Amateur Webzine Slate: The Hostile Reaction of Backwards Cultures To Free Expression Proves We Overvalue Free Expression

Interesting.

I would have thought the opposite. I would, for example, look at the rather meager innovations and breakthroughs produced in the Muslim world, compare them to our own, and think that perhaps Liberty of Mind produces some good effects.

But no, says the amateur webzine Slate.

The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment

The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.

[A]mericans 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.

...

The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers...

He notes liberals cheerleaded the First Amendment then. But even as conservatives embraced it...

Meanwhile, some liberals began to have second thoughts. They supported enactment of hate-crime laws that raised criminal penalties for people who commit crimes against minorities because of racist or other invidious motives. They agreed that hate speech directed at women in the workplace could be the basis of sexual harassment claims against employers as well. However, the old First Amendment victories in the Supreme Court continued to play an important role in progressive mythology. For the left, the amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.

This proves that liberals are hypocritical on sacred rights and will abandon them in a moment to push the rest of the progressive agenda. So? We should reward them for their betrayal of liberty?

Apparently so. Actually, this article is a jumble of nothing -- it's hard to extract meaning from it-- but the writer wants us to know the First Amendment is just a compromise like any other, and can and should be changed as current mores the progressive agenda and Obama's reelection require.

While the headline is forward leaning-- link-bait, I guess -- he then seems to lose the courage to state we must scrap the First Amendment.

He passive-aggressively hints at that, though.

I think he's a confused individual defending the indefensible in an effort to draw attention to himself.

posted by Ace at 06:19 PM

| Access Comments