These days, pretty much every story is really the same story:The question, at some point, ceases to be about the merits of the individual case, or whether we do or do not care for the individual in conflict with the government. The first people to come into conflict with an increasingly oppressive system will be the most pricklish, and often we don't care for the pricklish. What we call the 'merits,' though, are about the law as it stands. If the system is the problem, the law that the system interprets is untrustworthy as a guide.
* In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of ‘Fucking Zionist, fucking pricks… Get the fuck off our campus.’
* In California, Mozilla’s chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
* At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek ‘special clearance’ before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.
* In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
* In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.
* And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C — whoa, don’t worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it’s down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Age described as the ongoing debate about ‘where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society’.
For now it's the pricklish, or the outlandish, or the self-righteous. Or maybe it's the self-described outlaws. But increasingly, it's all of us. If we're going to have to fight, why wait until there are fewer of us left?
19 comments:
There's a fairly famous quote - can't recall who said it - that says if you can't describe the position of someone who disagrees with you so they would agree that that's what they believe, you probably don't really understand it at all.
That goes double for characterizing disagreement in a way that is actively insulting:
It does seem like the Right spends a lot of time worrying about whether the individual involved in the case is really the right kind of guy, really respectable and really just our sort.
I don't agree with this either:
What we call the 'merits,' though, are about the law as it stands. If the system is the problem, the law that the system interprets is untrustworthy as a guide.
It's not just a gross oversimplification - it's flat out wrong. Disputes may have legal merits, moral merits, factual merits, logical merits. They are different aspects of the same question.
Who is it that you're so eager to fight with? If you want people to fight with you, insulting them is a poor beginning and an even worse enticement.
Steyn is involved in a civil suit - a legal dispute between two private citizens. The "case" (such as it is) for "fighting for him" seems to be that everyone should be willing to defend the God given right to make an argument in deliberately insulting terms without consequence. If that's you're argument, please expound upon it. On the face of it, it's not a compelling one but if anyone could make the argument coherently, I would expect you could.
Steyn is involved in a civil suit - a legal dispute between two private citizens. The "case" (such as it is) for "fighting for him" seems to be that everyone should be willing to defend the God given right to make an argument in deliberately insulting terms without consequence. If that's you're argument, please expound upon it. On the face of it, it's not a compelling one but if anyone could make the argument coherently, I would expect you could.
I'll make a stab at it. Freedom of Speech is predicated on protecting speech that is NOT "socially acceptable". Because only protecting socially acceptable things is worthless. The idea that someone can shut you up (or punish you financially) because you said something mean (or deliberately insulting) under the color of law is what needs to be fought. I am all for making people responsible for their actions, and yes, even their speech. If you want to take a publicly unpopular stance, don't go crying for legal relief when your business suffers the backlash. This goes from the Dixie Chicks losing business during the Gulf War because they ticked off their fans just as it goes for the CEO of Mozilla. He was fired because the company did not want to suffer a financial backlash from their investors and customers. Where we run afoul of violating a Right of Free Speech is when the law becomes involved.
And that's where Steyn's case comes in. The courts (even the civil courts) are predicated on the protection of (and relief granted by) the law. You cannot sue someone in civil court for abiding by the clear letter of a contract just because you didn't like the outcome. The law protects the defendant from having to pay "damages" incurred because they did everything they were required to do, even if the complainant isn't happy. And I'm not saying the law should protect you from negative consequences of your actions. If a company follows all the legal and contractual requirements, but public opinion is against them, they should not be able to seek legal redress for lost income when people stop doing business with them.
But to say that you should be able to suffer legal penalties for "making an argument in deliberately insulting terms" is a bridge too far. Don't like what Steyn says? Organize boycotts. Refuse to buy newspapers that run his columns. These are all fine responses. Suing him in court? Literally trying to make the law punish him because you don't like what he said? Yeah, I'll fight against that.
You think that's insulting? It strikes me as the right way to describe the remarks I see about Steyn from those on the Right. Steyn is certainly insulting, but I am not trying to be. The argument against him is largely that he hasn't been polite enough. He's pricklish, or he's given to phrasing his remarks in ways that aren't adequately respectful to his opponents.
Well, sure, that's true. He is pricklish. He says rude things, even to those who might be his friends. But he's one case; and the cattle are another case; and the there are several more on the list. Are any of them worth fighting for? Well, the British or Australian cases aren't our problem; Steyn is a jackass; the rancher may be in technical violation of the law, though of course the government created that law via regulatory fiat and insists on interpreting it in its own courts: it's easy to be in violation of the law when your opponent controls the law. Every case, there's some reason not to fight for them.
This is why the political history of the Right in the Anglo-American world is a series of reversals. Occasionally we get a Reagan or a Thatcher who slows or better manages the descent; very occasionally they win an actual victory that restores something, for a while. Trying to find people who play nice and according to the system is setting yourself up for failure. The system is being crafted all the time. It can't be regarded as a set thing that we have to go along with, or we'll lose to those who are so aware of the reality that they can redefine it as they go.
That means we have to have a set of principles higher than the law, which we will defend if necessary in defiance of the law. Every time.
I support Mark Steyn in his defense of a libel suit by Michael Mann. The libel laws as they stand in this country are OK by me. I feel no impulse to attack that system of laws; it's just that Mann's case has no merit, and I'm eager to see the two of them fight it out publicly over the question whether Steyn has lied about Mann--a very different matter from ridiculing him. Mann deserves all the ridicule he can get. Even if he didn't deserve it, it's a horrible idea to prevent people from expressing opinions, even obnoxious ones. All the protection from speech we need can be found in a combination of laws against libel and fraud.
So for me this isn't a question of civil disobedience, nor is it a question of deciding whether someone is the "right sort" before I'll support him in sedition. When it comes to sedition, I do absolutely pay a lot of attention to the merits of the person invoking it: I need to know whether his cause is worth the considerable cost of tearing down a system that's flawed but not worthless. I need to consider whether what we're likely to replace the system with will be an improvement, and whether I'm comfortable encouraging everyone to behave as this individual is behaving. George Washington? Yes. Mark Steyn? Yes. Clive Bundy? Not so sure--and I hesitate there only because his opponents are even more deplorable.
I am with Texan99 on this one.
I would only add that I have followed Mann's escapades, but I do not follow Steyn, so I have no good measure of just how much "insult" may be involved, here. However, I also do not know how to describe Mann's behavior in simple, factual terms that would not be deeply insulting.
Accusations of dishonesty and incompetence, are always insulting, and an accusation of falsification of data is the Original Sin of science. Embellishment with some zingy adjectives and adverbs is irrelevant, where the accused actions themselves form the core of the "insult."
Valerie
This is an excellent, and very brief, summary by Popehat of the merits of Mann's lawsuit.
http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/23/michael-mann-sues-nro-mark-steyn-the-competitive-enterprise-institute-and-rand-simberg/
The libel laws as they stand in this country are OK by me. I feel no impulse to attack that system of laws; it's just that Mann's case has no merit, and I'm eager to see the two of them fight it out publicly over the question whether Steyn has lied about Mann--a very different matter from ridiculing him. Mann deserves all the ridicule he can get. Even if he didn't deserve it, it's a horrible idea to prevent people from expressing opinions, even obnoxious ones. All the protection from speech we need can be found in a combination of laws against libel and fraud.
I'm inclined to the view that the suit isn't a particularly strong one. That said, unless we want to make it impossible for private citizens to sue each other for libel in civil court, I don't see the "fight" here.
It seems to me that a bunch of things that are only loosely related are being conflated. The 1st amendment doesn't protect libelous or slanderous speech. If Mann's speech meets the legal test for slander/libel, then I think he should win.
If it doesn't, I think he should lose. My personal feeling is that I would greatly enjoy seeing him lose even though I don't like Steyn much either. He enjoys this sort of thing, so he makes a poor victim of Oppression :p
FWIW, when a person accuses a professional of professional misconduct on no evidence, that's pretty much textbook libel. My knowledge of that area of the law is shallow, but my take is that Steyn is one of those guys who loves lobbing rhetorical Molotov Cocktails and they pretending to be shocked when the object of his current attentions takes him seriously.
Please don't try to convince me that Steyn did not intend to suggest that Mann fudged the data. He clearly did. I detest Mann, but that's really irrelevant here.
The proper place for this to play out is in court, so I'm in agreement with Tex. And I don't want to get rid of civil slander or libel laws. They serve a useful purpose.
So I'm really confused about what "fight" there is here for anyone but Steyn and Mann? If their fans want to support them emotionally or financially, that's fine with me.
But I am not seeing a Cause here.
Valerie, Steyn essentially accused Mann of doing to climate change data what Sandusky did to little boys.
He went on to say that the investigation clearing Mann of accusations of fraud was no more thorough/credible than the "investigations" of Sandusky, or something to that effect.
This is really such a weird story that I have tried not to pay too much attention to it. It has nothing to do with our 1st Amendment rights, and personally I'm unwilling to defend that kind of speech. I'm also unwilling to prosecute it (which no one has tried to do, by the way). And I'm perplexed by the notion that private citizens should be stripped of legal recourse against someone who publicly accuses them of gross professional misconduct.
There's no precious free speech right at issue here. There are a ton of defenses to libel/slander. It's not that easy to prove in court, and I suspect Mann will lose.
Thanks for the link, Tex!
The argument against him is largely that he hasn't been polite enough.
Libel has nothing to do with manners, so I don't agree. The charge against him is that he publicly accused Mann of academic fraud and professional misconduct in usually disgusting terms.
If you are going to make that charge, you had best bring the evidence to back it up. Truth is an absolute defense to libel, but it's a complicated area with a lot of defenses and very hard to prove.
It really seems to me that what you're really arguing is that in some larger fight really having very little to do with this case, people may need to do ugly thing. Therefore, you want to defend the right to do ugly things in far less exigent circumstances.
I think that's an extremely flimsy argument. If I've mistated your position, please correct me - as I've said, that's how it seems to me. People do all sorts of horrid things in war. That doesn't mean I have to approve and defend doing them in Not-War.
This isn't War.
"Please don't try to convince me that Steyn did not intend to suggest that Mann fudged the data."--Good Heavens, no! He obviously accused Mann of exactly that. He said Mann treated the data the way Sandusky treated little boys. That's why I look forward to a public trial of the issue whether the accusation was false, conducted by people more interested in getting to the bottom of the matter than anyone who conducted the previous Mann whitewash.
I hope Mann comes to regret filing the lawsuit as the most reckless and self-destructive thing he ever did in his life. He has a great deal to answer for.
Libel/slander laws should be (and thankfully are) very closely defined. Because they are limitations on what can be written/said, and as such come close to legal interference with Free Speech. I do not begrudge Mann the opportunity to prove that Steyn "recklessly and with complete disregard for the truth intentionally caused damage to Mann's reputation". But by the same token, I also despise SLAPP suits intended to get a critic of a person, company, or other organization to shut up with the force of law (or through bleeding their bank accounts dry defending themselves). And so too does Steyn. He in fact has made motions to proceed to discovery in his trial while his co-defendants continue to try and have the suit summarily dismissed. Mostly because Steyn believes that his ultimate defense is the truth. And his accusations of professional misconduct can absolutely be 100% protected speech if they are, in fact, true. And he certainly seems to believe that they are. Or at least claims to.
Now, on to the politeness or lack thereof. Frankly, I don't give a tinker's damn if he's polite or not. I don't think it's particularly relevant. In fact, I believe Steyn was intentionally as inflammatory as he could possibly be in order to DRAW the lawsuit. Because Mann (in any attempt to prove libel) would be required by the court to reveal his original raw data, which is something he has previously refused to do. Like T99, I suspect at the end of the day that Mann will regret he ever filed suit.
So yes, I am absolutely prepared to argue that you should be able to "make an argument in deliberately insulting terms without consequence" IF your facts are accurate.
I would add that Mann and his bunch have done an outstanding job of evading attempts to hold their research and methodology to account. In filing a libel lawsuit, however, Mann undertook an affirmative burden of proof. If he makes any of his usual arguments for shielding his data, his analysis, or his and his friends' private internal admissions about their willingness to abuse data in service of the noble cause of pushing a reluctant public into a virtuous direction, he will find that he now has to choose between hiding facts and pursuing remedies against one of his most effective critics.
There's a big difference between a friendly commission that concludes, in effect, "We can't quite pin professional misconduct on this guy, taking into consideration the limited data we've been permitted to review and our determination to extend him the benefit of the doubt because he's on the side of the climate angels," and a neutral tribunal that finds, "After submitting to rigorous discovery in which he was permitted to withhold nothing, this guy has met a burden of proof that he did not abuse professional and scientific standards in twisting scientific data and analysis in service of a political and funding agenda."
His suit should stop dead in its tracks at the point where he refuses to submit the original raw data to public review, for fear that someone might score unwelcome points with it and muddy the political waters. The IPCC and its true believers may buy that tactic, but a court shouldn't.
I think that's an extremely flimsy argument. If I've mistated your position, please correct me - as I've said, that's how it seems to me.
It's not an argument. It's a statement of principle. As such, it lacks the underpinning argument, which would require building out when I have more time to devote to it (e.g., when I'm not on the road or in meetings and conferences all day).
It may be, though, that part of the problem is making arguments. We've both constructed a lot of careful arguments over the last decade, and it hasn't changed anything about the direction of the country. And as I see the next line of arguments shaping up for 2014 and 2016, I'm already tired of them. They have no hope of fixing the problems. There are no candidates and no ideas that, if they won, would repair things.
This is the point at which Aristotle would say, "Let us make a fresh start."
We've both constructed a lot of careful arguments over the last decade, and it hasn't changed anything about the direction of the country.
Well, I don't think I had any expectation that I was that important. Now you on the other hand... :p
There are no candidates and no ideas that, if they won, would repair things. This is the point at which Aristotle would say, "Let us make a fresh start."
Grim, I'm really surprised to hear you say things like this. I know you have read history, so surely you are aware how (**&^%'d up our government has been many, many times in our 200+ year history.
This is nothing new. Human nature has always dictated that power will be misused/abused, there will be problems, people will eventually figure out solutions to the problems.
We don't have slavery anymore, we don't round up people and intern them for no freaking reason. As far as I know we're not conducting medical experiments with unconsenting GIs or people who are retarded.
Life is difficult. The human condition is difficult. These problems have been around since Aristotle's time. Our lives are so much easier than those of previous generations and the country as a whole is far wealthier. Even our poor are better off than the poor of previous generations. We don't have soup or bread lines or race riots in our major cities.
"Making a fresh start", as you put it, is not a trivial endeavor. Life, even in our age of relative abundance and peace, requires determination and fortitude.
Courage, mon ami.
"There are no candidates and no ideas that, if they won, would repair things."
C.S. Lewis would say that despair is a worse sin than any of the sins that can provoke it. Marilyn vos Savant would say, "Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent."
There are no candidates and no ideas that, if they won, would repair things. This is the point at which Aristotle would say, "Let us make a fresh start."
I had an extended discussion on Ricochet triggered by a Tea Party person who'd decided to resign her post as her local Party Chairman because she saw things as hopeless, too.
No. It's not even over when the fat lady sings. It's not over until we abjectly surrender, or are dead.
Full stop.
And by the way, the current revolution has been under way since 2009, and we're winning.
Eric Hines
Despair is a mortal sin, but acceptance that a body has a natural lifespan is not despair. A political system, too, can at times come to the end of its life in a natural way. It isn't despair to accept that, and think about moving on.
It's not just that the bureaucracy is corrupt, though it is: the recent revelations about the IRS targeting of political enemies are matched with Justice Department political prosecutions, as we know. If it were that, the situation could be fixed.
It's not just that the Congress has become completely ineffective as a restraint on Executive power. That's a very serious problem, to be sure: the fact that our Attorney General is in contempt of Congress, and that Congress is waved away by a bureaucracy that is happy to edit the law by legislative fiat, is a serious matter.
It's not just the Constitutional amendments that are now routine, such that every Supreme Court term leads to radical revisions in the social contract, with no democratic input.
It's not just that the debt levels are ruinous, while one party -- the ruling party -- believes that the only thing keeping the economy from booming is that we aren't spending enough.
Rather, it is the people. About a third of them don't want to fix it, because they believe it is right. About a third don't care enough to perform their democratic duties. The remaining third is so deeply divided among itself that it cannot even serve as an effective opposition party -- and it is divided for the right reasons, which is that we disagree about very basic issues of morality and wisdom.
We could get answers to our problems via the political system at the state level, because the states have cultures with enough in common to pursue effective solutions. They will be different solutions, but they will be answers of one sort or another.
The Federal government isn't like that. The people are too diverse in their values to steer it, either this way or that way. The division is chiefly for good reasons, but there it is.
So it steers itself, onto the rocks. The end will come, and we can't stop it through political means. That isn't a statement of despair. It is a statement of hope. A new birth will follow, and if it is a difficult birth nevertheless the prospect of a new flourishing attends it.
We're not waiting for there to be less people able to fight, we're waiting for there to be more people that want to fight.
Since it seems there's a bunch of people who like sitting on the fence thinking it'll just be another normal MMA exhibition match. Wars aren't like that.
"This isn't War."
Tell that to the left. As they say- 'You may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you.'
What exactly has Steyn done that is so horrible? Yes, he's snarky, but clearly (at least to me) his analogy has more to do with comparing the abhorrent way Penn State 'cleared' Sandusky to the way it 'cleared' Mann than anything to do with children. One can feel that it's a comparison best left unused, but at least in some ways it does seem fitting here. I'll also argue that we need a little humor about these things- sometimes even a kind of 'gallows' humor- as being too serious about very serious issues just gets overwhelming. It reminds me of the Aesops fable "Aesop at Play" which I just read to the children at bedtime last night.
Post a Comment