The 'problem' with free speech

Every once and a while someone comes out and effectively says that they like free speech except that it grants bad people the right to say stupid things. And from that follows destruction of moral values etc. Now, that may (or in my opinion may not) be a good point, but I think there is a more insidious problem latent in free speech- and one that does not have to be there at all.

The well known proverb is that though I may disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it. What does that mean? Why do I disagree? This last question is the important one: What are the content and value of my own opinions, that I am willing to 'agree to disagree' with you?

More often than not, the value of these opinions is worthless. And I don't mean the people opposed, I mean the people 'granting' the free speech. Free speech is a very simple notion. It means everyone gets to voice their opinion. It doesn't mean that I have to forget about me and mine.

But that is how most people take free speech nowadays. Look at the well know proverb- the person responds that he will fight for someone's right to say something not liked. Now, it may not be everyone's first reaction, but for many the structure of this proverb is telling. The reaction is to blanketly assert the other person's right to free speech, with a dim disapproval, and NO REBUTTAL.

That's the egregious sin- no one, except apparently offensive people, gives a crap about anything today. They only care about letting everyone have rights. Which is nice, but not sufficient. Life is not about the 'right' way to live, but about the 'good' way to live. Making space for other people's conception of the good DOES NOT entail that you forfeit your own. Unfortunately, most people don't think this way. They confuse the rights provided in liberal society with a moral ideal.

Surely they are right that it is moral to uphold free speech, and immoral to suppress it. But the speech of free speech is not, in itself, of any value. It is only a vehicle, a means, to the ends of expressing, demonstrating, arguing, eloborating, mocking, crying about, etc., your conception of the good. People indeed have a right to vacuous free speech, but that does not make such speech moral.

I think it is this underlying point that affects another central problem evident within the 'free speech arena' today- that of public 'censure.' I take it as axiotomic that everyone realizes that free speech grants them the right to formulate an opinion about the good. It also grants everyone the right to dissent. The latter is the more important part of free speech. Free speech, as a right, is worthless where people agree. It only comes into effect where there is disagreement. And it allows both parties to disagree. And that disagreement is just that- disagreement. Not coercion, not stifling. Nothing more.

Why have I brought that up? One broader, older issue, and one more narrow, and more recent issue. The broader issue is the arguments of the book the Israel Lobby, and Jimminey Carter. Well, not their arguments per se, but their concurrent arguments that they are being stifled. What's the stifling exactly? 1) People have written exposes trying to show factual error 2) People have written exposes trying to show bias and misinterpretation. 3)People have played the evil evil 'Anti-Semite' card.

The first two, unless you're a dumbass, are not stifling debate. They are contributing towards it. So, it's only the last one that warrants any appraisal of whether its called stifling. Sadly, I've seen many cases where types of responses such as the first two (not only with regards to Israel, and more specifically other subjects) are called stifling. That's right- argument is called stifling. Having a counterposing opinion is deemed stifling. Why? I'll get back to that one.

But what, about the third answer- the 'anti-Semite' card? Well, first comes a simple question- are the positions espoused anti-Semitic? Well, what would that mean?- that after 1) and 2) some people have come to the conclusion that the reason for the 'errors' is not good faith, but pure bias. In other words, more often than not, the anti-Semite card is an outgrowth of the first two charges. And here it becomes important to go through the data and see why point 3) is even raised. If there is clearly no bias, and people are just being stupid- that's important to note. But many people take the mere appearance of the word 'anti-semite' as proof that the accused is right. Why? Why not investigate? (This is a rhetorical question, we both know the answer)

But there is a much more basic and fundamental point to be made here. What purpose does proclaiming 'anti-Semitism' serve? It serves the purpose of moral disapproval. Effectively- 'go ahead and say that, but you're being a bigot.' Now comes the fundamental issue- is (and does) this stifling (or stifle for those of you on the 'does' track) debate? Certainly people feel stifled- why? Because being a bigot is a cultural taboo- the one broken more than any other. How does this affect my point? Simple- it is only stifling debate because the person on the other side has already accepted the premises of the accuser. In other words, the only reason any 'stifling' is going on is because the 'stifled' lets himself be. How could he not be, you may ask. Repeat after me, 'Nu-uh!' That simple. If someone calls you a bigot, say no you're not. That easy- it's only stifling because you let it be. You have the right to your opinion, and so too do others. You have the right to make moral judgements on them, and they the very same right on you. And it's not stifling. Its a moral judgement. On the other hand, crying like a baby that you are being stifled every time someone disagress with you IS a attempt to stifle. You are shifting the burden of proof from neutral to the other person. You are 'silencing' the other person, because everybody loves a martyr, and noone like high-handedness. So, good job- you've learned propaganda 101. And guess what- its not called stifling when everyone's talking about it.

So, what's the more recent and narrow event? Apparently there is a group on Facebook (and possibly other places) called 'Mayim.' It defines itself as group for religious (meaning here in Judaism) pluralism and against religious coercion. The first point is probably obvious, and I think rather laudable. The second point is stupid. They aren't talking about Israeli politics- where groups (both religious and anti-religious) hijack real issue for their own gains. And they arent talking about violence. And they arent talking about NRP youth settling in the hilltops of Judea and Samaria forcing Israeli policy.

So what are they talking about? Well, I saw two basic points- 1) That religious groups offer gifts (meaning free, or cheap trips mostly) in order to provide a forum to 'sell' Judaism. 2) That religious people say things that make people feel guilty.

Well, wtf? 1) Don't go on the f***ing trips if you don't want to hear what they are going to say. Simple as that. Don't borrow money from a bank if you don't want to pay interest. Are they supposed to give you the trip for no reason? And don't answer me that its just an opportunity for propaganda. No sh** sherlock. Of course it is. And you still don't have to buy into. If you want to go for the free stuff and space out, go ahead. Guess what- they aren't brainwashing, they are propagandizing. What's the difference. Well, everything is some form or another of propaganda. It's just spouting your view. And it happen every time anyone says anything. Granted that most stuff isnt only propaganda, but it certainly works as that also. And we deal with all the time, every day. The only remedy is having the cahones to have your own opinion.

Brainwashing is actively manipulating a situation so that only a certain view CAN register. Forcing people to stay up till really late is one tactic, so is discouraging ANY dissent. Neither of those happen on these trips. The point of these things is SPECIFICALLY to question things- your own opinion.

And what about 2)? It's this simple again- don't accept guilt for things that you don't feel guilt for. Are religious people not allowed to make a metaphysical claim about normativity? And especially one thats in the F*****g Bible? (That G-d does also punish) Tell them that they are wrong. And why they are wrong. A person can't guilt you into something unless you accept that guilt in the first place.

So why don't you? Because you hold vacuous opinions. Notice I didn't say you were wrong. Just that your opinions are valueless. You could be right. In fact, a lot of the time you probably are right. But your opinions are so little invested to you that all you can do is shout 'stifling', or 'coercion' or 'it's my right.' Does your opinion matter to you? If so, did you spend a lot of time thinking about why you are right, and the other position is wrong? If not, how the held can you hold a strong opinion- unless you yourself are the dogmatist? And if you have invested enough thought and energy into forming your opinion, why do you shirk so cowardly from defending it? If your opinion holds water, then show people why.

You know why you don't- free speech. You think that because other people have the right to an opinion, that your opinions are questionably. And it is because of that disrespect you put on yourself, that you feel the need to stifle others. Because you don't see how you could be right, you need to just tell people they are coercing you, or stifling you- instead of proving your point.

If you're perceptive, you might have picked up a really deep, and important, point here. Tyranny doesn't just coming from thinking you are right. It also comes from cultural relatively. When rights replace content, you become a dictator on rights. You herald your right to have a meaningless opinion, and announce your insecurities by calling out everyone who dissents.