
       
      Why are you so childish?

  • It is interesting that the same left that pushes porn as free speech opposes speech that upsets Muslims. Yet they are fine with piss Jesus and dung Mary as art, and argue that Christians who don’t want their tax $ funding such art are a threat to free speech.

    Didn’t SoS Clinton attend an anti-Mormon play? But that’s OK, because most Mormans are white privilged people, who don’t riot and murder when they are insulted.

  • Also, if free speech inults Muslims, doesn’t porn also insult them? Yet bin laden had a porn collection. I guess it isn’t wrong if you watch infidels doing it.

  • Ahhhh, I get it! Mob Rule! If I’m loud enough and violent enough, I get my way. Right? Hmmm? It does have it’s possibilities… But, as I think back, we’ve tried this before, if fact, many times in the past, for some reason, it’s always ends up turning out badly. I wonder why? I think I’ll keep my Free Speech, Posner, you can take a hike.