I don't think I was being dishonest. I understand Warren's position, and to some extent, there was some tongue and cheek in there.
The post itself does not concentrate at all on that subject itself, but rather does put forward a substantive argument on the issue.
It would appear that Warren Kinsella's definition of "free speecher" is someone who stands up for free speech, but engages in civil litigation to silence other's. I disagree completely with Kinsella trying to paint that as two sides of the same coin. So poking fun at him for coining the term seemed appropriate nonetheless.
To that end, Warren Kinsella seems to make a regular habit out of equating his "free speechers" with being racists, which made the mode of provocation I undertook in starting this meme all the more justified, I think.
Moreover, I think Kate of SDA equally understands the satire.
err, I mean: " So poking fun of him for coining the term, seemed appropriate nonetheless."
I apologize for all the screwed up punctuation. I do a lot of this stuff from my Blackberry, and it annoyingly tries to automate punctuation, etc.
Not to worry, Mike. I've fixed things up in your first post as indicated. Let me know if it reads OK now.
Unfortunately Mike has contracted a bad case of Manichean Syndrome, regrettably common among bloggers - the compulsion to link a potentially interesting topic with a cretinously simple and imaginary divide between a monolithic, evil (insert Left or Right) with a monolithic, virtuous (insert Left or Right). I think it's the company he's been keeping. (So, Mike, what's Kathy REALLY like?)
I also think that people sometimes have to remember their audience and realize the impact that their words are going to have.
Mike and Kate may well get the satire, I'm going to guess that many of their readers will not.
If satire it was.
Yeah, there's that...
I linked to Mike's post not because he was poking Kinsella with a stick - hell, I can poke Kinsella myself thank you - but rather for these lines:
"Democracy is not a means by which to provide for free speech. Free speech is a means by which to provide for democracy."
They sum up the essential difference between people who understand the principle of free speech and people, like Kinsella, who simply don't or won't get it
Fair enough, Jay, although there's a lot of space between no free speech and unfettered free speech, and Warren and I fall somewhere in between. But the notion that "freespeecher" is the latest Left pejorative was a bit much, nonetheless.
Democracy is not a means by which to provide for free speech. Free speech is a means by which to provide for democracy.
Read Manufacturing Consent again. The amount of speech frothing and churning around bears no relation to what democracy needs.
Dawg, I am not at all convinced that there can be "fettered" speech which is also free. Bit of an oxymoron.
And I am quite certain that you and Kinsella do not fall in between; Kinsella wants fettered speech because he's a hack and he is scared to death of people saying what they think without spin. You are not. Were I you I would not fetter myself to a man who mistakes a wind vane for a compass.
Ti-Guy I try not to take my cue from people who act as apologists for mass murder while telling us "what democracy needs".
Huh?
Anyway, that probably illustrates my point. A cacophony of irrelevance defended to the exclusion of everything that matters by those who think informed discourse is served by playing noble and self-righteous free speech warriors is probably not what democracy needs.
Okay, Ti-Guy; enlighten us. Just what does democracy need? Anxious ears await.
Informed decision-making.
I can't wait to see how "informed decision making" is some how torqued into a lefty plot...
Dr. Dawg, do you have any of that popcorn left?
I can't wait to see how "informed decision making" is some how torqued into a lefty plot...
That's easy to do when you assume that reality has a liberal/lefty bias.
Hmmm....
And you posit that too much of this "speech stuff" interferes with that, eh?
Dr. Dawg, do you have any of that popcorn left?
I've moved on. Here, have a beer.
And you posit that too much of this "speech stuff" interferes with that, eh?
No, I think I'm positing that too much disinformation interferes with that when we consider what freedom of expression and freedom of the press mean to the most fundamental and inviolable freedom there is...freedom of conscience.
Dawg, thanky.... don't mind if I do.
Ti-Guy, if I understand him correctly, is arguing, essentially, that with great freedom comes great responsibility.
Some where along the line free speech got separated from the responsibility that goes with it and people started to figure they could say whatever they wanted with no consequences.
No, Cameron; Ti-Guy is arguing that speech he agrees with is okay (at least for now), while speech he disagrees with but is either unwilling or unable to refute is 'not what democracy needs.' It seems that what Ti-Guy would like to see is decision making informed by his own sensibilities and judgements. I admit, I would like to see that as well (with my sensibilities substituted for his, naturally) - but unlike Ti-Guy I recognize that this is not the way democracy works.
...free speech got separated from the responsibility that goes with it and people started to figure they could say whatever they wanted with no consequences.
I don't see that happening. There is a difference between "no consequence" and "no state interference." Absent a call for violent action, the consequence of speech should be more speech - possibly in support, possibly in opposition. Messy - but it's the best method we have found so far to identify good ideas and eliminate bad ones. I find too many (on both sides of any given issue) who call for 'responsible speech' when what they mean is 'speech I already agree with' (and I put Ti-Guy solidly in that camp). Granted, it is more comfortable, but it doesn't help in identifying good and bad ideas.
"disinformation" (It's a little early for beer but I'll have some popcorn.)
So, Ti-guy, how, exactly would you prevent the dissemination of disinformation? Can an opinion be disinformation? How about a statement where not all the facts are known? And what are "facts" anyway?
Would one need some sort of licence to speak or publish? What would be the criteria for getting one of these speaker's licences? (I note that we are fairly far down that road with the combination of the requirement that federal party leaders sign off on nominations and the relatively high requirements to become even an independent federal candidate.)
I swear, scratch a certain sort of lefty and the totalitarian impulse comes gushing out.
Deaner, could you show me where he said that please?
He's making an argument about partisan hackery having replaced sensible debate.
Further, lots of people have separated responsibility from speech, just look at people's reactions when someone actually reads what they write and behaves as if the internet is part of the real world...
"OMGZ LIEK HE'S THREATENING TO SUE ME!! WTFBBQ!!!" Followed by the usual "OMG SO AND SO IS TRYING TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH!!!" whining and the dismissing of everything as a SLAPP suit..
Never mind that the legal system is meant to work like that (you say something dumb, I get angry, believe you've slandered/libeled me, I then serve you and then try and convince a judge that I'm right. I win and get what I want, you win and get your legal fees back or the judge decides that the thing is without merit and then you come after me for fees as well), it's clearly an attack on free speech.
So, Ti-guy, how, exactly would you prevent the dissemination of disinformation?
I'm not lobbying for preventing the dissemination of disinformation. That is censorship which I am firmly opposed to.
Can an opinion be disinformation?
Depends on if it's really opinion.
How about a statement where not all the facts are known?
It could be, depending on the faith (good or bad) in which the statement is being made. People with integrity generally know when that's the case.
Would one need some sort of licence to speak or publish? What would be the criteria for getting one of these speaker's licences? (I note that we are fairly far down that road with the combination of the requirement that federal party leaders sign off on nominations and the relatively high requirements to become even an independent federal candidate.)
This is absurd. No wonder I can't take you seriously.
I swear, scratch a certain sort of lefty and the totalitarian impulse comes gushing out.
Yeah, I'm worse than Hitler. Whatever...
Ti-Guy is arguing that speech he agrees with is okay (at least for now), while speech he disagrees with but is either unwilling or unable to refute is 'not what democracy needs.'
When exactly did I argue this? I asserted that democracy requires informed decision-making, and I stand by that.
Seriously, I'm stunned at how often the free speech warriors argue and dialogue in such incredibly bad faith.
I don't even think they know what "bad faith" means.
Ti-Guy, it's simple "Don't like the argument being made by the other guy? Make one up for him."
When exactly did I argue this? I asserted that democracy requires informed decision-making, and I stand by that.
Then perhaps you could clarify for all us neocon peeps, just exactly what the implications of what you are saying is?
You're trying to argue two sides of the same coin.
On one hand you're against censorship, but on the other hand you say democracy requires informed decision-making.
I happen to disagree. I don't think democracy requires informed anything to function. I don't think any functioning democracy is based on informed decision making.
Democracies, can lead us down the wrong path, as a result of a reactionary public, and/or a reactionary government. The power of a democracy, is we are afforded the opportunity to learn from our mistakes and correct for them.
Advocating for informed decision making is a little bit of a red herring.
I think all reasonable people want to make informed decisions.
But this isn't what this debate is about. It's about censorship. It's about whether or not the body politic and it's government, have the right to silence minority opinion. It's a debate about whether or not it's right to have Human Right's Commissions which have the power to hear cases dealing with freedom of speech and press issues.
All the left has done, is setup red herring arguments all along the way.
The left has tried to make this issue about Ezra Levant's credibility, the alleged racism of Mark Steyn, and in your case the importance of "informed" debate.
These are all separate issues in and of themselves.
Sure, you say you're against censorship. Dawg says he's against censorship. Balbulican says he's against censorship.
None of you, however, want to discuss the issue of censorship. You want to talk about the quality of the character of the people fighting back against censorship, question their motives for doing so, label them racists and bigots, etc.
It casts suspicion over what your motives on the matter are. Why do you want to distract from the core debate?
Sorry if find the basic argument from the left (sure I am against this, but Ezra et. al. should be discredited, and their reputations dragged through the mud!) a little bit suspicious.
This is basically the same as these four Osgoode lawyers, who say on one hand they support freedom of speech, and then spend the next hour explaining how "dangerous" Mark Steyn's speech is.
That's not to say the former has no merit. But in the context of this issue it is immaterial.
What was your question, Mike? There was a high noise-to-signal ratio in that last comment, so I'm not quite sure what it is you wanted me to clarify.
Deaner, could you show me where he said that please?
Said what, in particular, Cameron? As a guess that you are talking about "...speech he agrees with is okay..." What would you call:
A cacophony of irrelevance defended to the exclusion of everything that matters [and which is not "what democracy needs."]
Clearly, Ti-Guy is arguing that some speech is "not what democracy needs." When asked what democracy does need, he responds "informed decsion making." How very trite and devoid of meaning - just how will that be arranged, Ti-Guy? I have not asserted (as Jay has done) that Ti-Guy would suppress speech (although I have my suspicions) - only that he sees speech he disagrees with as superfluous to what he defines as "democracy's need." I suspect that Ti-Guy would be less sanguine about somebody determining "democracy's need" if it were me delivering the determination, not him.
He's making an argument about partisan hackery having replaced sensible debate
One man's partisan hackery is another man's (or woman's) "sensible debate" - the problem is that you can't tell going in which one you're going to get, so you have to endure it all. He is also extending that argument, saying that we have more speech than democracy "needs." I don't like where that argument ends, thanks.
When exactly did I argue this?
Ummm...
The amount of speech frothing and churning around bears no relation to what democracy needs. Or later:
A cacophony of irrelevance... is probably not what democracy needs Of course, you aren't against 'free speech' - you are against disinformation. Since you have not identified what that "disinformation" might be, all we know is that you don't like it.
Deaner, your bad faith is appalling. Absolutely appalling. I don't even recognise anything I believe (let alone argued) in anything you just said.
"People with integrity generally know when that's the case."
How could you possibly tell? Let me give you an example, in all good faith I am entirely unconvinced that there is any such thing as AGW. And I am certain that our understanding of the physics of climate is insufficient to be able to split out the man made warming from naturally occurring warming.
Now, it is entirely possible for you to disagree with this view. But how could you tell if I actually held it in good faith? And, more to the point, what difference does it make? There are facts of the matter and those facts are not going to change because I approach the question with good faith or a big honking cheque from Exxon or George Soros in my back pocket.
And it will not matter a damn how much integrity you have, you will not be able to tell if I am bona fide - instead you'll have to look at the actual evidence.
What part of the direct quotes is so unfamiliar to you, Ti-Guy? Just scroll up a bit, to the posts at 7:40 and 10:02 pm, on 01.27.08.
I find it quite helpful to read what people actually write, rather than making up new meanings for them.
And I am certain that our understanding of the physics of climate is insufficient to be able to split out the man made warming from naturally occurring warming.
That's not an issue of bad faith. If you sincerely believe that and have come by that belief honestly and critically, to the best of your ability, no one can fault you for that.
No one has to agree with you either, and it would be rather careless to do so if it were known that your understanding of physics is insufficient to make a claim as grandiose as what an entire field can tell us.
instead you'll have to look at the actual evidence.
The evidence of AGW or the evidence that you're bona fide? The latter is not that hard to do...you simply ask people how they know what they know.
Oh and Jay, I think you misunderstood what I meant here:
"People with integrity generally know when that's the case."
What I meant is that the individual (with integrity) knows when he or she is asserting something for which he or she has enough information to do so with confidence and when he or she doesn't.
The individual can't know that about someone else, but can get some indication of integrity by asking that person how he or she knows what they know (as I mentioned in the previous comment).
I find it quite helpful to read what people actually write, rather than making up new meanings for them
What new meaning has been made up, Cameron? Assuming you are referring to my post, what part of the quoted material was not actually written by Ti-Guy?
Deaner, your entire construct about what the quotes you cut and pasted mean?
Specifically:
Assuming you are referring to my post what part of the quoted material was not actually written by Ti-Guy?
All the parts where you weren't quoting and were deciding what he meant in the worst possible light due to your ideological bent.
Cut and paste? Does this mean Deaner = Manley?
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of lies. When you misquote or quote someone out of conquest you are lying. When you falsely pretend you are capable of judging accurately that what scientists say is happening is not really happening, you are lying.
(In many denialists' cases, they are lying to themselves. They actually think they know better than scientists who has spent years developing an understanding of an area of study.)
"out of conquest" was some weird Freudian slip and should have been "out of context."
Holly Stick, I am enough of a free speech absolutist to say (with the usual caveat about defamation and a couple of other minor exceptions) that while I do not like lies I don't think they are any of the government's business. If someone wants to tell a public whopper I may wish to contradict them or make fun of them; but I don't want the government saying what is or is not true.
As for judging and questioning science: that is pretty much the function of policy makers. So, for example, if a scientist says "I'm 90% certain CO2 is contributing to GW" it is perfectly reasonable for a policy maker to ask on what basis the scientist reaches that conclusion, what the data is, how robust the models are and what those models suggest in terms of reduction vs. adjustment. And to do this with a skeptical bent makes perfect sense. I think we have moved past the point where laypeople are required to treat scientists as demi-gods.
Holly Stick, just to finish the thought.
As well, a policy maker will, realistically, need to hear from scientists outside whatever is purporting to be the "consensus". And that need will increase as a function of the uncertainties involved and the costs to be incurred.
It does no good at all to brand people who, for good reason, disagree with a provisional consensus as liars or denialists; rather you have to consider their evidence as well as the consensus evidence. This is particularly true in a discipline as young and as politicized as climate science.
All the parts where you weren't quoting and were deciding what he meant
I think you are seeing something that isn't there, Cameron, because I didn't decide or represent anything. The post you referred to originally (and that Ti-Guy says he doesn't recognize) contained two quotes - one in its entirety, and one abridged. In the latter case it does not affect Ti-Guy's assertion that there is some sub-set of "all speech" that is not what "democracy's needs."
The two quotes are followed by my comment that Ti-Guy claims not to be against free speech, only against disinformation and the observation that until he defines "disinformation" the distinction is meaningless.
If this is "distorted by my ideological bent," kindly explain just what Ti-Guy really meant, through your ideologically non-distorting lens. I am just a simple kind of guy - when Ti-Guy says "XXXX isn't what democracy needs" I tend to think that he means, well, that XXXX isn't what democracy needs.
I did. So did he. You refuse to take it at face value.
This is the sort of thing that is filed under "things that are not my problem".
In point of fact Ti-Guy has said what he meant. You then suggest that's not actually what he means. One could be excused for thinking that you've called him a liar.
Further, in a neat bit of irony, the very kind of signal to noise (who used that, anyway, it was nice) that Ti-Guy was decrying has been exemplified by your re-imagining of his point (and, it should be pointed out, my engaging in your display of pedantic macramé).
I'm not going to waste my time explaining what disinformation means. Some things you just have to assume and I have no patience for the type of language parsing I can imagine any answer I furnish would invite.
If someone wants to tell a public whopper I may wish to contradict them or make fun of them; but I don't want the government saying what is or is not true.
Like:
....Saddam had weapons of mass destruction;
...Saddam purchased yellow-cake from Niger and had an operational nuclear weapons program;
...Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda;
...Saddam was involved in 9/11;
Thank God free speech and more, more, speech relegated those bad ideas to the margins before their widespread dissemination could cause any real damage.
Oh, wait...
Thank God free speech and more, more, speech relegated those bad ideas to the margins
You recognize the irony, do you not, in decrying bad ideas promulgated by a government that (at least in your view) led to bad decisions and bad policy. Imagine that George W. had the power to simply declare that some discussion was "not what democracy needs."
The notion should be most abhorent to those who value most the opportunity to question policy.
In point of fact Ti-Guy has said what he meant. You then suggest that's not actually what he means. One could be excused for thinking that you've called him a liar.
Horsefeathers.
[Initial Ti-Guy] "some parts of (free) speech are not what democracy needs." (in two separate posts - 7:40 and 10:02 27/1)
[Updated Ti-Guy] "I don't advocate censorship, and I wouldn't supress dissemination of disinformation" (2:02 pm, 28/1) which sort of raises the question of what Ti-Guy would do, but that's beside the point.
[Further updated Ti-Guy] "I don't even recognize the statement that some parts of speech aren't what democracy needs." (2:56 pm 28/1)
I think the first statement is inconsistent with the second - but perhaps can be explained as an over-reaction, poor word choice, etc. The third statement is simply a denial of the first - I suspect to avoid the difficulty in reconciling the first two, or the embarrassment of admitting that the first statement is indefensible. I am not calling Ti-Guy a liar - I am calling him inconsistent or incoherent, and I was trying to determine which (granted, they are not mutually exclusive).
So all you were trying to do is figure it all out?
Gosh... and there I was just reading what you had written and thinking to myself "Deaner is clearly employing overblown rhetoric, leading questions and inflammatory language in an attempt to either troll or prove Ti-Guys point".
There really is something to this inventing opinions for people stuff you're into Deaner...
To clairify a bit more:
No, Cameron; Ti-Guy is arguing that speech he agrees with is okay (at least for now), while speech he disagrees with but is either unwilling or unable to refute is 'not what democracy needs.' At no point did he mention the need to agree with the speech. You made that up.
It seems that what Ti-Guy would like to see is decision making informed by his own sensibilities and judgements.
The bit in bold (which I highlighted) is you guessing. Which is kind of like making things up.
I admit, I would like to see that as well (with my sensibilities substituted for his, naturally) - but unlike Ti-Guy I recognize that this is not the way democracy works.
Ah, the "just us folks" gambit, followed by the "the other guy is so dumb that he doesn't even understand democracy" defense...
Well played.
So all you were trying to do is figure it all out?
Yeah. Some of us actually do that - and suddenly, Ti-Guy is so aghast at what I have written that he doesn't even recognize his own words, and I am acting in bad faith - in fact, appalling bad faith.
You're right: I made up the idea that Ti-Guy would judge speech by whether he agreed with it (although I think that the contrary argument is remarkably disingenuous) - but we are still left with the fact that in his view some parts of speech are just 'not what democracy needs.' I guess he'll just leave it to a Magic Eight-Ball to decide which parts, and what -if anything- to do about it.
You recognize the irony, do you not, in decrying bad ideas promulgated by a government that (at least in your view) led to bad decisions and bad policy.
Actually, these bad ideas were promulgated with the assistance of the media and a conspiracy of liars, some of whom are now decrying the statist attack on their right to freedom of expression.
...which is, you know...ironic.
Jay Currie wrote "...It does no good at all to brand people who, for good reason, disagree with a provisional consensus as liars or denialists;..."
In the case of AGW, people usually disagree with the consensus for very bad reasons. Either they are ignorant enough to think they know better than scientists, or they are dishonest and do not care how many lies and absurdities they repeat.
I have yet to see any denialist produce a good reason for disagreeing with the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming; they just produce lies and fake petitions and dishonest blog posts which are a lot easier to write than actual scientific papers which will be reviewed and tested by their peers.
Yoiks, its not Holly Stick, it's Hockey Stick.
I am not going to go through the uncertainty of the AGW science in the middle of a free speech thread. Instead I will point out that on complicated issues where there is a great deal at stake it is vital that free debate occur.
I certainly don't want anyone from the government to come along and stop you making your accusations of lying, dishonesty and general bad faith; but I can assure you that taking science seriously means taking doubt seriously. It means open and respectful debate. And it means considering the possibility that one may be mistaken.
And that, perhaps, is the essence of the attitude which drives those of us who take free speech seriously. We consider the possibility that we may be mistaken rather than endlessly asserting our lock on the truth.
Everytime I see that corpulent liar Al Gore I am reminded of Yeats:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Corpulent?
And there we go... ding ding ding the irony meter just broke.
No kidding, eh? Jay Curry must be the least self-aware person there is.
Well I was going to use "fat" but I tend to reserve that for Michael Moore.
Poor Jay, doesn't even keep up with his celebrity gossip...
One obvious sign of a denialist who knows nothing of the science: there we are, talking about scientists, when all of a sudden he drags in Gore, who is a popularizer not a climate scientist. Does Jay think that Al Gore invented AGW for political purposes? Is that because that's what Jay would do?
Put me back to sleep, fast.
You see, while the HRCs were busy slam dunking Nazis and white supremacists, I didn't really care. After all, their scum anyway and being married to a non-white, they think I'm a race-traitor. So screw 'em.
Problem is, the HRC crowd seems to have run a little short of Nazis and now they seem to be picking on religious, social conservatives. People like me. Okay, kookier than me, but still...it's a little too close for comfort.
For example, I have no burning desire to read aloud from Leviticus at Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square. But I definitely want to know that I have the right to, if I ever felt the need.
Bottom line here is that Warman et al are making me regret I didn't stand up for the Nazis, because now I'm worried I might be next.
And I don't think you want me thinking that.
I hope.
PS apologies for the typos. They're, not their, etc.
Hasn't that always been the way any system like this works though AS?
Person A says something, person B feels aggrieved, person B complains to some legal/paralegal body. The legal/paralegal body decides if there is merit, if some standard has been met. If so they proceed with some sort of collection of evidence/testimony etc. Then they dismiss the complaint or find it has grounds and issue some sort of sanction and or recommend that the process proceeds to a higher legal body.
Then person A appeals this decision.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
It seems to me that this is a lot healthier for society than just ignoring person b's grievance.
Holly, when Gore call the Mann graph the Thompson thermometer, is called on it and does not change a word of the movie, I am inclined to think it is indeed political. And, I would argue, that much of the "science" is very political. Go read Mark Hulme in the Guardian, here's a little sample:
"This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."
Hulme was an IPCC Nobelist and he is perfectly willing to go beyond the data to support a straight on political position.
Opps...forgot to close a tag..sorry
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
