[MD] Barbarian attack

[Platt Holden]

Mike,

Do you think it's OK for a contract to be taken out on the life of someone
who calls someone's mother a fat dirty whore? Or do you think someone 
so offended is justified in burning down the house of the one who 
perpetrated the verbal offense? I don't. Such responses to insults are 
barbaric, or in Pirsigian terms, biological. In civilized society they 
are inexcusable and ought not be tolerated.. 

Regards,
Platt
 
> Your dedication to the value of free speech is admirable. I
> wholeheartedly agree that free speech must include the freedom to
> offend. Censorship of those cartoons would be thoroughly undesirable.
> However, anyone who chooses to publish those cartoons is nonetheless
> bringing a large weight of responsibility upon themselves. Allow me to
> make an analogy:
> 
> Your legal entitlement to free speech means that you are free to go into
> a bar, pick out the largest, burliest man, and call his mother a fat
> dirty whore. No government should prevent you from doing that. However,
> you shouldn't act surprised if the man leaves you with a broken nose and
> two very black eyes.
> 
> I trust that you can see the point I am making about the cartoons.
> Free speech comes with great responsibility regarding how it is used.
> 
> Also, your attack on the value of tolerance is inconsistent with your
> admirable dedication to free speech. Tolerance of conflicting opinions
> is the conerstone of free speech. In fact, the inability of some Muslims
> to tolerate the cartoons is a large part of the problem. However, I
> think you understand that there are always limits to tolerance. Anyone
> who disagrees should see how they react to their mother being called a
> fat dirty whore, or how they react to their deity being called a
> terrorist.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> On 2/15/06, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> > To All:
> >
> > A blatant attack by barbarians on the intellectual value of free
> > speech is now underway in many parts of the world. Yet who among are
> > intellectual elite are speaking out against the mobs who attack
> > Western businesses and embassies over a cartoon? Not many. Instead we
> > hear words of appeasement, such as the U.S State Department's press
> > officer, Janelle Hironimus who said, "Inciting religious or ethnic
> > hatred in this manner is not acceptable." So much for free speech
> > which is not free if it does not include the freedom to offend.
> >
> > What we are witnessing is the whirlwind from years of political
> > correctness as codified in university speech codes, supported by
> > decades of preaching with arrogant moral certainty the overriding
> > virtue of tolerance. After all, no one is to blame for anything; each
> > is nothing but a product her culture. And as we all know, no culture
> > can be thought to be superior to any other.
> >
> > In Pirsig's hierarchy of morals, among the highest is the intellectual
> > value of free speech. That more intellectuals are blind to this value,
> > trumpet moral relativism and fail to take to the ramparts to defend
> > free speech against assaults by barbarians is the shame of our time.
> > When histories write the postmortem on the West, this will be among
> > the causes of death.
> >
> > Platt