[MD] Intellect on trial

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
...And so it's not at all a stretch for me to believe that inciting hatred is a real act, one that's very likely to cause real harm to real people. There is a wide array of crimes that can be committed with nothing more than speech. Inciting a riot and perjury spring to mind. Slander and treason are punishable by law. One can be convicted for conspiracy to commit a crime, even if the crime itself was never carried out. To make these things illegal does no harm to the principle of free speech, none whatsoever. Neither does the law against inciting hate. Tolerance is not served by tolerating intolerance. Free speech, Mein Ass.


Steve replied:
It seems to me that it _does_ do harm to free speech as a _principle_ to be served in itself. And the idea that free speech is such a principle is one that ought to be dropped anyway to avoid the madness of such nonsense as "corporations are persons" with such rights and "money = speech." Instead we need free speech as a rule of thumb or pretty good slogan for getting at some of our concerns about some other more difficult to nail down good that free speech aids.

dmb says:
Free speech should be a rule of thumb instead of a principle? I don't just disagree. I think the idea is alarming and horrifying. You're right to say it's madness and nonsense to declare that corporations are persons who have the same free speech rights that we do. But that supreme court decision is objectionable precisely because it violates the principle. It weakens the principle and makes a mockery of the principle. To further weaken and undermine it by lowering it to a rule of thumb strikes me as a rather dramatic capitulation to the enemy. 

It seems to me that the phrase "free speech" is one of the most well-funded and heavily invested ideas in our culture. It is enshrined in our founding documents and it has big mojo all around the world. If it were a brand name, it would be worth about as much as the name "coca-cola". In terms of cash value, it would be worth billions. So I think it is far more than a pretty good slogan and the thing to do is supercharge it, not scale it back.

If I may be allowed to get a bit grandiose...  I want to say "free speech" is more than a principle. It is THEE principle principle. It stands for a whole level of morality, one higher than the various traditional moralities. And I want to say the MOQ owns that phrase. The MOQ strengthens and enriches the concept as it is already understood. It props up what is already well-known and well-loved. And the MOQ comes with a set of distinctions that help to explain the difference between intellectual freedom and corporate publicity, between philosophy and advertising. It would help to explain why corporations don't have these human rights. 

Steve continued:
...Same with tolerance. "Tolerate anything but intolerance" is only an apparent contradiction when one loses sight of what tolerance is a slogan to support. That more difficult to nail down thing is often called "freedom," but freedom isn't supposed to extend the freedom to take away other's freedoms. Those quick to point out that tolerance is self-contradictory often don't recognize that their treasured freedom has the same problem if you want to view it as a problem. (The thought only occurred to me last night during the tenth refrain of "America, f#$@ yeah!, Freedom is the only way" in Team America.) Pirsig also makes the point in one of his afterwords or forewords to one of the many anniversary additions of ZAMM. Freedom is a negative. It says that there is something that we don't want. What is it we _do_ want?


dmb says:
Freedom is the ONLY way. Fuck yeah! That's funnier than I remember. Netflix here I come. 

I agree. People have some pretty odd ideas about the meaning of "tolerance" and "freedom". They can even get turned directly on their heads. When I listen to the far right view on those ideas, I'm thinking Kafka meets Orwell. But I think the MOQ clarifies and enriches them pretty darn well. Freedom isn't just negative in the MOQ, not when we start talking about DQ and creativity and such. But this is about politics and culture and so freedom is negative. Intellectual freedom says we don't want social level interference. 

Again, the MOQ is just strengthening and clarifying well-known and well-loved ideas. No reasonable person opposes academic freedom and it's mostly just the very religious types that disrespect science, for example. The negative meaning of intellectual freedom - the church can't stop scientists from publishing - is already common sense among educated Americans. Except for a few loud fanatics, nobody thinks it's a good idea for the government to suppress science or anything like that. I mean, this stuff sells itself and the MOQ makes it even more attractive.


Steve said: 
I like to say, "democracy," but it often gets taken too literally in terms of voting. What I think we ought to want, and what I mean by democracy, is a system where political power resides with the people. Words like tolerance and freedom are words for our best ideas about how to get such a system--how to keep the rule of the majority from becoming tyranny over the minority, how to best respect and balance the needs of all, how to have the good life.



dmb says:

Yep, that's why it's so objectionable to extend free speech rights to corporations. Democracy gives voice to the people, not to money. God, gold and guns have had there turn and their rule does not serve democracy or intellectual freedom. But that's right where we find ourselves. We now spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Thanks to the "Citizens United" case last January, corporations can spend as much as they like on elections and they're allowed to keep it secret. Add that to the free-speech rights of monied interests and you got a recipe for anything but democracy. The government will take what ever shape money wants. Even while middle class continues to shrink and the foreclosure and unemployment rates reach new heights, last quarter was the most profitable period in the entire history of American corporations. They're getting rich by destroying the country.