Is there still freedom after speech?
By Robert Benne
A Cold War witticism had a dissenter in the East remarking that people in communist lands had freedom of speech just like those in the West. The only difference, he said, was that in the West there was freedom after speech. The speaker wasn’t sent to the gulag.
We don’t wind up in the gulag for dissenting from the received wisdom of the progressive left, but we can lose our reputations and jobs. The threat of such loss is real enough to make dissenters think twice about speaking at all. The diminution of freedom after speech tends to inhibit freedom of speech.
Benne lives in Salem.
February 27, 2013 - 6:19 AM
By all means Mr. Benne, let’s discuss issues that are considered taboo.
Let’s talk about the similarities of capitalism to slavery.
Let’s talk about bringing back slavery for (pick your minority) and child labor.
Let’s talk about sterilizing those “too lazy” to work and provide for the children they already have.
Let’s talk about the advantages of the flat earth model, the geocentric model of the solar system, and the theory that babies are delivered by storks. After all, we may have overlooked something.
There are things worth discussing and there are things that are settled. Too often in our society, when someone says let’s talk about these settled items, it’s simply an attempt to obfuscate and imply a level of doubt and questioning that simply isn’t supported.
There are times for discussing received wisdom. That questioning has resulted in the end of slavery, equal rights (almost, sorta, kinda) for women, the heliocentric model, etc.
But it sounds like Mr. Benne is whining that his views may be in the minority. Perhaps he feels persecuted. Perhaps he feels because he’s “persecuted” he must be right. This is known as the Galileo Gambit. But there was more to Galileo than simple persecution for his thoughts. You also have to be right.
Anyone asking for, much less demanding respect for their POV no matter how off the main stream or unwelcome is not asking for anything more than to have their crackpot memes legitimized by proximity to a discussion as if such was merited.
–
It is not wrong, nor denial of free speech rights, nor the equivalent of “the gulag” when people refuse to discuss something they or society rejects. It is called free will and it is as God given as your right to spread your memes and outdated beliefs.
–
You are entitled to your morality, judgement and POV. You are not entitled to respect and legitimacy by virtue of their existence. Often, a quiet refusal to join is as loud as a shout of derision.
Scott, are babies really delivered by storks? I thought that was just a theory.
First off, I haven’t a clue as to where Benne’s paraphrase comes from. “Freedom after speech.” Although, he does go on to say that the speaker wasn’t sent to the gulag so obviously he must have a source, or did it simply make a good intro to his ridiculous editorial?
Let us tackle this article one issue at a time. His sexual revolution issue seems to be focused on homosexuality and the reactions people receive who speak out against homosexuality. He focuses on the Chick-fil-A incident. I would argue that Chick-fil-A freely voiced their opinion and in turn the people who boycotted the restaurant freely voiced theirs. I’m not sure I see the suppression of free speech that he is referring to. Were the people of the South, during the Civil Rights movement, wrong to boycott the city buses? Whites Only establishments? By his definition of freedom of speech and the oppression of speech then yes they were wrong. If Benne and others of the same opinion have issues with homosexuality and companies that support it, then by all means go ahead and start your boycotts of Microsoft, Amazon and Costco (to name to companies he names). The one thing Benne does name that actually would be a violation of freedom of speech would be the mayor’s who wanted to block the stores from their jurisdictions. Of course, I suppose liberals, like John Stewart, who attacked such actions don’t count as defenders of free speech.
As far as Mark Regnerus, he has admitted that his study has been misused and misinterpreted. His study was not really a study on same-sex with children at all, because in his own words they are very few in number. (http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/10/26/friday-5-mark-regnerus/). And yes his college checked into his study and came back and said there was no harm done. Seems like free speech worked. He did research, was attacked and then vindicated. A lack of free speech would be the inability to question his research or the inability to do his research.
I’m not even sure what Benne his talking about when it comes to feminism. Lawrence Summers spoke at a luncheon. What he said was wrong by many scientific and academic accounts. The people spoke out. He stepped down from both his position in Harvard and the Obama administration. This is freedom of speech. Summers was able to make his speech, no one stopped him and then the people were able to make themselves heard.
Climate Change dissent? I see it constantly in both the news and the internet. Benne brings up the University of Anglia of Climategate fame? I’m not sure where the violation of free speech is.
His comments on race not being allowed as a discussion is completely unfounded and unsupported by what he has written.
I do understand that this is the editorial section of the Roanoke Times, but really shouldn’t fact play into things some? Suppression of free speech is being imprisoned for speaking your mind. A very real suppression of free speech would be the McCarthy era which I am not old enough to remember, but I am a student of history and I’m well aware of the occurrence.
Excellent points Jerry Rush, some people think that free speech means your POV and your words should be free from repercussion, reaction and rebuttal. Good luck with that.
Retired Roanoke College religious studies professor Robert Benne wrote a carefully crafted attack on liberal values and a defense of conservative values in the disguise of a free speech commentary. It is noteworthy that he is blind to repression of liberal opinions and only sees what he believes to be repression of conservative opinions. Repression of opinions on either the left or right should be condemned, and Benne would have more credibility of he was not such a blatant partisan for the right. Much of his commentary is politely worded b.s. The study by sociologist Mark Regnerus, for example, is crap, but he calls it “solid methodologically.” Most absurd is his claim that the sexual revolution was the product of “angry feminism.” No, sir, it was the product of women and male supporters who’d grown sick, tired, and fed up with sexism: specifically, male domination, suppression, exploitation and discrimination of women.
Benne is absolutely correct….and the small (in more ways than one) universe hackles raised in condemnation here is evidence.
His point is the ability to offer opinion without dogmatic retaltation. Whether one agrees with his opinions per se, is not the point.
His opinions were not the subject of his essay. The subject is what happens when opinion is expressed that violates the progressive mind-set.
He makes that point quite well. As do his detractors.
So true Liberte!
#7 “Benne is absolutely correct…” Eh, I’ll consider the source, and take it for what it’s worth. The fact that Benne has often railed against Muslims and gays and used his religion as a fig leaf speaks for itself.
Oh, and one more thing: Just where was Benne when people like Tim Robbins and the Dixie Chicks got treated like dirt just for engaging in THEIR right to free speech? Oh wait, silly me: In the mind of Benne and his ilk, it’s only liberals who deserve “consequences” for speech.