Oh fantastic….

Most … people, especially most Americans, have some Lockean view of individual rights in mind, rights that stop where the other guy starts.

What a wonderful isolation of an American prejudice! I do not mean this sarcastically; I find all three of your restrictions immediately suspect, not because I necessarily disagree with any of them, though of course the third is the hardest to justify, but because when anyone tells me that free speech must be curtailed I reach for my wallet. I will consider the matter,of course, but the immediate importance seems to me to be that civics courses count. If the First Amendment distorts Americans’ moral reasoning, surely some hope can be held for the fourth through ninth?

Second, there are the financial ones: we can’t have the conversation dominated by those who are rich enough to buy up all the megaphones.

My experience of financial restrictions on speech (in the form of limits on political spending during elections in NZ) is that they therefore mean the conversation is dominated by those who already have the political power.

Third, if we are trying to implement such a conversational ideal in a society riven by deep ethnic or religious divisions, we’ll need to take seriously the idea that despised or stigmatized groups might not get their voices heard, and that one reason for this might involve the discourse of other citizens.

But, since we are citizens of this society, we need to take seriously the idea that we will believe that the despised and stigmatized groups are in fact despised and stigmatized for good reason, and therefore do not deserve to get their voices heard.

There seems to be a contradiction in terms here. We are talking about a society that, on the whole:
a) really believes that group A is despicable and deserves to be stigmatised, and
b) is prepared to protect group A’s voices as they believe group A should not be considered despicable or stigmatised.

Does this seem psychologically likely to anyone?

(Note, I am not an American and have no commitment to the US constitution).

What a bunch of pantywaist nanny-staters. Now watch me get banned for hurting somebody’s feelings.

Less directly related to topic

HR 1955 sponsor Jane Harman

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

“(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”

Better be more careful. I’m deleting my Sorel & Trotsky. And after they suspend the 2008 elections? Well, are they still planning to move Gitmo to Leavenworth?

10:Hey, was that hate speech directed at paranoid schizophrenics? We’re people too, you know, and especially vulnerable.

And I haven’t commented much here for months. Be nice, or I’ll come back.

Singling out hate crimes, which is to say crimes whose victims were chosen because they belonged to a particular race, religion, gender, sexuality, or whatever, is no different from the distinctions routinely made in other criminal categories, as between murder and involuntary manslaughter. Intent matters, and hate crimes are tantamount to terrorism, attempts to spread fear throughout entire population groups.

As far as I know (which is not very far, and don’t take what follows too seriously) the intent of speech is less often considered than its content. (By the way, it’s okay to shout “Fire!” in a theater if it’s actually burning.) The standards for libel and slander differ between the U.S. and the U.K. In the U.S., truth is a complete defense while in the U.K. damaging truths may be actionable, making it friendlier to plaintiffs.

It’s entirely likely that around half of Africans are of below average intelligence, and that some Jews have killed babies, so it’s true that Africans are stupid and Jews are baby-killers. The same is true of Swedes, of course. Muslims are suicidal terrorists. Americans are drunks.

So long as true statements are privileged, hate speech remains possible.

Since the universe of discourse does not respect political boundaries, it’s less than obvious that local suppression of hateful speech would be useful, since the consumer of such can always find a channel broadcasting it. One difference between speech and violence is that the latter is always local.

Most … people, especially most Americans, have some Lockean view of individual rights in mind, rights that stop where the other guy starts.

We would be a much better country than we are if that were actually true.

In fact, the lip service to free speech as an abstraction is one of the few things that prevents American society from being even more censurious than it is.

I consider myself a liberal, but I find the notion of hate crimes repulsive, Orwellian and more befitting to a totalitarian system.

These days, I don’t know what “liberal” means any more. All too often ideas that were once considered illiberal are embraced by so-called “liberals.”

The “hate speech” ploy is already extensively used by wingers, especially white heterosexual Christian males, who feel that they are being singled out for hate based on their race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. Mostly they’re just trying to muddy the waters, but some Christians seem to have developed a real sense of victimization.

Hate laws are usually thought to protect unpopular minorities, but they can’t be written that way. If the U.S. already had had a hate speech law, Bush would have appointed someone like Ann Coulter or David Horowitz to enforce it.

Sullivan is an ass if he cannot distinguish between a collective blog and an individual, and a philosophical proposition and a legislative one.

despised or stigmatized groups might not get their voices heard, and that one reason for this might involve the discourse of other citizens.

But it is not clear why despised and stigmatized ethnic or religious groups should be protected against discourse that reinforces their status anymore than than similarly situated individuals or other types of groups should be so protected, if the aim is to create an effectively democratic polity. Moreover, the rationale should be preventive not just reactive — stopping discourse that seeks to make others despise and stigmatize others should be similarly restricted.

Put differently, I don’t see why the condition “in a society riven by deep ethnic or religious divisions” is necessary. It certainly makes the issue more salient, but it seems that hate-speech as such lacks justification regardless of the societal tensions in the polity.

Re the “speech cannot be harm” position. Speech is not harm in the way that physical violence is harm. This issue came up over campus speech codes: if speech could be harmful, why was counter-speech by university official not the appropriate sanction versus fines, suspension, or expulsion (all sanctions backed by physical coercion)?

The reasoning behind the position that speech can be harm is not that hate-speech against a person is like punching a person. There is an emotional impact to speech, but the implicit argument against hate-speech is that it reinforces marginalization and stigmatization by persuading third parties to accept the hate-speech content. For hate-speech to have its main effect, it must be believed to some degree by citizens other than the speaker and the victim. This raises serious questions about the capacity of citizens to participate in democratic politics if we regard them as needing protection from false ideas.

I am the only one to take offense at the bizarre paranoid hysteria of Sullivan’s remarks? On the substance I personally am with Kamm and against Bertram and Rose, but Sullivan’s argument that Bertram is a tool of a left-wing conspiracy who has incautiously let the mask slip to reveal the evil tyrant-in-waiting — this is insanity. Sullivan belongs in a loony bin along with the Napoleons and the Jesus Christs. He’s not participating in a civil public debate and he shouldn’t be treated as if he is.

Paul Keating once said “if you change the government you change the country”. He was working on the idea that what leaders say has a lot more effect than what individuals say, and what the institutions which lead our society – governments and courts, primarily, but also schools and universities – say has more weight than what individuals say. It seems like most of the commenters here don’t understand just how much power the courts have to change ordinary people’s perception of what is believed about a group, and how much power the government has to control the atmosphere of hatred in which some people have to live their lives.

If anyone doesn’t believe this is the case, they should try being Aboriginal or Asian in Australia between 1994 and 2000 – or Muslim after 2001. How the government responds to hate speech makes a big difference to how people experience it. Unless you are an idiot, and believe the libertarian lie that peoples have no relationship to their broader society or their government, you have to accept this. And unless you also accept the modern nationalist lie – that there are no inequalities in the modern state, and our societies are perfect except for foreign criminals – then you also have to accept that hate speech will be real. The combination requires government action. And I don’t see any of the anti-hate-speech-law folks coming up with any alternatives. Except “walk away”. Which is only an alternative until you see neo-nazis beating the shit out of your neighbours.

I would say, in fact, that the first amendment tradition has a terribly distorting effect on American public discussions of free speech (even though lots of the jurisprudence and academic work is thoguhtful and useful), and Sullivan’s complete misreading of your post would seem evidence of that if I didn’t suspect it was deliberate. (In other words I disagree with bloix that he belongs in a looney bin, because I suspect he is being straightforwardly dishonest).

Here’s a question for all the die-hards: is there a fundamental human (moral) interest in being able to use racist and sexist speech to express contempt for others? I think not, and I’d like to see the argument that there is. Now, is there a fundamental human interest in being able to participate in public matters as an equal (at least when one is an equal)? I think there is. If you agree then you do not think there is a basic human right to use hate speech hatefully. You might think either that hate speech causes no harm, or that any regulation is likely to do more harm than good, or both, and in that case you would oppose a prohibition. But it would seem strange to demand that those fundamentally politicial judgments be taken off the democratic table and place in the hands of the courts, by protecting hate speech with a basic right and judicial review. Me, I think it is obvious that hate speech is harmful (in certain places, in certain contexts, to certain people). I also think it is obvious that regulation is fraught with dangers. Dangers much like the dangers that attend the options in all sorts of other matters that should be subject to democratic deliberation.

Seth – as a Jewish kid from Chicagoland you should know that it’s neatnik, not neat-nick.
“Nik”, originally from Russian, means a person. Early uses in the US among Jews included all-rightnik and nogoodnik, but it really took off with Sputnik, which gave birth to beatnik (a red-baiting smear of the Beats), neatnik, peacenik, refusenik, etc.

Yes, Daniel, I’d like to play too. When Nazis marched through our streets our grandparents tried to run them off the streets, risking life and limb to do so, against the efforts of our government to protect them. Our grandparents fought to get a national health insurance system, a better welfare state. Then, when the Nazis tried to stage a comeback, in the 70’s, spewing hate through the immmigrant communities they marched through, we didn’t put our political efforts into defending their right to do so, but tried to demonstrate to those communities that they were welcome and the Nazis were not.

‘The right frame, in my view, is to think of the state as “we, the people”…’

And there you have it, folks. This is the heart of the evil. The (extremely illiberal and indeed totalitarian) fallacy of conflating the state with its subjects, elaborated by the invocation of such utterly mythical entities as “collective conversations”, is the frame on which this whole argument hangs.

harry b: of course there is a fundamental human interest in being able to use racist and sexist speech to express contempt, because (a) certainly contempt is sometimes justified, and (b) racism and sexism might be justified, with a probability that is very very small but not zero. I am strongly convinced that they are not in fact justified, but not convinced with such strength that I am willing to countenance the violent suppression of those who disagree; and I regard those who would countenance such violent suppression as arrogant. Nor are racism and sexism special in this regard; there is no proposition whose truth I believe with such vehemence that I’m willing to violently suppress the proponents of an opposing view.

Because I don’t hold the fantasy view of the state as “we, the people”, but rather regard it as what it is, always and everywhere: an institutional instrument for the legitimation of mass violence. And so I see “hate speech” laws as nothing more or less than what they are: instances of the suppression by mass violence of speech with which the leaders disagree.

*way* offtopic but: i’m always hearing that Sputnik —> beatnik but i’ve never understood why it would occur and be accepted; it seems such a jump in category! When/where was link a. made, b. recognised, c. picked up on and repeated?

(beatniks as satellites of the beat movement?)

“Here’s a question for all the die-hards: is there a fundamental human (moral) interest in being able to use racist and sexist speech to express contempt for others?”

Here’s a question for you; and I’ve asked it before: who decides the distinction between offensive ideas – which I think you would defend on grounds of free speech [am I wrong?]- and the offensive manner of delivery of those ideas: between ideas and rhetorical devices?

What my obsession regarding this place comes down to concerns the indifference to the importance -significance, literally: signification- in the physical act of communication. Ideas are immaterial and general. speech is material and specific. Nearly every author on this blog ignores the distinction, as they fail to understand the justification -the moral pessimism- behind the choice for the rule of law. That’s why Harry Brighouse can ask a question that’s so irrelevant to the debate. Since I referred to my parents already I’ll quote my mother as I have before on Rawls: “He’s not interested in people, he’s interested in ideas.”
It wasn’t a compliment when she said it about Rawls and it’s not a compliment here when I say it about the intellectual bureaucrats at CT.

Bloix,
Go away nudnik!
[oops. thanks for the reminder]

I’m not from Ilinois though. Sorry for the confusion,

Harry, Sullivan’s view of the 1st amendment is an immmigrant’s view–it isn’t as if he’s unfamiliar with alternatives. And the fundamental human interest involved is the right to speak what one sees as the truth. The same interest that justifies allowing people to proselytize for what others know to be false religions or false political programs. The interest in participating in public matters doesn’t require more than that each has the same formal right to advance his view of the truth.

More interestingly, what do you mean by “at least when one is an equal”? I thought that was the premise to justify the restrictions generally–I didn’t think it could be used ad hoc, picking and choosing.

I think what goes wrong with people like Sullivan, Will, et al: they conflate things like use of “The N word” with things like saying there shouldn’t be welfare, or not affirmative action, or like Cosby says about blacks’ own habits being self-destructive etc. The former is true hate speech and fair game to suppress, the latter is true political opinion and needs to be protected speech. I know there’s a gray area, but this shouldn’t be too hard to accept and agree on.

Oh, and yes, exactly, to what neil b says. I think there is a very strong case that hateful epithets can be distinguished and treated differently from propostional content, and do not merit protection under “the right to speak what one sees as the truth”.

#46

Uuuhhh, “Far from liberty being endangered by hate-speech legislation it may—and whether it is depends very much on the specific social and historical circumstances—ensure that many people continue to enjoy effective liberty.”

patrick: thanks for wrecking it for the rest of us. *angrily tosses away pitchfork and standard-issue flaming torch*

I can see why someone like Sullivan (whom iirc devoted an entire issue of the New Republic to discussing The Bell Curve) would outraged by the idea that the state should seek to eliminate bigotry. As a someone once said:

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your bigotry. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

Small point (well, not that small)…

There is an unfortunate conflation (in some of the comments in these threads) between speech that is directed at religions, political movements and their followers, and speech that is directed at racial and ethnic groups. Christianity, Judaism and Islam deserve no protection. Bring on the blasphemy! Bring on the cartoons!

But I am divided about (virulent, inciteful) speech targeting, say, Blacks, Arabs or Jews (the ethnic group, e.g. atheists or other identified as ‘Jews’ by accident of birth). I would not give such speech a blanket pass.

if we are trying to implement such a conversational ideal in a society riven by deep ethnic or religious divisions, we’ll need to take seriously the idea that despised or stigmatized groups might not get their voices heard, and that one reason for this might involve the discourse of other citizens.

See, what you people don’t seem to be grasping is that the Ku Klux Klan can legitimately claim to be a “despised or stigmatized group,” just like the NAACP, and if the decision had been made by a popularly elected American government back in, say, 1950, whether to stop the Klan from bad-mouthing the NAACP or instead to stop the NAACP from bad mouthing the Klan–well, the result might not be what you would prefer. Note in this connection that the Klan was then essentially defending the staus quo, while the NAACP was trying to change it, so if somehow both were silenced, the Klan would win . . .

And now to the topic:
How does one “eliminate hate speech”? Does one put the speaker in prison? Is there a net increase or decrease in human freedom and well-being if people who say the n-word are required to spend 60 days behind bars?

In my view, the criminal law is a blunt and brutal instrument for the rectification of bad behavior, as well as being a dangerous instrument in the hands of the sorts of people who routinely choose to devote their lives to prosecution of crimes: typically narrow-minded and self-righteous, often power-hungry, sadistic, and prejudiced.

To answer my own question, by definition the criminalization of any behavior results in a decrease in human freedom and autonomy. You need to be very sure that whatever you want to criminalize is a sufficient evil that it warrants deprivation of liberty.

Sullivan is being ridiculous. Of course hate speech is harmful, and of course the government has a legitimate interest in restricting it. The reason we have such a high bar against speech restrictions in America is because of the First Amendment and the ingrained notion that most Americans have that such an amendment means we are perfectly entitled to express ourselves in any manner we see fit in any forum, public or private (including shouting down the speech of those we disagree with.) In other words, we have a pretty broad notion of the “freedom” of speech. But other countries don’t, and it’s silly to think that speech restrictions can only be the enforcement of some ideological “orthodoxy.” Sullivan, like many, has trouble understanding the difference between the real world and the worst-case scenario.

Here’s a question for all the die-hards: is there a fundamental human (moral) interest in being able to use racist and sexist speech to express contempt for others? I think not, and I’d like to see the argument that there is.

Yes there is. It’s the right to freedom of speech, the right to be able to argue our own views, no matter how offensive others find them.

I say this because I am an atheist, and hold some views about religion that I am well aware that many others find offensive. Some people are quite happy to include religious groups with racial groups (see Chris Bertram’s comment about “deep ethnic or religious divisions”), I think that if we allow racist or sexist views to be prohibited, the next step is prohbiting views that people find offensive to religion.

Also it is noticable that feminism and the anti-racist movements started and had many political successes in an environment where appallingly racist and sexist statements were common in academia and political discourse.

Now, is there a fundamental human interest in being able to participate in public matters as an equal (at least when one is an equal)?

Yes. Even for racists and sexists. This is why I am opposed to criminalising “hate speech”. For the record, I am female and of mixed race, and I am not an American.

The reason we have such a high bar against speech restrictions in America is because of the First Amendment and the ingrained notion that most Americans have that such an amendment means we are perfectly entitled to express ourselves in any manner we see fit in any forum, public or private (including shouting down the speech of those we disagree with.) In other words, we have a pretty broad notion of the “freedom” of speech.

(Emphasis mine.)

I know this is what we Americans claim to believe, Xanthippas. Unfortunately, I think it’s just so much self-serving rhetoric. Exhibit A: The fact that this guy, who attempted to shout down a speaker in a public forum, got a hefty jolt of voltage from the forces of law and order for his trouble…and even in such “lefty” fora as Keith Olbermann’s show, he’s being treated not as a First Amendment martyr, but as a walking punchline.

thomas — my kids are all upstairs, which has the advantage that I’ll pay them full attention later this afternoon!

Here’s what I think about the eptihets/propositional content issue. I think both kinds of speech are in play and that regulations are worth considering, but that the reasons for protecting propositional speech are very powerful indeed, even when it is hateful and harmful. So, despite everything I’ve said in this thread, I’m disposed to support strong protections for propositional speech in most situations. The reasons to protect epithets are much weaker, and the reasons to proscribe them much stronger. CB’s post might have been stronger if he had drawn the distinction and discussed it, but I know he’s well aware of it and may assume that most of us are.

I think the reason we react so strongly to epithets is that they so effectively draw on a set of cultural assumptions about the inferiority/contempt-worthiness of the object of the epithets, and do so in a way that is impossible to combat on the spot by using propositional speech which contradicts it. Of course, as a white male Brit living in the US, there aren’t any effective hateful eptithets in the culture that are usable against me (“limey!” — if someone tried to express contempt for me that way everyone would think they were nuts). But everyone knows that there are effective epithets expressing contempt for black americans, and there are reasons why there are, and people who use those eptihets in that way know what they are doing and why they are doing it. So, I agree that there is propositional content behind eptihets, but I think they are not, actually, propositional speech acts, and I think they are known not to be by those who use them.

I feel like I’m rambling a bit — does this make sense? (and, a different question, what do you think?)

tracy w-

The arguments you present support the conclusion that hate speech is particularly difficult to regulate without doing more harm than good, and that it probably shouldn’t be done.

They don’t support the conclusion you say it suppports, that there exists a “fundamental human (moral) interest in being able to use racist and sexist speech to express contempt for others.”

If more people grasped the difference between the two, this comment thread would be a lot shorter, and I wouldn’t have had to see something written by Sullivan.

belle – a little internet research shows that Caen himself later said that he was thinking of Sputnik but it’s clear (in his response to a scholarly inquiry) that he knew the Yiddish expression, at least at the time he wrote the note (1975):

Dear Mr. Rex:
Beatnik slipped out of my typewriter one day when I was writing about one or another of the Beat types – Kerouac, Ginsberg et al. – who flourished here at the time. … It was earlyish in 1958 and, correct, shortly after the Sputnic arose. Word association, and I never did understand how, “Beatnik” caught on. The suffix “nik” is, I believe, Yiddish, no?
Happy noodnik
Herbnik

http://www.modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~david/pg/pro-gradu.doc

The same article tells a hilarious story about Krushchev berating the poet Andrei Voznesensky for appearing at a meeting in casual dress:

Khrushchev started shouting at him and the minister of police jumped up and said:
“You came to the Kremlin without a white shirt and tie. You are a beatnik!” According to Voznesensky, the minister of police was the only person there who knew what a beatnik was but everybody shouted, “beatnik! Beatnik!”

What is spot on? The ‘run out’ part? Get serious!

Chris is arguing about the legitimacy of government using hate speech laws in its efforts to eliminate bigotry. That he frames it in terms of individuals not having a right to hate speech does not change this fact and that people see through the framing strategy straight away is something to be happy about not something to deplore.

Attempts to cut through the BS and get to the heart of the issue should not be met with attack.

Re: comment #9 by bob mcmanus on H.R. 1955. Hard to believe that one of the most left-wing members of Congress, Jim McDermott of Washington would vote for a bill alleged to outlaw thought crimes.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/26/1047/7315
How Did This Happen? Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act Passes
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/10/26/1047/7315/18#c18
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/nlc
>…Subject: [NLC] House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill
To: New Left Discuss , Free SoCal SDS MDS
To read about this, go to :
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682

—
Welcome to the SDS-MDS New Left Cafe Free Speech Zone.

This is a discussion list for members and supporters of Students for a Democratic Society and Movement for a Democratic Society.

Clicking on that URL one finds the reactionary, right-wing talk
radio host Lee Rogers
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/shows/theleerodgersampmelani

>…KSFO’s Rodgers accused Katrina victims of “sniveling,” “whining,”
riding “gravy train” This article has audio.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:24AM

ranting away. You find him a reliable source of info? Any webpg.
against the NWO
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/merupert/Research/far-right/far_right.htm
smacks of John Birch Society kookiness. McCarthyite demogogy>…”This
is more proof that our country has been completely sold out by a group
of traitors at all levels of government.”
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=H.R.+1955:+Violent+Radicalization+and+Homegrown+Terrorism+Prevention+Act+of+2007
Only google hits I find on this bill are from the Hard Right,
including these cuddly Neo-Nazis,
http://www.strmfrnt.rg/frm/shwthrd.php?t=431391
>…1. Threatened use…..isn’t that a direct violation of the right
to free speech?

2. Segment thereof…..Who defines that? Are Whites a segment thereof

and protected by threats of the use of force from violence from
non-whites? That would make most of the current pro-immigration
rallies a terrorist threat against the safety and security of American
citizens.

3. Or is this like hate crime laws where only white people are the

ONLY people that can fit into the guidelines as perpetrators?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Find a press release from the ACLU or NLG next time.

Third, if we are trying to implement such a conversational ideal in a society riven by deep ethnic or religious divisions, we’ll need to take seriously the idea that despised or stigmatized groups might not get their voices heard, and that one reason for this might involve the discourse of other citizens. This isn’t a matter of “the government” policing speech, it is a matter of us regulating our collective conversation.

I appreciate the basic intellectual framework here. I too eschew a Lockean natural rights framework in thinking about political issues, and place a lot of emphasis on the conditions necessary for implementing democratic self-government. This especially applies for me in the economic realm.

But I don’t think sufficient attention has been paid so far in this debate to what seems to me to be the weightiest factor in the defense of free speech.

Defenses on free speech often focus excessively on public goods: e.g., that permitting free expression allows for the introduction of all sorts of novel, challenging and unorthodox ideas into the public sphere, coming from many quarters. These ideas can then be freely debated and evaluated, and contribute to the spread of knowledge and practical wisdom. So, here free speech is cited for its practical, largely social value: its contribution to rationality in public and individual choice.

But I think there is a much more important factor to consider, the one which really lies behind the response that is elicited when people fear someone else is attempting to curtail their liberty of expression.

If one reads the (often clandestine) fictional literature, memoirs, drama, poetry, etc. from writers in totalitarian or near-totalitarian societies, one thing that stands out is simply how unpleasant it is to have one’s speech restricted. It is extremely painful and emotionally crushing to live in circumstances in which one’s speech and writing is routinely watched, scrutinized, penalized, censured, forbade, etc. It leads to paranoia, intellectual and emotional deadening and depression. And this should lead us to reflect that even in freer societies, each and every little restriction on speech is an imposition of at least some degree of pain or discomfort. That doesn’t mean that the imposition of that pain might not be justified by some higher good. That’s what the civilization and the formation of civilized character is all about. But it is important to recognize that it must be offset to be justified. We don’t just have a conflict between two sometimes competing social goods.

People are naturally chattering, blabbering animals. They enjoy saying what’s on their minds. Left alone, words gush from their mouths and pens in torrents. They delight in the exercise of power contained in their speech. They thrill at making their big or little impact on the world of other people by virtue of the noises they emit. They probably just have an innate disposition and need to exercise their cognitive and muscular speech organs. Their mental health depends on it.

People also delight in hearing the speech of others, something that comes through very clearly in – for example – Plato’s dialogues, whose characters seem to regard talking and listening as the most enjoyable things in life. The better the quality of the talk, the more enjoyable it is to listen to it. But it’s all delightful.

So sure, we would like to build a good and just society based on principles of democratic self-government. But the goal of every society, including a self-governing democratic one, is to create a life that its members enjoy living, to the maximal extent possible. People who collectively share a love of free expression, and the happiness free expression brings, might collectively and rationally choose to grant themselves very, very wide scope in saying whatever is on their minds. Life is more fun that way.

This doesn’t mean that allowing that wide scope doesn’t produce its own harms, or is not recognized as producing those harms. But the harms that come from relatively unrestricted speech – and their surely are many very real harms, both public and private – might be judged offset by the sum of sheer delight and joy in unrestrained speaking and writing, listening and reading.

Consider a group of people at a poetry reading.
Even if the particular pieces of poetry have no redeeming higher purpose; even if they are morally and intellectually degenerate; even if they contribute nothing of value to the emergence of wisdom, knowledge or intelligent decision-making; and even if they produced much embarrassment, chagrin and gnashing of teeth in the audience, we can at least say that the people who engaged in that speech had sport in the making of it. The sum total, on any given day, of inane gibberish, hateful insults, cretinous comments and rambling bloviations, might not add up to a social plus. They might even be a social negative. But all that talk represents a very large amount of inherent pleasure that must at least be taken into account.

That’s right – indoctrination is the solution. And if it doesn’t work and you have to introduce coercion, start turning screws on a growing number of deviants – then something’s probably wrong with you doctrine or the way you promote it.

a — that certainly put the rest of us, with our inferior political traditions and incapacity to think beyond them, in our place.

Ab, with your European romanticism you don’t even know what democracy is.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité oui! Démocratie, non.

Democracy is the culture of language in use (that’s my line too Prof B.) and indoctrination in democracy means indoctrination in language itself: in the responsibility of citizens to have opinions and be able to articulate them in their own words; to know history and the arguments over the events of the past. What opinions they end up having as adults becomes irrelevant. And as far as foundational documents are concerned I’d be happy enough if we replaced the Constitution or the Bible with the complete works of Shakespeare and the affirmation of communication as social collective act. I’ve had enough of the pseudo-science of the value free. All knowledge is built on foundation. I’d rather have that foundation be explicitly fictional and formal than on an unacknowledged and equally fictitious telos. To the secular humanists of the Renaissance, the “Enlightenment” is anti-humanist.
In modern rationalism it still is.

The right frame, in my view, is to think of the state as “we, the people” and to ask what conditions need to be in place for the people, and for each citizen, to play their role in effective self-government.

This is a ludicrously infantile view of government, akin to the five year-old who writes the President and asks him to cure cancer.

(Quick point of fact re: #82: Despite our admitted endless contempt for the ignorant rabble, the purpose of Public Reason is not actually global domination, the stamping out of democracy, or the imposition of Liberal-Fascist-Zionist speech codes, fun as that might be, but rather merely the facilitation of communication between members of a reasonably small professional sub-discipline.)

thanks bloix!

not only is the khrushchev story funny, it sort of explains everything that has always puzzled me: ok “beatnik” was indeed inspired by “sputnik”, in a sort of meaningless not-quite-workable-joke way, but it caught on — to caen’s own puzzlement — cz it’s such a great word to say, even if you have no idea what its origins are!

oddly enough it also hints at a dimension of word-harm not much touched on so far — which is that intense and deliberately maddening repetition even of not-especially hostile words is a well-recognised (and devastatingly effective) element in playground bullying

It’s a crazy world when abb1 and Seth Edenbaum are making way more sense than Chris and Harry.

Just wanted to get counted among the free speech extremists.

And as far as this being just an American idiosyncrasy, whatever happened to “I may not agree with what you say…”? Free speech extremism has a long and fine tradition and American free speech extremists are only part of that tradition. At least I’m sure we have a lot of French on our side (past and present). Also the folks who present this as US weirdness vs. rest of the world are misrepresentin’ themselves as speaking for groups which they do not necessarily speak for. I’m sure a lot of non-CT Britons disagree with CT Britons and agree with those weird Americans (who are themselves in disagreement with many of their fellow citizens. It’s not as if there aren’t similar proposals in US once in awhile).

“Free speech absolutists” wouldn’t bother me so much. What bothers me is people who defend the First Amendment of the US constitution as if it is some kind of holy writ. It enshrines a very limited conception of freedom of speech, basically freedom from government interference with speech, which is perfectly consistent with any number of disgraceful hypothetical scenarios–private media controlled by ideologues who refuse a platform to reasonable opposing views, severe marginalisation of members of disfavoured ethnicities, genders or classes within the public sphere, a complacent and conformist populace which shouts down reasonable challenges to its received opinions, widespread intimidation of advocates of a particular view by legal means, etc (each of which may or may not be all that close to the situation in present day America)–in which free speech is all but non-existent in anything but a formal sense. I can see why such a conception might be appealing to “libertarians” but I do not understand why it would be considered the first and last word on “free speech” for anyone who genuinely cares about democracy, equality or freedom.

It’s worth pointing out that the interpretation of the constitution that both the free-speech absolutists and their opponents are using is only forty-some years old; I’m not an expert in the history, but it seems to me that hate-speech regulation would have been viable under incitement and group-libel theories that were settled law before the 1960s.

Not to belabour the point but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here defending “free speech absolutism”. I’m not entirely sure what that would mean…

Erm, right. I’m guessing that noone here would defend the American Nazi Party’s right to burn down the ACLU headquarters. So they accept that some forms of self-expression are rightly forbidden, perhaps acts which directly violate the rights of others. The question is whether these rights-based limits on self-expression are exhaustive, or whether further restrictions ought to be made.

Harry, a belated response: I’m still skeptical of policing the line between epithets and other speech, between speech-as-abuse and propositional speech, but that’s a practical problem. If the distinction is granted, then it seems to me you’re right, and that speech-as-abuse is less valuable (certainly less socially valuable), and more harmful, so the case for regulation is stronger. Your discussion of epithets/propositional speech is interesting (the line of discussion may be old hat to you and CB, but it isn’t to all of us), and I’m still turning it over.

As for what I think: I think it’s a failure of imagination to exclude the hateful speaker’s POV, not on the subject of his bigotry, but on the value of his speech and the costs to him of regulation. Those shouldn’t be ignored, even if they are outweighed (and ignoring them guarantees that they’ll never be weighed at all).

There have been attempts to ban, or limit access to Huckleberry Finn for the use of the word “nigger,” and there are other examples as well. [and I think this is the first bit of empiricism to hit this thread. And then there’s the Butler decision] Since the record shows that unimaginative minds are often be offended by any number of things, and given how argument works by way of precedent, and how time can alter meanings we have to wonder at unintended consequences.

It’s always amused me that liberals who have no patience for theories of original intent defend propositions assuming that they will only lead where they want it to go. Once the state can define the meaning of a word, we get into problems.

I understand the frustration with libertarianesque portrayals of government as “The Other,” but the fact of the matter is that if our conversation is unfortunately dominated by a pack of bigots, shutting the bigots down requires an act of force, not simply polite agreement between parties interested in maintaining civil conversation. Now it’s not the case that force is off-limits for the government (heh indeed), but this is inherently political, not just a matter of setting ground rules. Maybe one day we will all be sufficiently indoctrinated to believe that certain forms of speech are off-limits (no sarcasm intended) in which case these hypothetical restrictions on speech will indeed just be a matter of setting ground rules — and of course will also be largely unnecessary.

In other words, Seth Edenbaum and abb1 are talking lots of sense. I concur with notsneaky in 89.

“But the motivation behind hate-crime laws – a loathing of liberty and group-think victimology – is still out there. …”

Andrew Sullivan is an idiot, QED.

Whoops, should have been “human interests are NOT about fulfilling some academic’s abstract notions of morality”.

mq — I’m inclined to engels’s response to that. I included the term moral to make it clear I meant moral interests rather than preferences. Your understanding of “interests” is roughly my understanding of “moral interests”. Reread with that in mind.

The assumption of bad faith on my part pisses me off, frankly. I understand that different people come to this discussion with different assumptions about what wrds and phrases mean, and try to be as transparent as possible, and anyone who reads my comments should either be able to see that, or should have the decency to assume it unless there’s evidence to the contrary.

thomas — I agree with your second para above, and regret having committed the fault you point out. Thanks. Funnily enough, Chris and I have never discussed the epithet/proposition issues. Believe it or not, I am always incredibly suspicious of actual restrictions (I was opposed to the speech code my own University had for some years, and whenever practical proposals come up I have been opposed to them. But on the balance of reasons, not on principle!) I agree the practical problems are difficult to solve, and maybe impossible, but I think that epithet regulation is the most promising avenue.

Even if we leave aside the issue of hate speech, which appears to be a rather emotive issue for many, I’d be interested to know what people here think about government regulation of advertising. For example, should government bans or regulations concerning tobacco advertisements be considered in the light of a strong presumption in favour of protecting the free speech rights of the tobacco companies? Tobacco adverts do not violate anyone’s rights (in the minimal sense) it seems. I think most reasonable people* would concede that they do in fact cause widespread and serious harms but that this is indirect.

(* ie. not Brett Bellmore and the other tiresome rightwing maroons who appear to have come here from Sullivan’s blog)

Also, for the record, I do not have a dog in the fight about hate speech regulation. It’s actually not something I have thought about very much (quite unlike all the other topics on which I have left prolific and intemperate blog comments, of course). Where I am in agreement with Harry and Chris is on the underlying principles. This post is quite right to point out that (a) restrictions on freedom of expression might be justified to protect freedom of expression and (b) the US First Amendment really ought not to be the touchstone for left/liberal discussions of free speech issues and the tendency of many liberals to treat it as such has been rather unfortunate imo.

“I’d be interested to know what people here think about government regulation of advertising. “

I, for one, think the whole distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech is totally illegitimate. There’s no constitutional basis for divvying up speech into different categories, and applying different standards to each for when Congress may enact exactly what the 1st amendment declares it shall not.

“is there a fundamental human (moral) interest in being able to use racist and sexist speech to express contempt for others?”

As usual, you’re interested in ideas, not people; more interested in the idea of civility than the best way to achieve it. I haven’t accused you of bad faith, only of self-absorption.

You’re making the argument for dividing political from nonpolitical speech. You really want to do that? What’s the meaning of nigger in Huckleberry Finn? Of self-hating jewishness in Portnoy’s Complaint? of sex in Lolita?
I think it was Kenneth Koch who argued that poetry is language crafted literally into a higher form. To which my response before thinking was to mumble Eliot’s cut and pasted phrases: “hurry up please, it’s time.” Nothing special about that except context. And of course he plagiarized not only from daily life but also from crap: “O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag-It’s so elegant So intelligent.”
Engels: ” [I was] just illustrating the difference between propositional and expressive utterances.”

Expressive: Asshole!
Propositional: “Asshole!”
Sorry Engels, it can’t be done.

You can’t be a philosopher if you’re not sure of the meaning of words. You can’t be a writer if you are.

This is getting down to the failures of American philosophical liberalism and its wishful relation to intentionality. If Naturalist Epistemology means never having to look in the mirror, it’s a recipe for ghettoization and irrelevance.
As to commercial and non-commercial speech, I’d have to run down all the possible reinterpretations of a rule and see how the meanings could be bent or expanded over time. At some point however, and this is what academic philosophical liberalism can not not understand, a society is not based on rules but values. Rules don’t allow for contradiction, values are dynamic and flexible, even paradixical. They’re made for elisions. If my multimillionaire stockbroker finds billionaires a little distasteful it’s because he’s been raised to feel that way. It’s not an abstract or intellectual decision, it’s simply a fact. He’s been socialized, as a social democrat.

I’m not interested in creating an enclosed non-contradictory formal logic; I’m only interested in a world with fewer Brett Bellmores (and Tyler Cowens). We’ll never get to the second without giving up on hope for the first.

seth — it was mq who implicitly accused me of bad faith, not you. I haven’t bothered to count or categorise the insults you’ve directed my way, I’ve only tried not to respond in kind. I know you disapprove of political philosophy done the way most of us do it these days. I don’t, frankly, think you know a lot about it, or have much of a sense of what the community of political philosophers think its role is and its limits are. I sometimes simply don’t understand what you are claiming or arguing –for example the long passage that takes up most of #117 is opaque to me (even though I like Eliot too) — and when you add or include insults, whether explicit or implied, it makes me less inclined to try and figure it out than I otherwise might be.
On the substantive issue of distinguishing eptithets from propositions (I didn’t mak any claim aboout political/nonpolitical, though I’m retty confident about that distinction too) — can’t you tell the difference between the use of ‘nigger’ in Huck Finn and its use as a racist insult in a street encounter or at a party? Can’t a jury? Maybe I don’t know enough stupid people.

Having read all 119 comments, what strikes me is the Puritanism of most commenters, who believe with Cotton Mather that the duty of government is to march sinful man to virtue at bayonet’s point.

Yes, Seth, and married to a school librarian too, amazing really, isn’t it, that I’m so ignorant? What can I have been thinking? It must be very rewarding to be catching people out so easily. And your response to Brett, too. So clever, I’m sure he’s reeling, and probably rethinking his commitment to the law of excluded middle.

Harry b: Good, I hope you find your place.

seth, no, I haven’t answered all your questions. Some of them, as I say, I don’t understand, others I can’t see the relevance of. I have other things to do so take up what seem to me the most relevant matters. You, in fact, ignore any point that seems to count against you. You are also sufficiently rude that I don’t feel any obligation to you in this discussion — only to others who might be following it.

As to your point about ideas etc — these are, in fact, ideas that we are discussing, and they are ideas with practical consequences. If you don’t care about getting things right, why argue? As I pointed out earlier, someone makes these decisions, and you seem to prefer that they be made by an appointed elite than through public deliberation. All things considered, I do not think there is a case for saying that the UK, without a bill of rights or a Supreme Court to implement it, is any less just or free than the US. Evidence that some more-or-less democratic policies can muddle through fine.

I don’t know you, or you me, except through this forum. You freely make assumptions about my interests and capabilities, which are largely false, simply ungenerous. Do you behave this way to people in person? If not, quit doing it online. If so, I’m sorry for you.

That’s great Brett — you still haven’t established that anyone’s principles are logically consistent, or can even be fully expressed as logical propositions. I do hate myself some intellectualism though.

Does Brett support freedom or not? Let’s see, if the government restricts the rights of individuals to own guns, then they are trespassing on the rights of citizens to protect themselves. But if the state imposes restrictions on when people can move from one part of the world to another, then it is protecting citizens from the harmful externalities. There is no tension here — Brett reached these conclusions by writing down his first principles in mathematical form and using the rules of elementary logic to reach an inexorable conclusion. Only anti-intellectuals would think otherwise.

hb, you’re talking about ideas, I’m talking about data. You’re talking philosophy I’m talking history. You’re talking about how people should behave, I’m talking about how they have and do.

“All things considered, I do not think there is a case for saying that the UK, without a bill of rights or a Supreme Court to implement it, is any less just or free than the US.”

I’ve been called a free speech absolutist, that doesn’t leave much room for a court to intervene. But if we were both in England we’d be having the same argument. I haven’t mentioned the constitution once I think. I’ve talked only about the principle of free speech.

I also said that it’s not so much judicial review itself as an actively engaged populace and a culture of debate that are of primary importance. I’m all in favor of making voting mandatory, but at this point I don’t think getting rid of the constitution is such a good idea. Nathan Newman argues that the reliance on judicial review by the left is a mistake. I agree. It became something of a fixation: the moral superiority and certainty of the elite. I’m not sure it was a mistake 40 years ago, but at this point the intellectuals are more conservative than the majority, and the democratic base is more populist than those who claim to be their betters. Academic discussion is has become concerned solely with ideas. While the statehouses are slowly filling up with democrats, Brian Leiter pals around with Richard Posner and Henry Farrell chats economic eugenics with Tyler Cowen. It’s a bit like Turkey where the modernists have become the conservatives. And I say that as a secularist. But Richard Dawkins model of secularism is the Turkish military.

That’s the difference son. And its a big one.

no jayann, I agree, but we did for a long time (I was talking archaicly, and should have used ‘was’ not ‘is’, but… shorthand for something). And there is no equivalent to the first amendment, but despite the blasphemy law and other restrictions, I don’t think even expression is less free in the UK than the US (but I couldn’t provide an untontroversial metric of ‘freedom of speech’ with which to test that).

They’re academics who claim to be worldly wise, because they’re academics. That’s simple error.

I was born and braised in academia and academicsim. It’s in my bones. But it was the academicism of arts and letters not the sciences.

Probably no one is reading this any more, but in response to Harry B’s comment at 109: I didn’t mean to accuse you of bad faith, in the sense that I think you’re sincerely trying to make your true beliefs clear. However, I don’t understand your response, or the distinction you are making between moral interests and preferences. My comment was precisely that we have an interest in being free to pursue our preferences, whether these preferences are moral, amoral, or even immoral. Sometimes the freedom to pursue immoral preferences must be restricted, but this is still a restriction on freedom and needs to be done carefully. It is an authoritarian view to want to restrict the interest in liberty only to a freedom to pursue interests the arbiters of morality define as “moral”. Such people also tend to be eager to expand the definition of immorality — for example, I don’t think *expressing* racist or sexist beliefs is necessarily immoral, although harming others based on racist or sexist beliefs often is.

Again, see Dan Kervick’s excellent post at 75 for a discussion of how central the freedom of expression is, even just as a preference or desire. Better, I would urge you to look at Ellen Willis’ essay in response to Catherine MacKinnon, “Freedom, Power, and Speech”, which is collected in Willis’ book “Don’t Think, Smile”, and was also I think published elsewhere as part of the feminist debates on pornography. It more or less devastates a lot of the arguments made here.

the US First Amendment really ought not to be the touchstone for left/liberal discussions

The more I read this thread, the more respect I get for the First Amendment and the more central it seems to me.

” It’s like an exercise in rabbinic logic.”
To them maybe, and to you, but to others it brings out a (moral and ethical) requirment to examine the record:

What have been the effects of similar attempts and what have been their effects as precedent? How have the arguments been expanded over time? Not what “might be” but what “have been” the unintended consequences?

It’s like listening to an economist argue that if the data doesn’t fit the theory then the data is wrong. “It must be!”
And this is how to make policy?

I argued for freedom of speech and the response was a lecture on judicial review, as if I was arguing for the power of judges over the power of the people, or from the first amendment and not the principle behind it! I was arguing against the power of any one over any other. b and b are the self-righteous moralists. They’re willing to assume that the people are the state, and to defend the tyranny of the majority (or is it the tyranny of the “just?”) They’re assuming that eveyone will look to the original intent. And they can’t even acknowledge the irony.
Their rationalism and yours (and brett’s) all have too much in common.

“And THAT is exactly the problem with rejecting non-contradiction. A person may like to think that they’ve got some kind of moral/ethical principles, but if those principles are self-contradictory, they can be manipulated to justify ANYTHING.”

Brett, people who are entirely consistent in their lives and action exist only in fiction. think of Socrates or Christ. You’ve made enough arguments here and at Balkinization based on little more than paranoia and bile that no one has much reason to think of you as rational. And now you argue for the brittlest definition of logic. Believe me you’re not alone.
I’ll use the same question I asked last time this came up:
Are Jews in American culture white or not white [A or Not A]?
The answer of course is that it depends on context.

“the US First Amendment really ought not to be the touchstone for left/liberal discussions of free speech issues and the tendency of many liberals to treat it as such has been rather unfortunate imo.”

and

“The Americans have a long tradition of trying to discuss these things using the language of an 18th-century document. Given the difficulties of shoehorning a lot of real-world problems into that frame, that gives them a long history of acrobatic hermeneutics somewhere in the vague area of free speech. Some of it is even relevant. The trouble is that many Americans (at least the ones who comment on blogs!) can’t tell the difference between discussing the free speech and discussing the application of their constitution.”

The more substantive free speech points have been well covered, (and I’m agreeing with abb1, yikes!), but this type of point confused me until I got near the end.

You can’t really throw away the numerous, in-depth, intellectual discussions that can be found in US discussions over the past 100 years by waving the “18th century document” card. I mean of course you can, Chris clearly just did, but it isn’t a particularly good dismissal because there isn’t anything particularly “18th century” about the discussions. It is true that not all countries in the world have a document that says “X shall make no law” and it is true that having a document that says that doesn’t magically make it so. But that has very little to do with it.

If you think that free speech is a very fundamental right, the 1st amendment expression of that right is comprehensible. If you don’t think it is much of human right, of course you don’t like the 1st amendment expression of it. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with 18th century language. You’re making technical objections to the form, when you really object to the content.

The numerous US-based discussions of free speech can in fact be illuminating, (I was going to say ‘despite’) BECAUSE of the background of taking the right fairly seriously.

If your response to the largest number of very deep looks at the practical and philosophical problems and virtues of free speech is “that is just America” because it comes with a background of the 1st amendment, you don’t seem to be taking the intellectual question very seriously.

The key problem with restrictions on speech content is that the people choosing between ‘good’ speech and ‘bad’ are always going to be the people in power. The American response to that is that speech is an important enough right (no matter how you label the rights, be they ‘human rights’ or otherwise) that we sharply circumscribe the legitimate authority of the government when it comes to policing speech.

There isn’t an appeal to an 18th century document in the above paragraph.

Notice that I said

the US First Amendment really ought not to be the touchstone for left/liberal discussions of free speech issues

I have been graced with replies from Sebastian Holsclaw (a conservative) and MQ (a libertarian).

And Sebastian, like it or not, people in the UK–left, right or centre–simply do not discuss the moral issues about free speech with reference to USSC case law and rightly so.

I’m not a libertarian, Engels, I’m a plain old liberal. One of the reasons I’m not a libertarian is that I believe individualism is something of a myth, although a valuable one. In fact, we’re social to the core. But genuine freedom of speech is fundamental to the kind of sociability I value. State interference with it is threatening in a way that limited state interference with large-scale corporations is not. That’s why I find myself agreeing with the libertarians on this thread.

Brett is right that the language of positive liberty is dangerous, since it allows you to claim it is necessary to negate a liberty in order to preserve that liberty. I think the meat of the positive liberty argument — the need for some material resources in order to participate in speech communities — is mostly attainable through moderate, predictable, and limited state redistribution of material resources, without limitation of the speech rights of others. Like spectrum or TV advertising time for political parties. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s my view.

State interference with it is threatening in a way that limited state interference with large-scale corporations is not.

The two are not mutually exclusive. How do you feel about advertising regulation, for example (as in #111)?

Abb. none of my questions were answered.
I am opposed to hate speech legislation for reasons I’ve laid out here. I am opposed to hate crimes legislation, not because hate crimes don’t exist but because officially designating them as such accepts the categories of otherness that we are trying to eliminate. I consider affirmative action problematic for the same reason. I say problematic because in some instances it may have been the only way. Still, look up Derrick Bell; or debates over school funding. Real estate taxes are not a good way to fund local education.
And as far as Europe is concerned, specifically Germany: no, it has not come to terms with its past. But to understand that you have to read between the lines, and look at post war culture, not just post war regulations. And this blog does not pay attention to gaps and elisions, only to confirmed sightings. If I describe German culture as numb, as autistic, (and I’m not the only one to say that) the response is incredulity.
Here is another example of unacceptable imprecision on my part:
I think it is all well and good for the people of the United States to think of themselves as “having an interest” in the reform movement in Iran. I am opposed to the government of the US claiming to “have an interest” in that movement. you can extend that logic to other examples, even within a country. Liberals assume that rules can be made to express concern. But rules don’t measure the distance for example between concern and pity, and that is the most important distinction in interaction among people. Conservatives think concern can not exist outside the family, and liberals think it can be legislated. Both are wrong. Liberals can not accept the fact of ambiguity in language because then rules would not be enough to solve our problems. The one thing liberals, who are individualists at heart, are unwilling to change is themselves. That’s why Brighouse and Bertram and others think only in terms of “ideas” because ideas are concrete, they can be measured.
The logic of this site begins with naturalistic epistemology and individualism, described as “true.” Both are fictional constructs. As fictional as the the pretense that laws are enough to make a society whole.

And as to free speech and corporations as people, I’m not the one who measures the social as as an aspect of the economic or as a gathering of contract forming monads. I described the process of socialization of my Norwegian stockbroker. He did not choose to be this way: he is not a rational actor, and never has been. He is not “free.” He is constrained by obligations within the world that made him, as we all are. And for an asshole, he’s not a bad guy.

And as far as being polite. I don’t apologize to members of the libertarian cult, or their drinking partners. I suppose i should just attack Tyler Cowen’s idea’s and not him. But these people are his friends and somehow can’t even condemn the ideas, because he is their friend. I’m sure some people feel the same way about Charles Murray.
I have no patience left. And I’ve earned the right to feel contempt.