Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day – Free Speech
Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage. – Winston Churchill
Was Winston Churchill a time traveler? Because this quote is more certainly true today than it was during Churchill’s lifetime. This week, no less than a Supreme Court Justice stated in oral arguments, “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
Well, yes, Justice, that’s the point of the First Amendment. It exists to hamstring government control of ideas. That is its feature. It is not a bug.
We now have concerted campaigns by the left to quash disinformation. Of course, disinformation is defined as anything not in agreement with the catechisms of the left. They can say whatever they like, however outrageous, while anything in disagreement with them is disinformation and must be controlled. The concept is Fascist and Stalinist.
In Scotland J. K. Rowlings has made free speech her hill to die on. Following Thoreau’s principles of civil disobedience, she is repeatedly flouting a Scots law that makes “misgendering” a crime. She is defying the Scots government to arrest her after it takes effect on April 1st by publicly stating a truth: sex is assigned at birth and cannot be changed by proclamation. I disagree with most of her politics (although I would never challenge her right to state her beliefs – even those I disagree with), but I admire her stand in defense of truth and free speech.
When I was much younger, I was much less of a free speech absolutist. I was on a message board (1980s dial-up modems) a friend was running. One participant was telling egregious lies on it. I urged my friend to kick him off. His response was to refuse. The solution for bad speech, he told me, is more speech, not censorship. If he is lying, call him out. Point out his lies. But don’t silence him. Silencing always makes others wonder what you have to hide, why ideas he is sharing cannot be spoken aloud. You will empower him.
So it proved. This fraud was active on several message boards. The ones that banned him made his circle of believers grow. The ones that allowed him to stay, but mocked him, caused his influence to wane. My friend (who was older than me) proved correct. I have remembered that ever since.
Published in Group Writing
You are totally on the right track here.
Amen
A minor quibble:
Actually I think that we are giving away a little to the left when we say sex is assigned at birth. It is made an integral part of us at conception when the chromosomes come together. It is part of every cell. It is recognizable by ultrasound and amniocentesis long before birth.
If sex is not assigned until birth then one might imply that an unborn child is not yet human.
I’ll pick a nit there. Free speech has always been a problem to people who can’t tolerate some opposing view. Elijah Lovejoy ran a series of newspapers in St. Louis and later in Alton, Illinois that advocated for Abolition. This was enormously unpopular in slace-holding Missouri and not universally lauded in Alton, despite Illinois being ostensibly a free state. A mob killed Lovejoy in 1837, as he attempted to defend his fourth printing press. It was Lovejoy’s death that caused John Brown to publically announce his determination to dedicate his life to ending slavery.
“some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage”.
Just between us, it’s not as if we’re absolutely pure on that one either. I’ve seen a few people quit Ricochet because they seemed shocked that someone else disagrees with them.
For most of a century the American people have been polled on free speech. Pretty consistently, about 30% of Americans have said government should prohibit very unpopular speech.
Well, there are two kinds of speech on Ricochet. There is reasoned, well-articulated speech communicating repugnant ideas that you may disagree with, and then there’s ignorant and irrational speech which people attempt to give force to by couching it in snide innuendo and name calling, even suggesting that people in one group and even other Ricochet members in that group are crazy, lazy, and immoral.
And the CoC stipulates that these snide liars can’t even be called snide liars to their virtual faces. And if you do, you’re banned for life.
Free speech may be vile, but no one has to tolerate it or be morally shamed into paying to listen to it.
She is defying the Scots government to arrest her after it takes effect on April 1st by publicly stating a truth: sex is assigned at birth and cannot be changed by proclamation.
I have to disagree with this – sex is “assigned”? By whom? And prior to birth, it’s not “assigned”, and thus up for grabs? This flies in the face of basic biology.
To acquiesce to the distortions of language that the Left perpetrates is a mistake. I think the fight has to occur there as well as in other places.
I don’t know about that. I’ve been called crazy, lazy and immoral, and I’ve replied that they were snide liars.
But I’m still here.
I’m talking about former members who were upset that only 90% of the site agreed with them about 90% of the issues. To them, there’s only one type of conservatism, theirs.
I didn’t realize J.K. Rowling was at risk of being arrested over her stance on the existence of women. Are there any prominent men in the UK standing up for and with her? It seems like women are finally standing up for themselves against trans ideology, but why aren’t men as interested? Or am I just not hearing as much about them?
I just heard Michael Shellenberger say that he thought women were more comfortable discussing the sensitive issues involved and that he had hoped to leave it up to them. Now he’s involved because his researchers uncovered the rot within WPATH.
*****
This post is a part of the Quote of the Day project at Ricochet. Please signup here.
No, that’s not how moderation works. No one is “banned for life” for the reason you give, but rather after a long period of multiple redactions and multiple suspensions.
I don’t know how at risk she is of being arrested, even though she is actively courting arrest. I suspect Scots officials realize how much of a tar baby arresting her would become. But if they don’t arrest her and arrest others saying the same thing as her what happens then? I think they are going to be in the position of the dog that actually catches the car.
Not that I can see.
I think many men feel disengaged from the debate. They have been told for years to shut up and sit down on women’s issues. Hardly surprising that those you have been vilifying for years don’t want to spend moral capital on that particular cause.
As for me? I have encountered several trans individuals (including over the last year). I told them that they have the right to believe anything they want, but so do I and they have to extend that same courtesy to me. When they disagreed, I said that’s the type of behavior I have come to expect from intolerant bigots. They tend to back away at that point.
Seems absolutely fair. Good response.
[self-redacted for being off topic. :) ]
I had to fill out an online form for the doctor’s office, but because it was online, I could not inter-lineate where I wanted to. When I arrived, I politely pointed out to the front desk that I objected to the form’s question as to what “gender” I had been “assigned” at birth, noting that, while I had no recollection of that occasion, all those present had reportedly observed that I was born male. Receptionist smiled and thanked me. Heh. One does what one can.
Well done, well done!