Mark Steyn: "If you say we're crazy and violent, we'll go nuts and kill you."

George W. Bush to Mark Steyn on Muslims' lack of proportion: "If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons."



Mark Steyn. An International Treasure.

Rowan Atkinson Speaks Up For Free Speech

Wow, I didn't realize this guy was so brilliant.



"...it's what you might call the New Intolerance, a new but intense desire to gag uncomfortable voices of dissent." Right on, man.

"The Law should not be aiding and abetting this new intolerance."

Free Speech and Policing

Over in the comments for this YouTube video, someone calling herself JessicaSideways has decided to spar with me on the subject of free speech. The video is from the Alliance Defense Fund and is about Christian students being defamed and silenced for their faith and moral beliefs. For example, one young man gave a speech about his faith and was called a "fascist bastard" by the professor in front of the rest of the class. Then he was mocked and told to "ask God what his grade is".

Now—when my wife calls me a "fascist bastard" I know it's sort of a term of endearment. But I'm not sure that was in the case in this college classroom. What's ironic and worth pointing out in my mind is that although JessicaSideways brings up so-called "hate speech" in her argument against the type of speech used by the two Christian students, it's all at a hypothetical level. Whereas the real threatening and degrading remarks in the video are all aimed at the Christian students. For example, in her first remark to me in reply to my statement that students should have free speech, she said: "Would you say the same thing if they started talking on how they think the Aryan race is superior and started targeting Latinos, Blacks and Asians?" But nobody was talking like that. This seems the perfect demonstration of the straw-man fallacy with a side of red herring. Likewise she brings up the act of "throwing around the word 'nigger' in class" which she claims would rightly offend black students. I'll concede the point, although that word only offends most blacks when "thrown around" by non-blacks. But the real point is that there wasn't anything analogous said about gays. It's pretty safe to say the girl in the class didn't say "[Expletives for gays and lesbians] shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids." But where's the drama in that? She focuses on a hypothetical situation by which she insinuates bad behavior.

I left a challenge to Ms. Sideways regarding her assertion that "Christianity works to the detriment of society." I sarcastically pointed out that there was hostility in that remark, echoing her fears about "targeting" by using her words. But my main thought about freedom of speech is that the best cure for what you think is incorrect speech is more speech, not less. Correct someone if they are wrong especially about the facts, don't tell them to shut up or bully them into it by wrongly characterizing their words. What she is doing in the combox can be called "policing"; someone is told they should be quiet because their words are perceived to be dangerous. Likewise the young man's professor was exercising a policeman's role by silencing his speech rather than allowing the speech then countering it with different speech.

Reasonable debates and conversations always produce clarity because they serve to ultimately bring out the underlying philosophical foundations of the words comprising the speech. And if nothing else, an audience can tell who is losing ground by the crescendo of shrillness of the tone and the callow mockery offered in place of sound argument.

Update: Found Jessica Sideways's site. So... there you go.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Steyn on what Free Speech is not

Mark Steyn points out that no one is denying Helen Thomas the right to free speech. She's just losing her podium, that's all. Most of us don't have podiums that big, so it's not a big deal. She's still absolutely free to say anything she wants to her family, her friends and those cute little magical fairy people she often sees floating above her flower garden.

Steyn quotes a lot of recent nonsense from a wide range of people who still have podiums, including at least surprising one―Charles Krauthammer―who should know better. So Steyn has to meticulously explain that a right to free speech doesn't guarantee freedom from consequences the way one might explain to a 21-year-old that a right to imbibe alcoholic beverages makes one immune from intoxication.

Here's the meat of the article where Steyn explains from his own personal experience "what the First Amendment prevents."

“Free speech” doesn’t mean speech has no consequences – for in that case why say anything at all? What it means is that the government does not determine those consequences. Had Maclean’s magazine been found guilty at our trial in Vancouver of publishing “Islamophobic” content, the statutory penalty under British Columbia law would have made it illegal for them to publish anything by me on Islam, Europe, demography and related subjects ever again. I would have been the subject, in effect, of a lifetime publication ban in Canada – and that ban, under the relevant section of the BC “human rights” code, is deemed to have the force of a Supreme Court decision. In other words, unlike Hearst or the Nine Speakers Agency, Maclean’s would not be free to choose for itself whether it wished to continue its association with a particular writer. In Canada, that decision is made by the state. That’s what the First Amendment prevents.

These posing privileged journalists need to take a lesson from a man mugged by reality.

Elena Kagan doesn't like freedom of speech

Newsmax discusses how as Solicitor General, Elena Kagan argued against the right to political free speech. Of course, she didn't get a chance to take a cheap shot at SCOTUS like Obama did during his SOTU. Excerpt:

The court, in its 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled against Kagan’s contention that the government can limit political speech by corporations.

In a scathing concurrence to the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument.

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.

“Its theory, if accepted, would empower the government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that Kagan was defending a law that represents an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”

Yikes.

Not Nazis, just elite Chicago thugs

There's that word elite again, this time being used by William Murchison of DMN to describe Obama and his administration.

This isn't Hitler stuff to tell the truth. It puts one more in mind of an elite class of Chicagoans: the kind once widely known for putting the squeeze on merchants who had chosen a different supplier and now needed a little persuasion -- so's the guys could finally see the light, right? Labor unions, too, back in their heyday, were good at a little friendly coercion, slyly demonstrating to bosses the virtues of "cooperation."

The whole thing is well-written; I especially appreciated his sarcasm about "points of view" in the media. As if only FOX news had one.

Free Our Health Care Now Petition Break Record with over 1.3 Million Signatures

Nice work everybody! This is a cheap post, basically a reprint of an email from Jeanette Nordstrom of NCPA.org, the people responsible for the Free Our Health Care Now petition.

* * * * *
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Thanks to your hard work, the "Free Our Health Care NOW!" petition ( www.freeourhealthcarenow.com ) which is your statement that you do not want government run health care, is now the largest health policy petition ever delivered to Congress. More than 1.275 million Americans have joined you in fighting government-run health care.

Sign, Sealed, Delivered. Today is a historic day! On Wednesday afternoon, Governor Pete du Pont, Chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), and Dr. John Goodman, President of the NCPA, along with Mike Gallagher and other Salem Radio hosts Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt will deliver the "Free Our Health Care NOW!" petition to the leaders of Congress. At 1:30 pm the petition will be driven to Capitol Hill in an ambulance; when it arrives, volunteers will stack the petition- 55,000 pages contained in 15 boxes -on a gurney and deliver this incredible expression of America's voices to Congress at a 2:00 pm EDT press conference.

Your Identity is Secure. Some of you have asked if the government will know your email address because of your association with the petition. Please know that we have not and will not release your personal information to any other party, including the government. The petition only provides your first and last name and the state of your residence.

Thank you for your support! In response to our requests, many of you have given to the "Free Our Health Care NOW!" petition. We appreciate it. Please know that your support is crucial to keeping the fight alive! We are now on to the fall debate, Phase II Solutions. If you can afford to give to help us with Phase II, please do so.

Showdown at Capitol Hill. Yours is not the only voice that's trying to be heard on Capitol Hill. In an attempt to regain control of the health care debate, President Obama plans to address a joint session of Congress only hours after the delivery of the "Free Our Health Care NOW!" petition. Call your Congressmen - tell them that yours is the voice that they should remember.

The Fight Continues! Join Freedom Works Foundation for the 9.12 March on Washington: The Tea Party Movement Comes to Capitol Hill! Please join thousands of grassroots Americans from across the country in our nation's capital to tell the politicians the era of big government is over! For more information, see www.FreedomWorks.org/912.

Britain: Where It's Better to be a Prisoner than a Patiet. An examination of Britain's government-run health care system reveals how terrifying nationalized health care can be.

• This article in the Daily Telegraph explains that the British government's National Health Service has promulgated a policy which wrongly determines some patients as "close to death" and deprives them of the basic care that would otherwise sustain them.
• Meanwhile, this article in the Daily Mail reveals that British prisoners have a better diet than patients in National Health Service hospitals.
  

Welcome to Massachusetts, Welcome to Rationed Health Care. As this New York Times article reports, Massachusetts has begun rationing its state-sponsored health care after only three years since the state adopted a government-run health care system. Last week, Governor Deval Patrick announced that 31,000 legal immigrants will no longer receive dental, hospice or skilled-nursing care because of scale-backs.

In response to rationing falling on her constituents, Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, said she was worried about immigrants' having to find new primary care doctors at a time when the state is suffering from a shortage of such providers. The question observant Commonwealth residents must be asking now is, "Am I next to see a reduction in benefits, services and care?"

The British and Massachusetts experience: government-run health care leads to higher cost, lower quality, and reduced access. As taxpayers and as patients, Americans simply can't afford government-run health care!

Worried about the cost, quality and access of government-run health care? You should be. The good news is that a growing number of Americans share your concern. If you'd like to find out more about the problems of cost, quality and access, you can here.

There are lots of ways to get involved!

There is also a wealth of other educational and resource material available, including better alternatives to government-run health care:

Health Care Solutions: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Health_Care_Solutions_072909.pdf

Five Steps to a Better Health Care System: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Five_Steps_to_a_Better_Health_Care_System_Web.pdf

Dr. John Goodman's Blog - Current, up-to date information on the debate: www.john-goodman-blog.com

Heartland Institute's Health Care Solutions: http://www.chcchoices.org

Thank you again for your support of the "Free Our Health Care NOW!" and for fighting against government-run health care.

Jeanette Nordstrom
National Center for Policy Analysis
www.ncpa.org

Great comment on a very silly article prompted by the George Tiller murder

I thought this was a great comment on a very silly article attempting to establish speech codes like Obama did at Notre Dame, here's the link. It's made all the stronger because he is not pro-life. And you don't have to be pro-life to know bullshit when you smell it or see it.

The man who drove to that church and pulled the trigger killed George Tiller, nobody else. The rest of your article is nothing more than an appeal to prevent people of a certain opinion from speaking about abortion in the frankest possible terms. If you don't want people having fearsomely strong opinions about the termination of pregnancies then I suggest you outlaw the practice, not try to prevent them from speaking. People who believe this procedure amounts to the systematic extermination of children will by the dictates of their own conscience have a lot to say about it.

For the record I'm not vexed by abortion in the slightest and I don't find the arguments of the pro-life movement compelling, but to attempt to draw a veil of silence around an issue of such profound conscience is cowardly and disgusting.

Wow, that's powerful. This is not Canada; we have freedom of speech here and we will use it.

Just for the record... abortion is murder.