Free speech is threatened—but of course, you already knew that
Perhaps you’ve noticed that the topic of free speech has been coming up again and again and again lately. The battle to protect it has taken on new urgency, in part because too many people appear to have forgotten what free speech is and why it is so vital.
The movement to limit speech took hold in the university community decades ago. I first noticed it in the early 90s when I went back to school to get my Master’s, but I’m told it actually began considerably earlier. Whenever it started, by now it’s a firmly entrenched idea that it is okay to limit speech that is even mildly upsetting if anyone finds it hurtful or objectionable in any way. And who makes the judgment on whether it is or isn’t? The offended one.
People on the left like to characterize conservatives as power-hungry fascists [sic] who are out to control and limit us. But as with so many of the restrictions on liberty, those on free speech are being driven almost wholly by the left. Whether the campaign is against Pamela Geller’s right to repeat the hateful statements of jihadis without being accused of hate herself for condemning them, or whether it’s about remarks defined as sexist or bigoted in general, or whether it’s about the Obama administration’s efforts to condemn the reporting of Fox News or intimidate and investigate reporters it doesn’t like, we need understand that it’s part of a much larger movement described here by Peter Berkowitz, and that much of the press is allied with it rather than against it:
…[M]ost of the elite media””overwhelmingly left liberal””have largely neglected to cover the left’s crusade against free speech. Operating out of newsrooms, as [Kirsten] Powers observes [in her new book The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech] in which “there is nobody to push back on their biases,” reporters seem unable to detect anything amiss on campuses, in the media, and in the political arena where, after all, the draconian regulation of speech is intended to serve avowedly left-wing causes.
An increasingly illiberal left, according to Powers, has found a ruthless ally in an increasingly illiberal feminism. To oppose abortion, or to suggest that owners of family businesses should not be required by law to subsidize their employees’ purchase of a narrow range of birth control options to which the owners object on religious grounds, or to insist that the accused in campus sexual assault cases be accorded fundamental due process rights is, illiberal feminists declare, to wage “war” on women and to advocate positions that have no place in polite conversation or public debate.
From feminism to the media to the professoriate to the West Wing, the illiberal left has been empowered to curtail freedom of speech by the transformation of liberal education””whose classic purpose was to emancipate the mind and promote toleration””into a means for reproducing progressive dogma and inculcating intolerance of alternative points of view. Because Kirsten Powers is right””our colleges and universities have become ground zero in the fight for freedom of speech””the restoration of free speech depends on the restoration of liberal education.
I’ve criticized Kirsten Powers for many of her positions, particularly on illegal immigration. But on this she seems absolutely correct. As Berkowitz points out, Powers is a liberal on most issues. But on this I’d say she’s a classical liberal, which is another thing entirely, and I applaud her. The trouble is that her fellow liberals (of the non-classical variety) will probably just shrug or berate her and consider that on this she’s been led astray by sleeping with the enemy—that is, her stint at Fox News.
And perhaps they would be right on that latter point—not that she’s gone astray (I happen to think she has been led toward an acknowledgement of the truth), but on the influence of her job at Fox. She says so herself:
Powers grew up in a liberal family but said that interacting with conservatives, and finding God, has given her a new perspective.
“Two experiences unexpectedly put me in a regular relationship with conservatives: working as a contributor at Fox News and a later in life conversion to Christianity. The more I got to know actual conservative and religious people, the harder it was to justify the stereotypes I had so carelessly embraced. In my early days at Fox, I can remember trying to convince a conservative there that George Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court didn’t really count as a female appointment because she was conservative and an evangelical Christian. He was horrified. I was confused as to why he would be horrified. I’m now embarrassed that I ever thought such a thing, let alone said it aloud. Such a prejudiced view was only able to take root because of the lack of ideological, political, and religious diversity,” she wrote.
Powers added: “This intolerance is not a passive matter of opinion. It’s an aggressive, illiberal impulse to silence people. This conduct has become an existential threat to those who hold orthodox religious beliefs. But increasingly I hear from people across the political spectrum who are fearful not only of expressing their views, but also as to where all of this is heading. I’ve followed this trend closely as a columnist with growing concern. It’s become clear that the attempts””too often successful””to silence dissent from the liberal worldview aren’t isolated outbursts. They are part of a bigger story. This book is that story.”
That is the sad truth that I learned, too, after my political change experience. I was so naive beforehand, and had operated in so much of a liberal bubble (as well as having steered clear of political discussions in general in my adult life), that I had no awareness of the phenomenon. I first learned of it from bitter, painful personal experience, when I was the dissenter.
It sounds as though Powers’ book could actually influence at least a few people to change their minds about what’s happening out there. I don’t usually say that about books, which in my opinion seldom influence people in such a profound way, but this one could have a special persuasive force because of Powers’ status as a liberal woman. As I wrote earlier, though, I think it will be easy for many people to dismiss her as tainted by her Fox news experience. Ironically, such an attitude on their part would be in line with the phenomenon she describes in the book. People are frightened of even hearing different points of view lest they be swayed.
I am rather slowly changing my opinion of Kirsten Powers. I, perhaps unfairly, wrote her off as just another Democrat shill. Of late, she is taking pretty courageous positions on a fairly routine basis. Even to the point of criticizing the Obama administration.
It is only a matter of time before the backlash begins. I expect one of the first salvos will be to claim that Roger Ailes and his cohorts have brain washed her.
Have you noticed that people like Eric Holder say they want an honest dialog? However when you tell them what they don’t want to hear they call you names and tell you to shut up.
Over at PJMedia, Tom Blumer comments are salient to this issue:
Her latest diatribe is entitled: “It’s Time To Bring The Hammer Down On Hate Speech In The U.S. “
Warning; this is a leftist who outright states how every leftist secretly feels.
Warning; this is a leftist who outright states how every leftist secretly feels….
Warning Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism.
Neo said:
“People are frightened of even hearing different points of view lest they be swayed.”
I’m skeptical that many on the left are acting out of fear. They seem just a little too self righteous for that explanation. As others have noted, the left has become a substitute religion which has elevated their opinions to moral certainties.
As to why Kirsten Powers has become awake to the errors on the left, I’d put primary emphasis on the fact that she has converted to Christianity. She has a new set of moral standards to guide her life which are much different from her formal leftist morality.
I’ve wondered before whether Kirsten Powers is a person undergoing a worldview change é la Neo’s.
She’s come a long way since the 2010 on-air cat fight with Megyn Kelly.
Just told my liberal sister yesterday about the exchange between Justices Roberts and Alito with Verrelli (Sp)during the recent Supreme Court hearing for Gay Marriage … the one where they queried about the possibility of religious schools eventually losing their tax exempt status. She exclaimed “No – that is not possible.” When I proved this was a true exchange she was mystified, puzzled. Liberals are truly out to lunch. They have no idea.
I just spent the last couple of weeks calling out two deans and a faculty for making a blacklist of students who decided not to attend an all day campus event on racism. Once they had the list, they sent emails out demanding that the students justify their non-participation. They tried to spin it as “Oh we just wanted to make sure everyone had a “chance” to participate.” Yeah, sure.
I met with them and pointed out the hypocrisy of stating the college believes in free speech, etc. and then engaging in Soviet style tactics against the students. I think the faculty member understood what I was saying, but the deans did not budge. In fact, the dean of faculty said flat out that she would do it again as the community as a whole needs to “educated”. I told her she needed to be educated on what happens when totalitarian impulses are let loose. She was not pleased. Of course being a private college the institution has no 1st Amendment obligations to the students, but they do open themselves to contractual issues if they advertise “free speech” and then pull stunts like this.
Dennis, 3:44 pm — “As to why Kirsten Powers has become awake to the errors on the left, I’d put primary emphasis on the fact that she has converted to Christianity. She has a new set of moral standards to guide her life which are much different from her formal leftist morality.”
She has replaced a false god with what she perceives as the true God, and, no longer feeling obligated to worship the false god and follow its every dictate, is unshackled from that god, and is free to acknowledge the humanity of others who do not worship the false god.
The trick now is to be *genuinely* open and civil and loving and (dare I say?) *Christian* to those who do not worship Powers’ new-found God. It’s a *very* tall order:
KJV Matt 5
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
[dot dot dot]
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Wow.
I fear for my grandchildren. The fear is manifested in the extreme leftist infestation of the msm, education, entertainment, and the level of corruption in dc. I will continue to vote, especially on the local and state level; but I think its too late to save America from the totalitarian utopia dreamers. The best I hope for is a short, bloody civil war and the dissolution of the union. Let the left have their failed experiments with social engineering.
janetoo, 4:30 pm — “Liberals are truly out to lunch. They have no idea.”
If they’re not hard core, in on the ultimate agenda, they’re disarmingly naive and trusting. They regard those of us with kindred values as alarmist and in that sense, naive ourselves, as gullible, as easily led Chicken Littles. How I wish they’d turn out to be right — but they ain’t.
The words from Powers are almost exhilarating because they ring true; I mean, she sounds sincere. I too had written her off.
She is convincing proof, though, of what is so often discussed here, the frighteningly closed minds of otherwise intelligent people who have not a clue when making judgments about conservatives etc.
I propose a fund for physicsguy if he doesn’t have tenure. Or maybe just enough to buy a long pole with a mirror so he can look under his car before driving.
Wow … that takes guts! And good for you, pg!
Physicsguy; your Dean of Faculty may need a remedial history course. A literature course may be helpful as well, as there are a plethora of works that treat the notion that everyone needs to think in the approved way.
I don’t suppose she unwittingly stated;”we have ways of making you do that”.
I think the wise drafters of our Constitution understood very well that when small people are accorded unconstrained power they will, with certainty, abuse it.
During recent hospital stays I was afforded the opportunity to interact with staff whose families made it to America from various tyrannical hell-holes. Vietnamese being prevalent. I wish their first person stories of the re-education process could be captured on video and shown in our schools.
“The more I got to know actual conservative and religious people, the harder it was to justify the stereotypes I had so carelessly embraced.”
I have had my own problems with fundamentalist, charismatic Christians, but I have unfailingly found them to be sincere, good people who’d certainly make good neighbors. Anyway, I was engaged in a conversation once with a well-meaning left-leaner at work, who was unloading for me his favorite “stereotypes [that he] had so carelessly embraced.” I asked him, a bit impatiently and heatedly by this point in the conversation, how many such fundamentalist, charismatic Christians had he ever known one-on-one.
Crickets.
(Literally, except there weren’t even crickets around.)
Towanda, I couldn’t do what I did without tenure! It’s the reason it was invented in the first place. Thanks for the support, but I plan on getting out in about 3 years for retirement. However, maybe if I make myself enough of a pain in the ass they’ll make me a sweet enough offer to get out early…it’s happened before 😉
Hi Neo
I remember telling my friend, Fr. Cataudo, an 82 yr old Dominican priest, in reference to the accusations directed towards conservatives by the left, that everything they accuse us of doing, they actually do!
He said “My Mother used to say that”.
That’s because their fundamental social cultural/political approach is of whole paradigm shift.
@Paul R you do know that in addition to your
astute mom, that is also among Saul Alinsky’s
Rules for Radicals ( Alinsky, Hillary & Obama’s
much admired Community Organizer)
Alinsky writes, “accuse your enemies of what YOU yourself do “!
Alinsky says this action will dilute the message because the populace will say & believe that
it was the Left, no, no the Right that makes that claim ! Again sowing discord & confusion.
G6loq at 3:24 pm,
Yes, because Nazism cannot be justified nor can a fundamental philosophical connection with it be rationalized.
Dennis at 3:44 pm,
Bingo. For without a new set of moral standards, how can a different conclusion be reached?
janetoo at 4:30 pm,
Completely clueless and in for a tremendous shock, when reality collapses their world-view.
physicsguy,
“I told her she needed to be educated on what happens when totalitarian impulses are let loose. She was not pleased.”
I suspect there lies her Achilles Heel. Repeated blows upon it will cripple her but make of her an enemy. If she has an honorable side appeal to it, clearly she’s not considering that the reason “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is because of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
M J R at 4:32 pm,
That IMO is an impossible standard for a human being to aspire to, while the very impossibility of Christ having achieved it, lies at the core of my father’s faith that Christ was far more than merely a very wise, deeply aware human being. Only the divine can manifest the devise.
parker,
Perhaps the probability is that our grandchildren will suffer. The Israelites suffered in Egypt for what? 400 years? But Ghandi’s wisdom comforts me; “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, ALWAYS.” God has not led the human race this far, only to abandon us. But he may have to carry us, once again, for a very long time.
Oops! That should be, “Only the divine can manifest the divine.”
It should be obvious by now that accurate typing is not among my skills.
GB,
I take no comfort in the words of Gandhi. I would much prefer to shoot or slit the throat of anyone who threatens to make life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness impossible for my grandchildren. I hope to remain alive and able when/if that day comes. Family and basic principles are not negotiable. I am stubborn when it comes to such things as my wife is not shy to remind me.
Geoffrey Britain, 7:30 pm — “M J R at 4:32 pm, That IMO is an impossible standard for a human being to aspire to, while the very impossibility of Christ having achieved it, lies at the core of my father’s faith that Christ was far more than merely a very wise, deeply aware human being. Only the divine can manifest the divine.” [Correction cheerfully noted.]
I certainly agree that the standard is lofty in the extreme. As I remarked, “it’s a *very* tall order.” But, at least as recorded in scripture, Jesus was addressing his human listeners (unless angels or astral beings or some such were listening in as well [smile]).
Can we resolve this by noting that, in G.B.’s words, it is/was a “standard for a human being to *aspire* to” [emphasis mine], and while “Christ having achieved it,” interested listeners can look to that standard as The Gold or Platinum Standard for behavior, even as humans like you and I are still doing Copper or Tin? Or Clay?? Can the divine in us gain ascendance over the non-divine? To what extent, if at all? In this world or in a next world unseen in this world?
Okay, okay, okay, it’s not a theology blog here, for sure.
See ya . . .
In response to Geoffrey Britain and MJR
My own take on many of Jesus’ sayings about how we are suppose to be pacifists and turn the other cheek is that they are directed to people in a particular time and place and do not necessary have direct application in all circumstances. The same goes for much of the Old Testament. Although the Ten Commandments seem to have universal application many other Old Testament rules no longer make sense.
Gandhi, a flake.
I lived in India [Calcutta] for 4 years as an early teen. My parents regularly hosted members of the
Indian Rationalist Association. I got to listen to a bunch of anti-Ghandi rants.
My fav Gandhi tidbit:
I am aware that for many not privileged to have visited the former British Raj, the names Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Deccan are simply words. But other names, such as Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, somehow have a harder profile. The term “Jew,” also, has a reasonably hard profile, and I feel all Jews sitting emotionally at the movie Gandhi should be apprised of the advice that the Mahatma offered their coreligionists when faced with the Nazi peril: they should commit collective suicide. If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers’ knives and throw themselves into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for “ages to come.” If they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they would leave a “rich heritage to mankind.” Although Gandhi had known Jews from his earliest days in South Africa–where his three staunchest white supporters were Jews, every one–he disapproved of how rarely they loved their enemies. And he never repented of his recommendation of collective suicide. Even after the war, when the full extent of the Holocaust was revealed, Gandhi told Louis Fischer, one of his biographers, that the Jews died anyway, didn’t they? They might as well have died significantly…
All knowing, all loving, all feeeeeling ….
parker,
I did not mean to imply that, if that day comes, Ghandhi’s proposition would preclude… also shooting or slitting the throat of anyone who threatens to make life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness impossible for our grandchildren. Not in the least.
I meant that, if after all we could do, their fate was to suffer under tyranny, that it would not be the fate of, at some point, future generations.
As, I don’t think it’s possible for evil to permanently triumph, not simply because I believe in a loving beneficent God, though I do but because I have observed and concluded that evil always plants the seeds of its own defeat. I perceive that self-defeat is an ineradicable part of evil’s nature. Evil cannot help but eventually destroy itself because ultimately, evil is at war with the reality within which it exists.
M J R,
Yes, man should aspire to the standard that Christ set for us but IMHO, men cannot permanently and consistently achieve it without a full and permanent reconnection to the divine. I am only confident that Jesus ever achieved that goal on a permanent basis. He is the ‘wayshower’.
Dennis,
Personally, I don’t think that Jesus’ ‘turn the other cheek’ was meant to imply that we shouldn’t defend ourselves and others from mortal threats. I don’t think that Jesus was a pacifist. I think he was a ‘pragmatic advocate of the power of love’ to transform those that could be saved. Remember, only one of the men beside him on the cross repented.
In this, I agree with the Bahai faith, revelation is progressive, yet that progressive revelation does not conflict with what has been revealed before.
Dogma says we cannot eat pork because it is ‘unclean’. Progressive revelation tells us that the scientist is correct, that it is safe to eat pork when properly prepared. At the time of the proscriptions against eating pork, they didn’t know why it was unsafe improperly prepared nor how to do so correctly.
I think this is what Jesus was trying to explain when he ‘broke’ Jewish laws.
Another more profound example is the ‘sin’ of having sexual relations before marriage. It’s not that it’s sinful, it’s that it’s unwise. First, you get to know the other person and determine over time whether you are compatible and if there are any of what I call ‘deal breakers’. You can’t keep an objective perspective once you invest your heart and, sexual intimacy between two psychologically healthy people cannot stay merely physical.
Intimacy by definition is an affair of the heart and objectivity is necessarily lost once sexual relations become involved. That is why you wait, to avoid getting ‘the cart before the horse’, so that you both can evaluate whether the relationship has a good chance to ‘go the distance’. It’s wisdom rather than a matter of ‘sinfulness’ that keeps sex in its proper order because the purpose of sex is to invest yourself in each other in a manner than fully honors the other.
G6loq,
Ghandhi may well have been a ‘flake’ and a racist but that doesn’t mean he was wrong about everything. Or do you maintain for instance that Jefferson’s ownership of slaves obviates the Declaration’s premises and assertions? We all have feet of clay. We all fall short of what the best within us would have ourselves be.
I doubt I will live to see my great grandchildern, though if I live into my 90s that is possible. But that is beyond the point. Threaten me or mine and I am more than willing to burn your house down. The left needs to realize they will never be safe from our retribution. I may be a senior citizen, but I can kill them and theirs in a multiple of ways. Unintended consequences are vengeance on steriods. They in their arrogance do not realize the caca storm that will rain down on their heads.
Dennis, 8:44 pm —
Jesus preached and practised “turn the other cheek” — but he was in a position to claim the victory. Maybe the idea is that we fulfil the lofty standard only when we’re spiritually ready to meet the lofty demand. Until then, whaddaya say we keep our eyes on the prize, doing our most sincere best?
Geoffrey Britain, 10:43 pm —
I think we’re converging, if not already converged.
Good discussion!
G6loq:
My posts on Ghandi and his advice that people let themselves be killed: this, this, and this.
@Paul R, Opps I guess it was Fr Cataudo’s mom
& not yours. (Read in haste..)
I went back and read Neo’s old posts and the linked movie review about Ghandi. They were great.
Dennis. In regards to your response of post by Neo,
“People are frightened of even hearing different points of view lest they be swayed.”
This only happens when some Light is starting to crack through with the threat of illumination that “Uh Oh, this makes sense.” Either they swat it away and run, or counter attack the Light, or file it away in the “Don’t want to deal with it” file.
And I agree with your point on why she may be “Changing”, that she has found Christ which is resulting in “Moral” thought. The constant exposure to Conservative common sense is also having an effect though, I suspect. Most Leftists never actually hear the views of the Opposing side. It’s hard to argue with common sense continually. And she does seem to be principled enough to admit her mistakes.
I suspect the response to this book by the Left will be enough to push her over the edge and into her new tribe, however reluctantly. The Left will put her into full exile now.
My own take on many of Jesus’ sayings about how we are suppose to be pacifists and turn the other cheek is that they are directed to people in a particular time and place and do not necessary have direct application in all circumstances.
The Arabs and Jews back then were pretty crazy and blood vendetta prone.
Even Christ’s acolytes were prone to the blood lust.
Virtue is about moderation or good judgment. Those people back then needed to tone their war stuff down. But the opposite is true for modern Westerners.
Ghandi was pretty flakey, as exemplified in his unreported comments.
And I agree with your point on why she may be “Changing”, that she has found Christ which is resulting in “Moral” thought.
The way I explained it back when Neo and others were talking about hierarchy and authority, was slightly different.
Humans have an internal chain of command. The authority of the orders they receive and obey, is ranked on a priority level. Thus when Hussein becomes the Left’s messiah and God Emperor, Hussein’s orders take priority. If Hussein orders them to help the death squads snatch or punish some conservatives… most Leftists will not disobey. They will obey, often gladly. Better you than them in their eyes.
So a Christian has been commanded to utilize their free will, by the highest Authority in their eyes. They must obey that command, no matter what. So unless a human mortal can convince them that they are God or immortal, the commands of a human is not going to override the commands of the Christian God, at least not in the eyes of devout Christians. The command slot has been filled, and it would require Hussein to kill the Christian God first, before a usurpation of power is achieved. Most people are left to the standard solution of killing the believers. Killing a god and taking their throne, is a far more difficult proposition. (Don’t worry, the Left’s working on that)
The Left will put her into full exile now.
In many ways, it would do the insurgency well to highlight the Left’s atrocities, especially against their own people. That’s how an insurgency sways public opinion against the occupation. When did we become an insurgency and not the occupiers of America? When people failed to grow a spine and use what they had, so they lost it, that’s how.
People are frightened of even hearing different points of view lest they be swayed.
People feared the charge of heresy and excommunication not because they thought they would be swayed. They thought that other people thought that they would be swayed. Social status and opinion mattered more.
Pingback:Free Speech Link Dump | Cultural Rumbles