Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Wendy Kaminer on "Freedom for Speech We Fear and Freedom to Fear It"

Ever since the shooting I've been struggling with how to express the fact that we oughta talk about violent rhetoric without people getting up in arms thinking I'm suggesting the rhetoric is causal. So far, it feels like I've missed the mark (or perhaps I've been fine and they've just been hyper-sensitive). The closest to my views I've seen out there are Andrew Sullivan and Jon Stewart - not that surprising, as they usually have sensible commentary.

This one perhaps comes the closest yet - it's Wendy Kaminer at the Atlantic:

"In the past few days, I've been asked repeatedly how a liberal free speech advocate reacts to the debate about violent, extremist far-right rhetoric. At first, I instinctively engage in self-censorship, having learned over the years that you cannot criticize inflammatory speech, or worry publicly about its possible consequences, without unintentionally lending support to censorship campaigns. You can't speculate about the possible anti-social effects of anti-social speech without being applauded or condemned for drawing a straight line from violent rhetoric to violent action (which I do not do) and endorsing legal limits on insurrectionary rhetoric (which I vehemently oppose). As a practical political matter, it's very difficult, practically impossible, to question the merits of speech without lending credence to proposals prohibiting it. Still, it's worth noting that news of the shooting left many of us shocked but not surprised, and also worth asking why.

Ma Nishtana. Why is this moment in our political history (and I hope it's only a moment) different from so many others? There was violent, right-wing extremism in the '90s (reflected in the Oklahoma City bombing) but it hadn't yet been mainstreamed. The radical left indulged in comparably extremist rhetoric as well as actual violence in the 1960s, but, while it helped shape popular political movements, left-wing extremism in the '60s did not take possession of the Democratic Party. Indeed, Hubert Humphrey went down in the 1968 election partly because he stood side by side with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley while police split the heads of protesters outside. Today, the Republican Party is driving under the influence of extremism: some fear offending the base, which others represent. As many have pointed out, Fox News, Limbaugh and other talk radio demagogues have mainstreamed rhetoric that used to prevail mostly on the fringe. 


This doesn't mean that we can directly link violent rhetoric to violent action, or that we should restrict speech in the hope of restricting action. Laws against inciting violence should be very narrowly drawn, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1969: Speech is actionable as incitement when it is intended to cause imminent violence and is likely to succeed in doing so. Virtually none of the violent, insurrectionary, right-wing rhetoric I've heard would or should be actionable under this standard. You have a fundamental right to exhort people at a political rally to water the tree of liberty, even if they're legally bearing arms. What you lack is the right to exhort a mob over which you have some influence to engage in a riot, right now.

But I reserve the right to worry about the possible, indirect effects of speech that I recognize and vigorously defend as constitutionally protected. This is the right that conservative libertarian Glenn Reynolds would unselfconsciously condemn me for exercising -- a right at the core of a commitment to free speech. In his view, when I criticize right-wing rhetoric I am either directly blaming it for violent action or simply trying to score cheap political points. There are apparently no other explanations or justifications for any political critiques of political rhetoric. Excoriating us for expressing concerns about arguably inflammatory speech, Reynolds implicitly derides the fundamental libertarian tenet of freedom for speech you disdain. He effectively demands that we extend the freedom at the expense of expressing the disdain.

No thanks. I worry about the effects of far-right rhetoric today, partly because it's often utterly irrational and fact free. It should not be presumed to incite violence, but it can plausibly be blamed for inciting idiocy; and we live in dangerously idiotic, dysfunctionally anxious times. Demagoguery is legal but not admirable or necessarily harmless, especially in the context of profound economic dislocation, a nasty battle over immigration, a pervasive subtext of fear stirred up by a repressive war on terror, and an aggressive, politically powerful pro-gun movement that has succeeded in legalizing the easy availability and public display of automatic weapons. Moreover, this movement has long projected a revolutionary self-image, demanding unmitigated firearm freedoms in the interests of a natural right and obligation to resist government tyranny, as well as a right of self-defense against crime. If only gun rights advocates and other right wing activists would resist the real bipartisan threats and acts of tyranny that comprise the bipartisan war on terror.

Their opponents on the left, liberals and moderate Democrats contemplating the awful state of our union in the wake of the Arizona shooting, should consider how the repressive post 9/11 shadow government created by Bush and extended by Obama greatly complicates efforts to control the availability of firearms, much less protect against actual threats of violence. (Read Glenn Greenwald's account of the dangers posed to citizens by our government.) In theory for example, it's hard to oppose laws that would restrict the availability of automatic weapons to the mentally ill. In fact, given the unaccountable dictatorial powers exercised by the federal government, it's hard not to worry that laws depriving people of rights if they're labeled mentally ill would not be used against whistleblowers and other dissidents targeted by the security state.

I'll defend the First (and Second) Amendments freedoms enjoyed by Beck, Palin, and other right-wing firebrands. Why won't they defend the freedom to engage in peaceful political advocacy that the Supreme Court recently denied to human rights activists, in Holder v Humanitarian Law Project? Ironically, it's the right-wing Supreme Court -- not left-wing critics of the Tea Party -- that has legalized and constitutionalized the criminalization of political rhetoric."

15 comments:

  1. The question people will ask is this: If there is no evidence that this tragedy was influenced by political rhetoric then why use it as a spring board to talk about political rhetoric?

    The answer that some will inevitably come to is that you're trying to insinuate a relationship exists in spite of your claims to the contrary.

    This is the cynicism that abounds in politics and I do not think you can avoid a sizeable number thinking this way no matter how you phrase your remarks. One thing you could do, however, is not enthusiastically praise columns that do suggest a link between right wing rhetoric and violence as you did with Krugman's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Linking Jared Loughner to political rhetoric is a futile endeavor, and it only exposes one's ideological bias.

    However, Robert Wright had a good trick up his sleeve: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/before-hatred-comes-fear/?scp=1&sq=wright&st=cse.

    "Six months ago, police in California pulled over a truck that turned out to contain a rifle, a handgun, a shotgun and body armor. Police learned from the driver — sometime after he opened fire on them — that he was heading for San Francisco, where he planned to kill people at the Tides Foundation. You’ve probably never heard of the Tides Foundation — unless you watch Glenn Beck, who had mentioned it more than two dozen times in the preceding six months, depicting it as part of a communist plot to 'infiltrate' our society and seize control of big business."

    Now THAT is an incident that deserves this national conversation.

    I wish politicians worked as hard to actually cut spending as they do to undercut voices they dislike.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As stupid as most of the commentary on this subject has been, at least they aren't blaming it on violent video games.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Xenophon, I'm glad to have you back but "that's stupid" doesn't really add all that much.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, as with any incident, a scapegoat must be found. For the left, liberals, etc. it seems to be "far right rhetoric."

    ReplyDelete
  6. I found the commentary on "automatic weapons" hilarious, BTW.

    Look, it is rather easy to elide past any sort of technical ban on an "assault weapon" or an "automatic weapon" - there are technical fixes for all of these efforts. That's why these bans are basically an effort to curb "scary looking guns."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Right - I can understand gun laws tying licensing to mental health issues out of this, etc. I see no conflict between reasonable licensing and the second amendment. But I figured it went without saying I don't entirely agree with Kaminer on the gun stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You can tie them all you like, if a person wants a gun they'll get one.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well what do you mean "they'll get one"? Do you mean some people will find a way, or do you mean that they will have the same likelihood of getting one.

    The first version is blatantly obvious. The second version is patently absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  10. They'll have the same likelihood of getting one. Do you really think drug prohibition decreases the likelihood someone will get an illicit drug? Because the evidence on that score flows the other way.

    Question: Have you ever owned a firearm in your life? Have you ever shot a firearm?

    I have; everything from black powder muzzle loaders to modern weaponry.

    ReplyDelete
  11. OK - so you've opted for patently absurd. At least that helps me figure out how much more time to invest in this.

    Prohibiting drugs raises their price, increases the risks associated not just with buying but also with selling, and makes market communication and comparison shopping harder. It absolutely decreases the likelihood that someone will get an illicit drug (contingent on their initial desire for one... what prohibition does to demand is a different question entirely that veers into psychology and I have no clue what to think about it).

    Haven't owned a firearm but have shot a firearm - but not many. I'm not sure what you think I think about firearms, but I'm quite pro-second amendment. I don't imagine any of my views would be especially problematic with the NRA.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You should pass this on to Wendy (and you are in dire need of reading it too): http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257038/how-write-about-guns-robert-verbruggen?page=1

    ReplyDelete
  13. Xenophon - I'm not guilty of a single thing he has on that list. What could possibly lead you to think I'm in "dire need" of reading it? What could I have possibly said that would set that off? And why in the world have you been so confrontational lately?

    I've never assumed criminals follow laws here. I've never differentiated between guns on the basis of how "dangerous" they are - that strikes me as an absurd basis for legislation pertaining to a weapon that is by its very definition intended to be lethal. I don't think I've ever refered to hunting or sport in any discussion of guns on here - I've only refered to self-defense because that's the only reason guns are included in the Bill of Rights at all. And I certainly haven't said anything to suggest any wavering in a dedication to due process in gun ownership.

    You need to seriously quit acting so haughty Xenophon. What's the deal, man?

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.