{"id":5349,"date":"2012-05-15T21:16:35","date_gmt":"2012-05-16T02:16:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/freethoughtblogs.com\/xblog\/?p=3492"},"modified":"2012-05-15T21:16:35","modified_gmt":"2012-05-16T02:16:35","slug":"freedom-of-speech-means-sometimes-you-shut-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gregladen.com\/blog\/2012\/05\/15\/freedom-of-speech-means-sometimes-you-shut-up\/","title":{"rendered":"Freedom of speech means sometimes you shut up"},"content":{"rendered":"

There have been a lot of discussions lately about freedom of speech. Some of this has centered around the question: Are we hurting the Nazis (Golden Dawn) in Greece by signing and circulating a petition to ask WordPress to take down their web site? (More on this below, there have been interesting developments.) What about (intentionally) offensive comedians, hired to perform at conventions and conferences? Are we right to get mad at the organizers for organizing that, or do we just assume that somebody<\/em> out there finds it funny, so we should just back off and maybe go sit by the pool for a while or something? (You need to know what satire is<\/a> to really understand.) <\/p>\n

Often, people jump into any discussion where it looks like speech is being questioned, silenced, affected in any way, dare I say ‘repressed,’ with strong admonitions that at all costs one must not interfere with anyone’s freedom of expression. Those who jump in first and hardest are often lost causes. No amount of discussion, no slew of examples, no pile of evidence, no plethora of historical facts will talk them down from the position that all speech must be protected at all times no matter what the speech is, who is saying it, the context in which it is said, its consequences, how it is being “said,” or anything. Not only that, but that which damages or represses speech is generally over-defined to include any call for putting a lid of any kind on any thing. <\/p>\n

Those people, with their blind rage against repression, need to do one thing: Shut up. <\/p>\n

Why? Because I’d rather have a tiny bit of speech (theirs maybe?) repressed and otherwise engage in thoughtful conversation<\/a> that is not only free but rich, than to have a quiver of rules always at hand and to have only one purpose in life: to enforce those rules at all costs, even the cost of sanity.<\/p>\n

The truth is that speech is repressed all the time in many different contexts, including places that exist mainly for the purpose of doing things like protecting speech. Speech is not “free” in the “I CAN SAY WHATEVER I WANT ANY TIME I WANT TO ANYONE I WANT NO MATTER WHAT” sense in the very halls of Congress or State Houses around the United States, where activities governed by the very constitutions that guarantee expression are carried out daily. And that only relates to American Protected Speech, not Speech as it may or may not be protected in other countries, or across borders. (Again, we’ll come back to that, with the Greek Nazis, in a moment.)<\/p>\n

Rachel Maddow, or rather Rachel Maddow’s Blog with Laura Conway as Blogero, provides an interesting example<\/a> of recent events in the New Hampshire House that serve as a vehicle for pointing out a few realities regarding speech, its freedom, and why freedom of speech does not mean what a lot of people think it means. It also serves as a fun example of Republicans being dysfunctional, which is always amusing. But before we get to that, since Rachel Maddow was mentioned, I want to step into the Way Back machine for a moment and remind you of a conversation she had on her show a couple of years ago that is stuck in my head and that is very relevant.<\/p>\n

Watch this video about the activities in the House of Representative Alan Grayson, and Rachel Maddow’s interview of him. I’ve provided crib notes below.<\/p>\n