Siepp is right, Sterling: an institution devoted to freedom of political speech shouldn't be "failing to find space" for political speech it disagrees with. I take it that you agree with Siepp on the subject of the way in which freedom of speech in and of itself is anti-Jihadist. And that therefore you'll stop going on about American "traitors" who exercise their freedom of speech to oppose the acts of the US government. Or, in your view, is freedom of speech only anti-Jihadist when the content of that speech is anti-Jihadist as well?

Sterling -- aside from, I guess, me, what followers of 'alternative lifestyles' do you have regular contact with?

Aside from the hilarity of types like Horowitz, can you point to a single research paper that supports your thesis? Perhaps you miss that the 'left' (whatever that is) was at the forefront of critical thought regarding the anti-humanist elements of fundamentalist Islam (there's this author names Salman Rushdie -- perhaps you heard of him?). That those people have a criticism of how wingnuts now choose to engage these issues (after decades of self-interested appeasement) is not causation that they have abandoned their critical positions.

I mean, a bookstore clerk isn't David Corn. And City Lights isn't a public library (though I suspect if there was a local library that refused to stock The Turner Diaries, it would be SF).

Sterling -- aside from, I guess, me, what followers of 'alternative lifestyles' do you have regular contact with?

What "alternative lifestyles" do you imagine I don't have contact with? I live three blocks from a large arts and design school. I am ass-deep in alternativeness.

And that therefore you'll stop going on about American "traitors" who exercise their freedom of speech to oppose the acts of the US government. Or, in your view, is freedom of speech only anti-Jihadist when the content of that speech is anti-Jihadist as well?

Are you suggesting that I don't have the right to express my opinions about people who express opinions that in my opinion are expressions of disloyalty?

Exactly what's so alternative about shagging all the married women of NYC and being paid to write about buildings?

I don't get paid -- that's what makes me soooo alternative.

You mean you don't get paid to service the women? That is alternative.

"Are you suggesting that I don't have the right to express my opinions about people who express opinions that in my opinion are expressions of disloyalty?"

No, Sterling, except that when you brand someone a traitor, aren't you accusing them of a crime? It's not illegal - you are entitled to expressing your opinion - but it's hypocrticial. Accusing someone of a crime suggests you think the authorities should arrest them for expressing their views.

Or do you think "treason" is reprehensible but legal?

I've gone over my opinion of the legal status of treason sometime in the past: it is that lots of people are guilty of treason but only the most destructive are ever charged. That doesn't mean it isn't reprehensible, it just means that we err on the side of free speech, which is OK.

From a utilitarian point of view - which is hardly the only one or the only justification - free speech is worthwhile because the interests of people (society) and the interests of the government (state) are not the same. But in wartime the overlap of those interests becomes much larger, and speech that is anti-war, pacifist or pro-enemy becomes a threat to those interests because it can weaken the national resolve that is a pre-requisite to win a war.

It is worse for a country to lose a war than to have a temporary restriction on liberties. The societal damage of winning a war is always far, far less than the damage of losing one, so once a war is started there is no possible positive outcome of an anti-war movement. So again, from a utilitarian perspective, it is treason to participate in any demonstration or campaign against an in-progress war, because such participation reduces the chances of victory and threatens the well-being of society and state.

Of course, it's much more complicated than a merely utilitarian calculus. For example, we lost Vietnam because the mass-media joined the anti-war side and did its best to silence those who upheld their patriotic responsibilities. The mass-media tried that again with Iraq, but the liberation of communication via the internet and talk radio made their effort a failure. The anti-war movement in the U.S. has failed because the voices of individuals are more likely to be heard now than in 1970.

"It is worse for a country to lose a war than to have a temporary restriction on liberties."

Remind me how that quote goes again? Something about giving up liberty for some temporary safety and deserving neither? I feel as though someone well known must have said it. Perhaps Sterling will recall?

Franklin's maxim has no bearing on wartime.

Sterling, you can't possibly have such a low opinion of the founding fathers to imagine that they left a loophole of such enormity in the Constitution. They carefully set up a system of rights and responsibilities and checks and balances and what have you, and then --

(a) none of that applies during wartime;
(b) any president can declare that we're in a state of war at any time, even if it's something as inchoate as a "war on terror".

In any case, since US troops have been fighting some kind of pissant war in some godforsaken country or other more or less continuously for the past century or so, I guess we can assume that all the liberties that Americans held so dear were really not nearly as fundamental to their country's Constitution as they thought they were.

Sterling,
I have two problems with your reply.

First, you are relying on obvious hot wars with front lines and obvious conclusions. The so-called war on terror is so nebulous and long-term that that loss of liberty is not brief. It is difficult to imagine interning Japanese-Americans for two years...Gitmo prisoners have already faced four years and some may never go free, regardless of innocence or guilt.

The roundups of Arab and Muslim Americans, the deportations, the justification of torture, the assertion by the President that his authority trumps the Constitution in "war time", the abuse of Patriot Act powers to go after non-terrorists, illegal spying on Americans in America by the NSA... We are well down that slippery slope with no end in sight. Gagging free speech on the grounds that the national interest is in winning a war that is so hard to define (because maybe it's not a war in the conventional sense) is a very bad idea.

Second, you glibly charge "mass media" with spoiling our imminent victory in Vietnam. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You're a funny guy.

I think it was the anti-war movement that got America out of a war it clearly was not going to win. America was by and large pretty gung-ho (or just ignorant) about that war throughout the 1960s, pretty much until Tet. We had plenty of chances to "win" Vietnam before the public mood turned. The terms that Nixon and Kissenger secured in 1974 were virtually the same as they began to negotiate in 1969 - an appalling loss of American lives and national dignity over nothing.

Whether Iraq=Vietnam I'll leave aside, but one thing is clear: if we "lose" Iraq it will not be because people in America call for us to quit. It will be because the administration invaded that country without any planning, with insufficient ground troops, without broadbased international legitimacy, without proper intel, without proper civilian peacekeeping capabilities or training, and without proper leadership, command or control. If we "lose" Iraq it will because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Frith, Franks, Gardner, Bremer & Co. made a fucking hash of it.

Second, you glibly charge "mass media" with spoiling our imminent victory in Vietnam. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You're a funny guy.

I think it was the anti-war movement that got America out of a war it clearly was not going to win. America was by and large pretty gung-ho (or just ignorant) about that war throughout the 1960s, pretty much until Tet.

Tet was an overwhelming American victory. I am aware of no serious student of the war who claims otherwise. The second part of your response reveals your ignorance of the conclusion of Vietnam. When U.S. forces began to withdraw after Nixon took office, South Vietnam was clearly in the stronger position. It was only because of the U.S. anti-war movement, which prevented any further aid against the Chinese- and Soviet-backed North Vietnam, that South Vietnam fell and was lost to the free world. Any other analysis of the situation after 1973 is a misrepresentation, and I am sorry to see that you have fallen for such agitprop.

We have won Iraq, but it will require an American presence for some time to maintain order while the legitimacy of the current government grows. The government it replaces maintained power through brutality and torture, and it will take time for the new one to assume a similar level of stability through humane means. If we were to leave now, the effect would be much the same as in Vietnam, because like the Soviets and Chinese in Vietnam, Iran and Syria will keep up their campaign to destabilize Iraq until it becomes futile or is victorious.

after Nixon took office

Ugh, a BWI offense. (And no, I'm not talking about the airport.) I meant after Nixon began his second term.

I think the Franklin maxim applies *especially* in wartime.

And what exactly is the "war on terror" anyway? Doesn't seem like a proper war to me. How can you wage war on a tactic?

Terrorists are just a particularly ugly brand of criminal. Their goal is political change rather than personal gain, but they are simple criminals nonetheless.

The point is that we should not allow our leaders to get away will all manner of authoritarian bullshit, merely by claming to be "at war". Especially a war with no hazily defined end-condition.

Tet was the culmination of many overwhelming military victories in Vietnam. It's not like we were getting our asses kicked in the field and then along came this brilliant victory in Hue that was undermined by Walter Cronkite. We continued the war for another six years and enjoyed more overwhelming military victories.

I think the Franklin maxim applies *especially* in wartime.

Benjamin Franklin's son William Franklin was the royal governor of New Jersey when the Revolution began. William was opposed to the war and took the Loyalist side.

For his outspoken opposition to the war, William Franklin was imprisoned for two years, with his father's backing.

So we know what Ben Franklin thought about freedom of conscience during war - he believed it took a back seat to the national interest.

So does this mean I'm going to Gitmo if I buy a dime bag in Washington Square Park?

Sterling, the Great War that you perceive is very similar to that Great War on Drugs that Regan imposed on the USA. Did it change a thing? Not in the least, I had to shuttle kids in South East DC and listen to them when they told me to keep driving even if it was their house. These pyrrhic "victories" are laughable. Hell, W only has a 34% approval rating. What does that mean to you? Has there been some squashing of the media by the Neo-Fascist Left in this country? No, that's right, W did that. So, what are we missing then? Don't get on the soap box about the bias of the media, the same can be said of the right these days, and with more and more media outlets narrowcasting, there are media sources that everyone can agree with, regardless of how screwy they are.

The reason that we lost Viet Nam was due to the Nixon administration's change of course in 1969 and decided to transfer responsibility for ground combat to the South Vietnamese. "We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation (coercion more like) with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all US combat ground forces and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable." (Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006 pg. 3) We need to start treating the war in Iraq as a communal civil war, without this change, we are certain to fail. You can take that to the bank Sterling.

Couragious free speech.

Here is a recent example of free speach, one that might cause the death of the speaker.
I forward this amazing display of raw courage to my friends at MF.
I post this here as it seemed to be the most appropriate current thread.

Sage7
----

oh ... my ... goodness !!!!!!!!!

you've got to listen to this interview on al jazeera captured by memri.

this lady has got to be the bravest person i think i've seen in a long time.

How often do you think al jazeera will replay this?

thats is quite a remarkable speech, and you're right about the courage she has to have made it. One would have to be extremely courageous to say what she did, with such lucidity and sincere intent to educate not denigrate or insult, even in our societey, let alone hers where you are correct to say that she is at great risk or physical danger.

I don't see a lot of indication that either end of the political spectrum is particularly devoted to free speech. In fact, right now speech seems highly imperiled. The left wants to use the limitation of speech to build a perfect political world, and the right wants to control speech in order to create a perfect social structure.

Limiting speech seems to me like the last gasp of a dying cause, and today's censors are no different.

On the right, the culture warriors are trying to preserve the 1950s, when media were few and tightly controled either by government (in the case of broadcasting) or by a culturally homogenous oligarchy that knew what was and what was not fit to print. Clearly, those days are dead; Bozell and his nitwits just haven't quite given up, and they've got a few right wing allies who think the FCC ought to expand into the regulation of cable and the Internet.

On the left, the last vestiges of fashionable communism continue to exert their influence (though most on the left are no longer communists) in the far left's belief that message control can form a unified, aligned, right-thinking body politic. If we could just keep racists from expressing their racism, the belief goes, racism would die.

Neither side is comfortable with the fact that free people do and say all kinds of crazy things. Neither side trusts people to make their own decisions.