From: Max
Subject: About Flag Burning
As a devout atheist who loves America I am embaressed by About professing to prize reason while also defending the right to burn the flag. The claim is based on the grounds of free speech, that is, flag burning is nothing more than an expression of opinion. However, since I am a lover of America this act has the same effect upon me as would spitting in my face.
No, burning a flag doesn't have the same effect as spitting in someone's face because spitting in someone's face involves touching them. That's a form of assault and is legally in a different world.
Now, burning a flag may have a similar emotional effect on someone as spitting in their face, but the same could be said for lots of different opinions and lots of different ways of expressing an opinion. There are lots of things you can do to have a strong, negative emotional effect on someone.
Now, is there any legal basis for claiming that a negative emotional effect alone is sufficient to justify banning something? No -- there's no precedent for it and we should all be very happy about this. We wouldn't have any free speech at all if our ability to express ourselves were constrained by anyone claiming emotional distress.
Max is basically making the same argument as Muslims who object to cartoons involving Muhammad and as Christians who object to cartoons involving Jesus. Max is asserting that his feelings of offense are so extreme that they outweigh the right of others to expression an opinion that he dislikes.
Such a position is incompatible with free speech. Anyone asserting such a position is, in effect, asserting that they don't really believe in free speech -- at least not when it comes to speech and ideas they disagree with.
Turns out, that isn't even an implication for Max -- it's something he openly advocates:
It (American law) preserves your right to speak even when what you say is in error and even when what you say is intended deliberatly to undercut confidence in the Constitution and the economic theory that promotes its prosperity. ...Just so, I would welcome an abridgement of free speech for the deluded Leftist establishment.
In other words, Max comes very close to admitting here that American law protects flag burning. Nice of him to admit that, just before also admitting that he would prefer to see freedom of speech abridged for those he disagrees with.
The only thing I don't understand is why he doesn't admit that this is also the case with flag burning. Why go through so many logical and factual contortions to deny that flag burning is a form of expression in order to justify banning it when you openly reject universal free speech?
I do not say this lightly. The Left is deluded and so are many others, principally theists of all stripes. ...Only the deluded can beleive themselves perfectly undeluded.
And what about people who imagine that they support free speech rights while openly insisting that the people they disagree with don't deserve free speech rights?
Should your rhetoric succeed you will have destroyed the ideology of free speech by rendering it defenseless.
No, the person who destroys the ideal of free speech is the one who denies it to others while convincing themselves that they are doing good in suppressing others.
The liberty-loving answer to speech you don't like is more speech -- to speak out and exercise your right to disagree. The authoritarian, liberty-hating answer to speech you don't like is to suppress it and make criminals out of those you disapprove of.
What's ironic in all this is that I would fight for Max's right to advocate his brand of authoritarianism. Max, however, would fight to deny me my right to speak my mind. And that's where we differ: I don't want to suppress things I find hateful, bigoted, mean, evil, or just plain stupid. Max, in contrast, doesn't have enough confidence in his views to let them stand on their own -- he fears that they won't "win" unless alternatives are suppressed.
And he's right. Completely right. Max's authoritarian perspective will indeed lose a fair fight. That's why authoritarians needs to rig the game by suppressing others.
I am not about burning the flag. You are and that has not to do with reason but with a demented kind of rhetoric. The difference between flag burning and bomb throwing is quantitative rather than qualitative. And that is my last word.
There's a difference between supporting a person's ideas or the way they express their ideas and supporting their right to express those ideas at all. It's not a subtle distinction and it's one that lies at the heart of our laws regarding free speech.
I don't support the KKK, but I do support their right to express their ideas. I don't support the Nazi Party, but I do support their right to express their ideas. I don't support Max -- for basically the same reasons -- but I do support his right to express his ideas.
Why do so few people seem to understand that supporting a person's right to express themselves doesn't mean supporting either the ideas being expressed or the manner in which they are expressed?
I am beginning to feel foolish debating with a person who can't comprehend the difference between reasoned debate which is an intellectual process and flag-burning which is a hostile act of warfare.
That might be because Max can't even be bothered to make a case for his position that being offended at something is sufficient reason to make it a crime. If he can understand what a "intellectual process" and a "reasoned debate" is, why doesn't he actually formulate a reasoned argument?
To be a moderate in defense of freedom is no virtue and to be an extremist in defense of liberty is no vice.
This, coming from someone who explicitly rejects liberty for others with whom he disagrees. Max is no extremist in defense of liberty. He's not even "moderate" in defense of freedom... because he doesn't defend freedom. Max only defends authoritarian suppression of others -- and even that he does poorly, never offering a single real argument on behalf of his position.
Words in your mouth are weapons of mass destruction and you use them as a smoke screen to hide your truly evil intentions.
Yes, it's "truly evil" to intend that everyone enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of expression, even if I disagree with their ideas or means of expression.
Some other "truly evil" intentions of mine include freedom of association for everyone even if I disagree with their group's ideas, a right to pursue happiness for everyone even if what makes them happy doesn't make me happy, a right to vote for everyone even if I don't like whom they vote for, and a freedom of press for everyone even if I disagree with what they are printing or reading.
These "truly evil" intentions have been effective weapons of mass destruction for generations -- specifically, weapons designed to destroy authoritarianism, fascism, totalitarianism, and every other system of oppression that is designed by the few to better rule the many. I will continue wielding these weapons so long as I have life left in me because I not only believe in them, but I have confidence that they will spread to others.
Well, maybe not to Max.
LET ME KNOW IF YOU CONVERT TO AMERICAN.
Somehow I'm not surprised that Max treats being an American as a religious affiliation. It merely cements his ideological kinship with other religious extremists. They are so offended by the "abuse" of their religious symbols that they would ban such acts and destroy free speech in the process. Max are also offended by the "abuse" of his religious symbol and would ban it, even if it means destroying free speech in the process.
I COUNTED 17 DESECRATIONS IN YOUR DIATRIBE ON FLAG BURNING. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN 17 FLAGS BURNED PER YEAR IN THE LAST 17 YEARS. YOU ARE CLEARLY OBSESSED WITH FLAG BURNING, YOU GOD D****D FLAG BURNER NAZI !!!!
I want to protect free speech for all and argue against the suppression of others, yet I'm the Nazi?
The flag is the symbol of an existing nation to which millions of people feel allegiance. The flag is real, the nation is real and the people are real as are their feelings. Burning the flag as an act of defaming it is to defame the nation and its people as well. When a religious icon is defiled there is no god to be offended so the entire concept of the sacrosanct is pointless and applying it to defending the flag (and the nation for which it stands) is an exercise in provocation as taught and practised by subversive assholes.
I'm not sure that Max comprehends the word "defame." To "defame" is to libel -- to publish or express something that injures the reputation of someone. It's not possible to "defame" someone or something except through expressing false ideas. Ergo, claiming that flag burning is an act of defamation is to concede that flag burning is indeed the expression of ideas -- something which Max started out denying.
So Max has conceded the heart of the argument for why flag burning is protected free speech: it's the expression of an idea, opinion, position, etc. So the question becomes, should this be protected like other expressions or should it be restricted? Well, the fact is that flag burning is used to express political ideas -- and the expression of political ideas isn't prosecutable as libel. If it were, most political cartoons, political satire, and even a lot of political opinion writing might be banned.
Flag burning is no more "defamation" than saying "America is racist" or "Americans are racists." Those statements, if false, might qualify as defamation -- and they are nevertheless protected free speech. If they are protected, then so is flag burning. So Max concedes that flag burning is the expression of an opinion and thereby necessarily concedes that it is protected speech, even if it expresses a false opinion.
Max may not like such opinions and he may be offended by such opinions, but he can't demand that such opinions be banned without also demanding that the Constitution and all the freedoms it protects be eviscerated.
Flag burning is uncivil behavior. It is impolite. The closest it comes to free speech is in approximating foul language. Your obsession with flag burning is symptomatic of delusion
Max is offended by flag burning but it's an indisputable fact that we have no right to not be offended. No matter how much psychological or emotional distress an act like flag burning might cause someone, they have no just claim to use the force of law and government to compel others to stop because the government of a free nation has no authority to protect any of us emotionally.
On the other hand, while I may not have a right to not be offended, I do have a right to be offensive. I have a right to express ideas that others find disturbing. I have a right to express opinions that cause others distress. And I have a legal right to use foul language, if I wish.
I always feel a bit sad when I see Christians and Muslims who don't understand this and thus advocate legal sanctions against "desecration" of their religious images or symbols. Here, though, we have an atheist making the exact same argument. It's a sign, I think, that we're dealing with an attitude that is not limited to religion and religious beliefs -- it might be more common in the context of religion, but it's certainly not limited to religion.
So the question for me becomes: how can we overcome such authoritarian attitudes, whether secular or religious?
No comments:
Post a Comment