All gone to look for America …

by Daniel on May 24, 2004

From Instapundit

And here’s a question: Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn’t exist, really, until the 1960s) is unlikely to survive if a majority—or even a large and angry minority—of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic. How far are we from that point?

And over at USS Clueless:

When I’ve read news reports lately about some kinds of obnoxious protests, I have mused to myself, “Perhaps it’s time to issue shoot-to-kill orders to security guards.” Perhaps if some people who made grandstanding protests ended up dead, it might cause others to start really thinking about the consequences of their behavior.

There used to be a shining city on a hill … what the hell happened to it? I’m pretty sure that there might be some “consequences” in allowing the United States of America to become the sort of place where newspapers are censored and demonstrators are shot dead for being “obnoxious”. I think I’d be prepared to pay quite a high price to avoid finding out what they were.

Update Should probably make it clear that den Beste steps back from the brink of actually recommending that protestors be shot. But it’s not obvious he’d object over much if they started doing it.

{ 69 comments }

1

David W. 05.24.04 at 4:09 pm

“Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn’t exist, really, until the 1960s)”

Talk about setting up your strawman arguments! Sheesh…

2

pepi 05.24.04 at 4:15 pm

But remember, we’re exporting democracy to Iraq…

3

Matthew 05.24.04 at 4:17 pm

To be fair to Den Beste, his post is about things he thinks about doing or happening, but wouldn’t want them to because they were immoral.

Which is a pretty good thing too, as another one of his fantasies in the post is pulling down (presumably against their will) girls’ “tube-tops” to uncover the “treasures” beneath.

4

q 05.24.04 at 4:27 pm

Freedom of the press should also be extended to cover freedom of the internet. Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks on web-sites by techno-criminals are going to become an increasing problem.

5

des von bladet 05.24.04 at 4:34 pm

Good Lord, q – next you’ll be asking for freedom of speech and the restoration of habeas corpus and then where will we be, eh?

6

Bill Carone 05.24.04 at 4:36 pm

“But it’s not obvious [den Beste would] object over much if they started doing it.”

Yes it is, Daniel; you seem to have missed part of his post: “Moral behavior comes in that final rejection stage; it is in what we permit ourselves to do, not what we think, that morality manifests, because we cannot control our thoughts.”

This isn’t just “stepping back from the brink of actually recommending,” it is moral condemnation of such actions, right?

I’m also not sure why you read “advocacy of censorship” into Instapundit’s question. It seems that he is making a prediction: people will not support freedom of the press, a very important idea, if the press becomes too untrustworthy and unpatriotic. He isn’t supporting censorship, he predicts it will happen. I don’t know if he is right or wrong, but it seems a stretch to say from this post that he supports the abolition of freedom of the press.

So this post appears to be completely without foundation. Do you disagree?

7

Ted H. 05.24.04 at 4:37 pm

I don’t understand the juxtaposition. The second quote is appalling, but the first is merely wrongheaded. Moreover, the quotes are saying completely different things. The first quote is about the public’s mistrust in the media, not about killing demonstrators. Even if the first quote were calling for censorship, which it isn’t (even in context), juxtaposing it with the second would be grotesquely unfair.

8

matt 05.24.04 at 4:45 pm

I like to think that (for the present) we still have a “City on the Hill.” The problem is technology has allowed us to hear from the idiots out there.

9

Constantine 05.24.04 at 4:48 pm

The subtext of many of these sorts of Instapundit posts is that, “If you guys in the press don’t stop criticizing Bush, I’m gonna lead a mob to shut you guys down.” It’s similar to a mobster dropping by the corner store and saying, “Gee, it sure would be tragic if something happened to your beautiful store if you don’t pay for someone to look out for it.”

10

q 05.24.04 at 4:52 pm

What is the alternative to the “Freedom of the Press”? How about make it a criminal offence to be unpatriotic. Treason court appearance for someone who criticises the current administration, or anything about America in general. It certainly would make life simpler. You vote every 4 years for a President, but outside that vote you keep quiet. Then whatever the President says you would have to go along with it.

Of course, the Freedom of the Press would have to exist in the run up to an election, since people would need to have the facts available to them from the various candidates. Since the current concern with the press relates largely to the failing chances of a Bush re-election, then Instapundit would be disappointed as the press would still be full of the sins of the President. Maybe we would have to abolish elections?

11

Richard Bellamy 05.24.04 at 4:58 pm

Instapundit’s fatal flaw here is in assuming that the people are caught up in the monopolistic vice-like grip of the New York Times and NPR.

If the “People” start seeing the “liberal” press as “untrustworthy and unpatriotic” then assumedly they will start reading the New York Post and watching the Fox News Channel.

Circulation numbers indicate we are very “far from that point.”

12

a different chris 05.24.04 at 4:58 pm

>we’re exporting democracy to Iraq…

Ah, all becomes clear if you take it that democracy is something we only have in a finite quantity.

Well, I hope they treat it better than we have.

13

whopundit 05.24.04 at 4:59 pm

Seems like the “and didn’t really exist until the 1960s” remark fits the classical definition of “begging the question.” What an ignoramus.

– marc

14

Jason McCullough 05.24.04 at 5:02 pm

It was the panicky middling-sort that brought down Weimar germany.

15

jdw 05.24.04 at 5:02 pm

I hate to be a Pollyanna, but should we maybe wait for the political killings to start or for the storm troopers to burst into the offices of the New York Times before we announce the razing of the city on a hill?

16

Hesiod 05.24.04 at 5:05 pm

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if someone just shot a war blogger for being instigators of illegal and immoral wars.

That would probably discourage some warbloggers, right?

Of course, I don’t really believe that it’s a good idea. It’s, in fact immoral. I am just musing about it to make a point.

Not sure what my point is, but I have to come up with some excuse to avoid getting a visit from the FBI.

17

Jim Harrison 05.24.04 at 5:09 pm

The problem isn’t with the Freedom of the Press, narrowly defined. You can write pretty much what you want. The real issue is about who controls the effective means of propaganda in this country, who gets to decide which images and sound bites will condition an ignorant and passive public like so many lab rats. Free rational discussion is not enough. Irrational appeals can only be countered by other irrational appeals driven home by a like number of repetititons—remember the case of the anti-tobacco advertising, which only became effective when it turned to ad hominem (though well earned!) attacks on the industry.

18

Paul 05.24.04 at 5:15 pm

He isn’t supporting censorship, he predicts it will happen.

Maybe. But given that we know that Comrade Professor Reynolds frequently believes that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic, his “question” sounds more like a statement: “That’s a nice free press you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.”

Not that the Comrade Professor is in a position to do much about it, so his remarks (like so many of his remarks) are mostly harmless bloviating. But it’s not a stretch to believe that he’s willing to contemplate his “prediction” with equanimity, if not enthusiasm.

I confess I don’t know what SDB’s point is, except that young women in tube-tops make him all clammy and nervous.

19

Gator 05.24.04 at 5:17 pm

Kent State: They already shoot protestors in the United States. It would be much easier to get rid of Bush and his failed policies. No tranquil peace ensued after the shots fired at Kent State, but if that is what you propose then, well, “bring it on!”

20

q 05.24.04 at 5:17 pm

In Iraq, is it true that most of the locals are eager for the liberators to leave, and is this reflected proportionately in the “Iraq Post” or “Baghdad Times” or whatever? Perhaps the current administrators in Iraq could return home. They could advise, with their added experience, of how to operate the media so that it does not undermine the leader of the country.

21

Matt 05.24.04 at 5:18 pm

Right-wingers have been ranting, raving, and threatening disturbers of the status quo since time immemorial. It’s a good thing that some of the unhinged rhetoric is leaking out. Would you prefer if it all took place behind closed doors?

22

Merkin 05.24.04 at 5:20 pm

Some people don’t like to hear views that differ from their own (EL Doctorow booed for anti-Bush comments during commencement speech.)

“If this would have happened in Florida, we would have taken him out” of the stadium, said Frank Mallafre, who traveled from Miami for his granddaughter’s graduation.
What is the reporter doing there with that quote? Did he add the “of the stadium” to make it sound less like a death threat?

23

Eric 05.24.04 at 5:22 pm

I fully support Democratic Hobbesianism. We pick a leader and then keep silent for 4 years when we get to pick another leader and then go silent again. Even if that leader lies, lines his pockets, promotes his cronies or leads the nation into pointless unjustified war, the people are still better off then living in a state of nature and thus have no right to complain.

How simple life would be. How happy!

24

Blake Thompson 05.24.04 at 5:34 pm

Shooting protesters at Kent State reinvigorated support for Vietnam and led directly to our glorious victory there. Right?

25

filkertom 05.24.04 at 5:42 pm

There is no truth to the rumor that “Den Beste” is actually an anagram for “Adam Yoshida”.

By the way, have you checked out Clueless’ Contact page? The guy’s harder to get ahold of than Keyser Soze.

26

Bill Carone 05.24.04 at 5:55 pm

Representative quote:

“The subtext of many of these sorts of Instapundit posts is that, “If you guys in the press don’t stop criticizing Bush, I’m gonna lead a mob to shut you guys down.””

You guys are kidding, right?

27

mm 05.24.04 at 5:59 pm

An America with press censorship would look a lot like America during World War II. An America without habeas corpus would look a lot like America during the Civil War. In either case, no biggie, as the high school girls used to say when I lived in Berkeley.

Incidentally, I think that it is unlikely that anything like this will happen unless Al Quaeda can show us a lot more than they have. It would take a Twin Towers every year or so to get us to that point. Like many conservatives, Professor Reynolds has a somewhat irrational dislike for the press. It’s sort of like the way a lot of Crooked Timberites feel about Israel. Those of us who aren’t emotionally involved just shrug.

28

bull 05.24.04 at 6:00 pm

The comments on this page remind me of what happens if you say “Hillary Clinton” around rabid right wingers — paranoid ravings.

29

yabonn 05.24.04 at 6:03 pm

Maybe it’s me : you tell me.

Ever noticed a reliance of rightwing crackpots on the three dots ?

The “…” can be used to great profit by hypocrites : is allows to conveniently say more than you write. It’s a concentrated of the “it would be too bad if” described by hesiod.

You just don’t have that sneaky little subtext : you put it right under the readers nose. “Liberals have been warned… Shouldn’t be suprised if that awful thing happen…”.

Here’s a tool ideal for homicidal fantasies, doomsaying, and the more simple factless talk-out-of-you-ass thing. I-e the equivalent of a swiss army knife for the loony right.

Think of the “developping…” ending drudge nutcases stories. Or of all the times these “…” ended a bloody rave that begun with “if i was in control”.

I followed the ussclueless and instapundit links, and searched the “…” string, in only the frontpage.

clueless :

“Here’s hoping Europe does not have to live through a tragic farce…”

insty (quoting):

“And the results would be catastrophic…” (about librul media nefarious influence)

That’s how i like them.

I mean :

That’s how i like them…

30

Nat Whilk 05.24.04 at 6:03 pm

Filkertom wrote:

There is no truth to the rumor that “Den Beste” is actually an anagram for “Adam Yoshida”.

I think I was tipped off by the fact that almost all of the letters are wrong.

31

Stinky Pete 05.24.04 at 6:12 pm

“The subtext of many of these sorts of Instapundit posts is that, “If you guys in the press don’t stop criticizing Bush, I’m gonna lead a mob to shut you guys down.””

So deeply buried only you guys could pick up on it.

32

Nat Whilk 05.24.04 at 6:14 pm

Yabonn wrote:

Maybe it’s me : you tell me.
Ever noticed a reliance of rightwing crackpots on the three dots?

I think it’s you. I see no evidence that ellipses are used more often by those on the Right than by those on the Left.

33

yabonn 05.24.04 at 6:33 pm

Well, i did find subtext-“…” after a quick search on yglesias’ and tpm’s front pages.

… In quotes from insty and drudge respectively.

:-)

34

Keith 05.24.04 at 6:34 pm

I hate to be a Pollyanna, but should we maybe wait for the political killings to start or for the storm troopers to burst into the offices of the New York Times before we announce the razing of the city on a hill?

If we wait til then, it’ll be too late. The point is to prevent that sort of thing form happening again, by yelling about it now, when it’s in its infant stages. (the “it” being the dreaded F word, or whatever euphamism we’re using this week to avoid breaking Godwin’s silly law).

35

Barry Freed 05.24.04 at 6:37 pm

Godwin’s Law has been declared inoperative. Or at least in suspension until the WOT is over. (I think I saw that said on boingboing.net)

36

patriotboy 05.24.04 at 6:53 pm

Den Beste was also the author of the most idiotic post I’ve ever read. Here’s my favorite part:

I’m deeply concerned about the French…Just how far are they willing to take their opposition to us? They’ve reached the point where it seems as if they’re willing to make any sacrifice. Do they see the stakes as being high enough so that they might actually threaten to nuke us?

37

Nat Whilk 05.24.04 at 6:54 pm

Yabonn wrote:

Well, i did find subtext-”…” after a quick search on yglesias’ and tpm’s front pages.… In quotes from insty and drudge respectively.

I don’t know who tpm is, but the front page of Matthew Yglesias has ellipses within Yglesias’ own text, as well.

38

pepi 05.24.04 at 6:54 pm

“Ah, all becomes clear if you take it that democracy is something we only have in a finite quantity.”

That’s what it is, yep. Of course the production can always be increased to suit the market. By rough estimates, currently America is producing about 5 million barrels of democracy a day. That’s not as much as it sounds, compared to industry averages, so that’s why the price for democracy is so high these days.

But now that production is being outsourced to Iraq, there’ll be more pumped out each day, so the price will go down, and when democracy becomes cheap enough, we’ll be able to export it even to China.

39

q 05.24.04 at 7:13 pm

One possible solution to the anti-patriotic rhetoric coming from parts of the press is a bill to create a government office to monitor such activity.

We could call it the “Global Anti-Americanism and anti-Patriotic Awareness Act”. It would set up an office to monitor and combat acts of anti-Americanism and anti-American incitement that occur in America, and also in foreign countries too.

It would enable us to get a clear view on who is at the centre of this activity.

40

Peter 05.24.04 at 7:23 pm

Have Rethugs ever protested anything besides the recount?

41

Pheo 05.24.04 at 7:25 pm

“Moral behavior comes in that final rejection stage; it is in what we permit ourselves to do, not what we think, that morality manifests, because we cannot control our thoughts.”

This is a false rationalization. What happened to criticism of the left for moral relativism? I’m sorry, but if you think ill of someone solely for his skin color, you are a racist, whether or not you act on those thoughts.

Some would argue that thoughts alone can’t be morally wrong because they don’t always (or maybe even seldom) lead to bad actions. I would argue that such thoughts will lead to an increased probability that some bad action would result.

We can’t control all the stupid little thoughts come into our heads. We most certainly have control over which thoughts we entertain and fantasize about.

42

nick 05.24.04 at 7:31 pm

Let’s face it: tolerance of dissent in the USA is paper-thin. That’s why it needs to be spelt out in the First Amendment. And that’s why the ACLU is considered borderline seditious.

To be fair to Den Beste, his post is about things he thinks about doing or happening, but wouldn’t want them to because they were immoral.

Oh, but he does think and think and think about them. And one could argue that sharing immoral thoughts is less moral than keeping them to himself.

43

asm 05.24.04 at 7:33 pm

The authors of the U.S. Bill of Rights obviously never considered the possibility of an unpatriotic press. They couldn’t conceive of a people who would find it necessary to dissolve the political bands that connect them with their government.

44

nick 05.24.04 at 7:35 pm

(And by that, I have The Turner Diaries in mind.)

45

redline 05.24.04 at 7:54 pm

What I meant by my earlier comment is that the
urge to commit irrational acts does not reside within the breast of denBeste alone. The emotionalism of some of these posts confirms the underlying fraternity with denBeste’s inner workings.

46

epist 05.24.04 at 7:55 pm

The theory I’m using to understand the current democracy fiasco is ‘democracy as punishment’. See, they (the terrorists) hate democracy, ergo, we’ll give ’em democracy. Sure, it’ll help them out, in the long run, but that’s an incidental benefit. The point is to give them what they hate. That’s why democracy looks so nasty in Iraq. And you gotta admit, they hate it.

(Yes, I know, the Iraqis aren’t terrorists. That’s so pre-invasion. Terrorists are people who attack US soldiers. Iraqis are attacking US soldiers, therefore, Iraqis are terrorists, QED.)

It also explains why the communists in central and south America had to have democracy forced upon them, often by the raping of nuns. That’s why we have the same guy who was in charge of that democratization set to run this show.

47

Sebastian Holsclaw 05.24.04 at 7:55 pm

I’m truly surprised that so many philosophical types have trouble understanding the concept of hypotheticals which serve to illustrate the absurdity of something by counterexample. DenBeste is arguing for restraint by showing how bad the world would be if we gave in to our initial feelings.

You are like the fundamentalists who think that Depeche Mode’s “A Question of Lust” can’t be a love song.

48

Ed Drone 05.24.04 at 8:06 pm

“But now that production is being outsourced to Iraq, there’ll be more pumped out each day, so the price will go down, and when democracy becomes cheap enough, we’ll be able to export it even to China.”

… but, what about the Strategic Democracy Reserve? Wouldn’t it be dangerous to stop filling it at only 92%? I mean, the cost of democracy being high is not necessarily a bad thing for the economy, if you know what I mean.

Ed

49

yabonn 05.24.04 at 8:35 pm

nat whilk :

Tpm : talking points memo.

I found another one in one yglesias post. But this one was was devoid of the dark undertones you find in the clueless or instapundit ones.

Not that you couldn’t find one of these somewhere on the left side of the blogosphere, mind you. But it does seem like the three dots channel certain, ah, particularities of the loony right imaginary.

patriotboy : that’s a good, typical, one. I never quite got that fetish the u.s. rightists have for france. Quite flattering – if only france deserved for real that arch-librul status. Alas.

50

Kip Manley 05.24.04 at 9:15 pm

Myself, I’m truly surprised that so many commentors don’t read past hypotheticals to consider the conditional statement which kicks this particular hypothetical right back up to the level of “Hmm” and “Heh” and “…”

bq. But it does seem to me that a lot of protesters are willing to do the things they do, and say the things they say, and advocate the things they advocate, because they suffer no consequences for it. They have license, but feel no responsibility. There are negative consequences, but someone else suffers the consequences, not the protesters. If such protests had negative consequences for the protesters then protest might become more responsible.

One more terrorist attack. Then you’ll see. The gloves will be off. None of this tying our hands behind our backs. You’ll shape up or ship out then, yessir!

51

Nat Whilk 05.24.04 at 9:20 pm

Yabonn wrote:

I found another one in one yglesias post. But this one was was devoid of the dark undertones you find in the clueless or instapundit ones.

How dark are the undertones of these ellipses from the Talking Points Memo you mentioned (all on the front page):

On the other hand, giving it more thought, perhaps what he needs is not so much a pair of training wheels as a set of brakes …

And so it goes …

Hmmmm. Who were Chalabi’s US government interlocutors? What a mystery …

Ask not for whom the memory-hole sucks, Ahmed; it sucketh for you …

52

Brett Bellmore 05.24.04 at 10:00 pm

“What is the alternative to the “Freedom of the Press”?”

Well, duh. Campaign finance reform, of course. Just ask Gephardt: “What we have is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. You can’t have both.”

53

fyreflye 05.24.04 at 10:16 pm

Folks may not be in danger of being shot yet, but try to read an anti-war poem in a New Mexico school and you can count on being fired. Orcinus has the details at

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D5E325368

Fascism may seem immenent in the US but I suspect the real cause for this overreaction is that the dimwits who installed George W as their figurehead are beginning to suspect that his managerial incompetence allied with their
ideological rigidity may soon cost them their grip on power. But too many career military men and rational conservatives have seen the light already for a fascist takeover to be accepted by the American public. There’s a light at the end of this particular tunnel.

54

yabonn 05.24.04 at 10:26 pm

nat whilk,

How dark are the undertones of these ellipses

Not much.

Actually, if you find as much darkness in josh marshall’s “a set of brakes…” (implies bush is reckless) or “and so it goes…” (implies “sigh”, more or less) as in clueless’ “Europe does not have to live through a tragic farce…” (implies… well, yet another tragical farce in europe), we’ll just have to agree to disagree, i’m afraid.

55

Andrew Reeves 05.24.04 at 10:41 pm

Except, fyre, that the story about New Mexico making its rounds throughout the internet is not exactly how it happened. There’s a good round up of the actual situation at Volokh.

56

Andrew Reeves 05.24.04 at 10:41 pm

Except, fyre, that the story about New Mexico making its rounds throughout the internet is not exactly how it happened. There’s a good round up of the actual situation at Volokh:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_05_21.shtml#1085354422

57

Andrew Reeves 05.24.04 at 10:43 pm

Gah, sorry about the double post.

58

bellatrys 05.25.04 at 12:05 am

Does anybody really trust Volokh Conspiracy? Is there any reason to think that more honest/reliable blog than, say, Andrew Sullivan?

And yes, Godwin’s Law was suspended week before last, spontaneously, in several places. For the duration, as the saying goes. (Frankly I think that it should never have been, that it’s part of the reason we are here now.)

BTW, tacitus is in a meltdown. It’s finally clicked that his Fearless Leaders have betrayed him, as he has been beginning to suspect for the last fortnight (he actually posted the helicopters-on-the-roof photo), and yet he doesn’t want to change his beliefs, so he’s hiding from the news like Sully was before the latter entered another cycle of manic to counter the depression.

C’est la guerre…

59

SamAm 05.25.04 at 12:09 am

Reynolds is, surprise surprise, all moronic bluster. Find me a libertarian defense for stomping the right to publish media that also holds sacred the right to bear arms and I’ll start to worry.

No doubt neurons are firing hard in Knoxville over just how to pull something like that off. Still, either Glenn drops the snivling cool-guy attitude and becomes just another right-wing stomp-them-all type or this circle remains unsquared.

There is no enforcement mechanism for the type of shit he tries to shovel. None. So he can take a step back and tough American freedom the fuck out.

60

fyreflye 05.25.04 at 2:05 am

That link to Volokh doesn’t work for my browser, Andrew. Is it Mozilla or Volokh that’s no longer functional?

61

DonBoy 05.25.04 at 2:28 am

Here is a slight paraphrase of what Reynolds says, which I have extended beyond what he did say, in 2 different ways:

1) “Freedom of the press will come under systematic attack if a majority — or even a large and angry minority — of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic. If we get to that point, we’ll all have to fight hard to prevent the forces of fascism from having their way and undoing the First Amendment.”

2) “Freedom of the press will come under systematic attack if a majority — or even a large and angry minority — of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic. If we get to that point, well, whaddayagonna do? Can’t argue with a mob — even a small one. Huh.”

If Dave Neiwert were writing, he might come out with #1. But #2 reads way more like Reynolds’ version; it’s the fatalism of the thing.

62

Warbaby 05.25.04 at 5:56 am

Start shooting protesters and you get an armed peace movement…

After Kent State the U.S. experienced a peak of 30 domestic bombings a day.

This is the real danger — that right-wing violence will engender wide-scale civil disorder. Nearly every breakdown of society starts with sanctioned violence putting people in the position where they have no choice but to flee or fight.

63

Anarch 05.25.04 at 6:58 am

Best response to Reynolds’ post was from Roy Edroso of alicublog.

64

pepi 05.25.04 at 7:50 am

Yes, Edroso’s definitely the best response. I especially like the “you tell me” answer.

I would just add this: how in hell did Reynolds get to be a LAW professor??
Can anybody explain?

65

Mrs Tilton 05.25.04 at 8:56 am

Does anybody really trust Volokh Conspiracy? Is there any reason to think that more honest/reliable blog than, say, Andrew Sullivan?

In a word, yes.

There’s a great deal that Eugene Volokh says that I disagree with. (And my comments here are limited to him; there are some co-conspirators I seldom read and about whom I have no opinion one way or the other) Indeed, except on a few points, I’d say his basic worldview and mine disagree.

But, whatever about his conclusions, he tries to base them on fact; tries to reach them by reasoning; and doesn’t hesitate to examine his thought in the light of others’.

Compare that with, say, Glenn Reynolds. Unlike him, Volokh isn’t much of a one for mau-mauing, economy with the truth or links to things that don’t say anything near what he claims they say. Volokh and Reynolds might be on the same side of the spectrum, roughly speaking, but one of them places a premium on intellectual honesty and the other doesn’t.

I’m happy to read Volokh every day, much as I disagree with him. But life’s too short to waste time with Reynolds.

66

Nat Whilk 05.25.04 at 2:29 pm

Warbaby wrote:

Start shooting protesters and you get an armed peace movement…

Yikes! Yabonn, did you see that ominous ellipsis?

67

Bill Carone 05.25.04 at 3:17 pm

Dsquared,

Some time ago, right after the Spanish elections, Chris Bertram of CT said that if a Spanish citizen heard someone saying that the Spanish electorate was intimidated by the terrorists into voting differently, then Chris would perfectly understand if the Spanish citizen punched them out. It wouldn’t be right, but Chris would completely understand.

According to your logic, Chris supports the idea of assaulting people who express differing opinions, or at least “it’s not obvious he’d object over much if they started doing it.”

Crooked Timber motto: it’s a bad post, but its worthy of us!

68

J Edgar 05.25.04 at 5:23 pm

Does anybody really trust Volokh Conspiracy? Is there any reason to think that more honest/reliable blog than, say, Andrew Sullivan?

69

Antoni Jaume 05.25.04 at 6:39 pm

mr. Bill Carone, I’ve looked at Chris Bertram post, and it was not a matter of opinion, but of insult.

DSW

Comments on this entry are closed.