Liberals are for “Free Speech”… Sort Of

 

One of the clearly sacrosanct principles of our democracy used to be respect for free speech.

This was illustrated by the famous quote attributed to French writer Voltaire.  “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Unfortunately, a more updated version would read “I’ll support your right to free speech as long as I agree with you.  Otherwise, I’m for your canceling”.

Those on the Left who are less candid will affirm their continuing belief to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but will excuse the conduct of those who attempt to silence those with contrary views (almost always conservatives).

Left-wing Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude (who appears on MSNBC’s Scarborough show) put it this way.  (I’m paraphrasing.)  “Of course I support free speech but I also believe in non-violent civil disobedience.  That’s what protesting college students are exercising when they make noise to drown-out a speaker whose speech they find offensive.”

I suggest that the professor is using sophistry masquerading as an intelligent defense of reasonable actions.

The effect of such conduct is to thwart the exercise of speech with which one disagrees.  How does that qualify as an act of civil disobedience?

That principle can be justified as a response to a law that is wrong (as were pro-segregation policies in the South).  Thus, disobedience to such legislation can be sensible and reasonable in accord with what is believed to be a “higher” law.

Professor Glaude, however, apparently believes that using the gloss of a term popular in the Nation’s civil rights struggles will deflect attention from the cancel culture’s raison d’etre.  Its followers – and practitioners – are arrogant and closed minded.  They believe what they want to believe and oppose efforts by others to think differently.  They are offended.  

The First Amendment is about freedom – speech, press and religion – the essence of a liberal democracy.  The cancellers and their apologists, like the Princeton academics of the land, are its enemy.

 

When a False Statement is not a Lie

 

Back in our youth, each of us was prone to equate the statement of something that we knew to be untrue as a lie – and the person making it, a liar.

But as we grew older and (for some) more discerning in our use of language, the role of intent was recognized.  To lie is to state something is true when the maker knows that it is not.  Intention is the key to the definition.  Without it, the falsehood made stems from faulty information, flawed conclusions or beliefs that override facts.  They are errors, not lies.

To call someone a liar is a serious charge (excluding the minor white lies we all utter from time to time).  In today’s world, only the term “racist” is more incendiary.  And both are cast about with abandon.

Is Donald Trump a liar because he insists that he, not Joe Biden, won the 2020 election?  The Sensible Conservative readily agrees that this is not true.  So why does he repeatedly say it?  Because he believes what he wants to believe!  A cursory view of the ex-president’s personality and personal history makes obvious that he hates to lose and seems unable to admit defeat.  And that trait controls his view of reality.

Those who call the ex-president are either blinded by their bias and can not see the personality at play or see but are malevolent in their labeling.

And why do prominent media stars on the Right (Sean Hannity and fellow Fox headliner Tucker Carlson as examples) term the Conservatives with contrary views (e.g., Jan. 6 committee member Lynn Cheney or Georgia governor Brian Kemp) as liars because they view the results of the 2020 election as settled.  Is there not room for an alternative explanation that does not impugn one’s character?

Long ago – so it seems – when one believed that a foe was voicing falsehoods, one would prefer to believe that that person was mistaken.  And, even if intention was suspected, “liar” was not a slur to be uttered in polite company.  Discourse could continue.  Name-calling ends it.

Now, many of us simply shout and curse at others as the animosity deepens.