Skip to main content

Defending Free Speech Always Has an Edge

It is really uncomfortable to defend free speech, because you often have stand beside those who say things you find personally noxious. And there's always the temptation to label speech you personally find offensive as hate speech so that you can get it outlawed (of course, if I think it's hateful, everyone else must also, right?).

But sometimes it's just exhilarating to tee off on somebody with an idiotic argument.

The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is upset that Great Britain is scrapping its old blasphemy laws, reports the Telegraph:

New legislation may be needed to protect religious believers from "thoughtless and cruel" attacks if Britain's ancient blasphemy laws are scrapped, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.

Dr Rowan Williams conceded that the blasphemy offences were flawed and no longer served any purpose, but he questioned whether recently introduced laws banning incitement to religious hatred were an adequate substitute.

The Archbishop said that public debate had become coarsened by powerful people who arrogantly assumed the rightness of their own position and ignored the hurt they caused others, including Muslims and Jews....

In the James Callaghan Memorial lecture, Dr Williams challenged the argument that free speech must always prevail, saying that society had to protect the sensibilities of people who were not in a position to defend themselves.

"It is one thing to deny a sacred point of reference for one's own moral or social policies; it is another to refuse to entertain - or imagine - what it might be for someone else to experience the world differently," he said.

"And behind this is the nagging problem of what happens to a culture in which, systematically, nothing is sacred."


Now I'm Catholic, and I personally bridle at people who want to dismiss my religious beliefs as ignorant or primitive or prejudiced, but--on the other hand--I simply can't resist someone like Harry Haddock on Nation of Shopkeepers who tees off on the good Arch Bishop with both barrels.

I won't excerpt it because it's short, less than the full post would not do it justice, and with his sheer poetry of profanity Harry has won the right to have you visit his blog. Find it here.

Source note: This courtesy the Bloggertarian roundup from my Down-under friends at Thoughts on Freedom.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...