DONNA Laframboise believes that when activists insist their cause is more important than other people’s free speech, we all need to worry.
www.DeSoggyBog.com
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Jennifer,
This is an important and widely overlooked aspect of ‘public debate’, or, as some call it, ‘the culture war’. You have this tagged as ‘philosophy’, and that’s the correct tag — because people seldom engage in philosophy, which might be described as “thinking about what you’re doing”.
That happens all too seldom.
Anyhow, back to the topic of your post. It’s rather specific on the Free Speech end of things, but the topic could easily be broadened to involve any number of what we Westerners (even in the Antipodes) call Human Rights.
Activists of a certain stripe believe they have the moral high ground so completely that they have moral justification to inflict anything, on anyone. Some have suggested that this is a rhetorical trick in debate, and to some extent, that’s true.
Only to some extent. These people, who might best be collectively referred to as ‘gang-greens’, actually *believe* in their moral superiority. They countenance far more than the restriction of speech. They’re happy to embrace ‘direct actions’ which include vandalism, burglary, extortion, arson, and murder.
Think about it for a moment — when you’re trying to ‘save the planet’, anything, any concern, which stands in the way of that goal is of lesser moral value, and actually, probably close to zero.
It’s true that many corporate interests are glad to exploit this sort of reasoning — which doesn’t require much thought. It sells toilet paper.
What is far more frightening is the unruly hordes who embrace the ‘green’ ideology and leap from there to an excuse for anything whatsoever.
Some of these actually have the temerity to call themselves ‘civil society’, when they are neither civil, nor social.
Witness the debate here over AGW. Name-calling and personal accusations dominate. If this debate were conducted in a closed room, with the discussants personally present, I have to wonder how many would emerge alive.
This describes a sad state of affairs, but this is what we have.
I just hope this challenge goes ahead.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/1781
The debate has gone very quiet in this topic http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/noaa-blunder-explain-claims-of-warming-oceans/.
FWIW, the debate on the role of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going on for over a century now. No one was interested in it until recently.
From the link at desoggyblog.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/1781
Chamber on Climate Change: Show Us the Evidence
The evidence has been presented publicly and regularly, and with plenty of publicity, by the IPCC for over a decade now. What is their problem?
“The evidence has been presented publicly and regularly, and with plenty of publicity, by the IPCC for over a decade now. What is their problem?”
That ain’t evidence. That’s mainly crap based on artificial intelligence, based on dodgy data.
When you realise how much has been learned since the IPCC report that also wasn’t taken into account…..
I expect the denialist camp will be up in arms over attempts by corportations or business activists to stifle free speech via the courts (witness the wool industry and PETA) and good on them! Could someone on the denialist side cite expamples of similar actions brought by free speech activists?
Schiller…the web is organic. Trolls develop naturally and then the anti-trolls enter the fray, it gets ugly.
Have just been on a stroll over at Deltoid, earning my stripes, and was abused without provocation. What I have discovered is that there are opposing camps on AGW, each holding firm to their own belief and not prepared to surrender.
The Greens are simple minded creatures, a humorless lot, but easily swayed. Well timed satire can have a profound effect on innocents and may be the only way to make an indent in the propaganda fog.
“Well timed satire can have a profound effect on innocents”
Hey that was my idea!
Irish protesters against forestry and climate change sure do value their opinions so highly they ignore the facts.
Yesterday they sent the following letter to Ms Anne Plunkett, Australian Ambassador to Ireland
International Day of Action To Protect Tasmania’s Ancient Forest; Failure of Australian Government to protect Tasmania’s Ancient Carbon Sink Forests and Biodiversity
31st August 2009
Dear Ambassador,
We are writing to you on this International Day of Action To Protect Tasmania’s Ancient Forest. We note that it is the mission of your embassy “to promote awareness and understanding in Ireland of Australia’s foreign and trade policy…”.
We request that you communicate to your Government that Australia is in major breach of the United Nations 1990 Rio Declaration on Sustainable Development, Biodiversity, and Forestry, and is allowing the destruction of largs parts of one the world’s great areas of biodiversity.”
and so on and on and on
But let’s compare the facts. Ireland and Tasmania are both 6.8 million hectares. According to forest conservation web site, Mongabay.com, less that 10% of Ireland is forested with plantations and semi natural forest, there is no old growth forest, less than 1% of Ireland is within conservation reserves.
For Tasmania’s 6.8million ha, there is 3.1 million ha of native forest, of which 1.2 million is old growth. 44% of the Tasmania’s land mass (47% of its forest) is in conservation reserves including almost one million hectares of old growth forest.
Ireland has two World Heritage Sites covering 1,000 ha, Tasmania’s World Heritage Wilderness Area covers 1,383,640 ha an area that includes tall eucalypt forest that according to a World Heritage Investigation team is well managed. This same team of experts also found that there was no need extend the boundary as forests outside its border are also well managed.
Why don’t these protesters check the Convention of Biological Diversity that resulted from the Rio Declaration sets a target of 10% forest conservation and promote Tasmania’s outstanding conservation achievements?
People are slowly waking up to the threats the enviro and other extremists really present to the liberties of all of us.
In the US, there is a censorship movement against free speech ont he radio, singling out that medium because it is so politically unpopular. The idiots of the left think that the censorship movement will stop with radio. Those who believe that are fooling themselves. Censors have a vision: of order and control. They will stifle freedom over one media they dislike. or one issue they know they are correct about, but they will never be satisfied.
Enviro extremism is simply an opportunity for censors to act out.
“I expect the denialist camp will be up in arms over attempts by corportations or business activists to stifle free speech via the courts (witness the wool industry and PETA) and good on them! Could someone on the denialist side cite expamples of similar actions brought by free speech activists?”
I’d be more inclined to call that getting the bull by the foot.
Anyone who seeks to restrict the right of another who is acting lawfully, needs to prove his case otherwise how can that lawful business survive?
Is PETA a lawful organisation yet?
Lawful business …. hmmmm
Slavery?
Child labour?
Women’s suffrage?
Aboriginal suffrage
Cock fights/ Dog fights?
even Motty and non-smokers rights activists – Bugga Up !
blood diamonds
a question of perspective or degree ?
Quite right about censorship Hunter,
The thing about these socialists is that they are all control freaks.
They want to control the media ,control the money, control the people.
Some are now deluded into thinking they can control us to control the global climate!
There’s only so much control a bloke can take.
“a question of perspective or degree ?”
And there are still some blatantly evil activities happening with animals that are not legal.
But mulesing is about saving animals from suffering, not making them suffer and it works yet these people perform economic terrorism and worse to get their cockeyed way.
There are many, many better things they could be doing for animals.
Yes, free speech is a wonderful thing. Yes, those who would undermine that fundamental right are all control-freaks and degradoons. However free speech is not an absolute. The classic counterexample is yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
My rhetorical question: Should politicians have the right to unfettered free speech? George W Bush’s blatant lies about WMDs in Iraq led to the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and to the displacement of millions. Vincent Bugliosi, who successfully prosecuted the murderers in the Manson ‘family’ many years ago, thinks that Bush could also be prosecuted for murder. From a legal perspective, Bugliosi is probably correct. But from a political perspective, it ain’t gonna happen.
In order to keep the borderline and not-so-borderline sociopaths who run our governments on a shorter leash, we need a new category of felony: Crimes Against Democracy. It should be a felony to make a campaign promise that a political figure does not keep when elected. It should be a felony to cherry-pick intelligence data in order to deliberately mislead the public about a premeditated war of naked aggression. As a quid pro quo to the social conservatives, aka the Religious Right, it should also be a felony for our little prezzie or for any government employee to lie about extramarital sex, even though the sex act itself is not really a big deal. Any deliberate public falsehood on the part of a government employee should be a felony. Ordinary citizens in a democracy should have a statutory right to accurate information from our government, so that they can make informed choices in the voting booth.
If we in the US had had a carefully crafted CAD law, Bush the Elder would be rotting in jail for his famous Big Lie: “Read my lips; no new taxes!” His pukey son would be keeping him company in the hoosegow. So would Willy Clinton. And Obama would be much more circumspect in his public statements.
To say that Bush was a blatant liar about Iraq WMDs is a very simplistic view. I thought it would be more accurate to say he went along with what he was told without question because it was convenient. I do not understand though why politicians lie and are forgiven but if they have sex outside what is considered the norm then they are immediately out of office.
But aren’t we of topic here? How does this relate to the topic?
The green movement was founded on fascist principles and modern examples abound;
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22945744-25717,00.html
Apart from cognitive dissonance in that it is always assumed that the oppressive ‘solutions’ espoused are for everyone else and not me, me, me, the green AGW supporter is completly uncritical of the misanthropy and extremism from their side of the fence; for example the recent Krugman infantilism where people against measures to ‘solve’ AGW were described as enemies of mankind and look at everything Glikson writes which is permeated with misanthropy; and Gus Speth and John Holdren and elitism of people like Hamilton and his remedies of serfdom. So lets narrow this down;
Which of the usual crew of alarmists who blog here think sceptics should be jailed or otherwise punished and censored?
Yep they should have to report to the police station every 72 hours and be curfewed.
dhmo wrote:
“But aren’t we of topic here? How does this relate to the topic?”
Well, let’s see. The thread topic is other peoples free speech. I wrote about other peoples free speech. Which other people? Government employees (especially in the US). You’ll just have to take my word that I’m not the president of the US, and not a civil servant therein. Could I even survive a lifelong career in a mindless governmental bureaucracy? Perhaps not. I’m too abrasive. Please allow me to demonstrate.
dhmo, you’re just upset that I exercised my free speech in criticizing your political hero, The Smirking Chimp. If I rattle your cage, then I’m off-topic, and less deserving of free speech than other people. dhmo, you’re as phony as a nine-dollar pistol.
There, how’s that? Do I qualify as being abrasive? There’s an old Libertarian saying: Free speech is offensive speech. Does this qualify as free speech in a thread about free speech?
Hey Larry; I would have thought that seeing this is an Environment site, rather than using GWB & GHB as examples liars you might have picked Al’s AIT movie as a good starting point. At least the lies in that movie were proven in a court of (British) law!
The problem seems to arise when people take the prefix “free” from the word “freedom” out of context and assume that there is no opposite side to unrestricted freedom.
Freedom without responsibility is anarchy as there are no rules and no need to be accountable to anyone.
That was never what freedom was supposed to be about.
Freedom = Responsibility!
If you cannot be responsible, then to that extent you should not be free. Though that position seems to have been lost in western civilisation over the past 50 years or so.
Today’s problem relates to those who feel their opinions and beliefs are morally superior to others (read: Socialists, AGW Alarmists, etc) These people believe that they can do whatever they like regardless of whether it is opposed by law or the majority of public opinion.
In their opinion, they are right and everyone who does not share their view on life has a problem and must be “re-educated”. Opposing views are so wrong they should not be given any publicity or “proved” wrong on the grounds that they are morally inferior.
These are the people we need to worry about.
The trouble is, they are given favourable treatment and exposure by the media – who to some extent support their views; again at the expense of having opposing arguments aired.
This leads to an unbalanced reporting, and impacts public opinion to support those who get the most exposure more than would occur if both sides were permitted even public exposure.
Therein lies one of the biggest problems in western civilisation today.
Now, how do we get the balance back?
Why 72 hours; under my current parole regime I have to report every 48 hours; I can’t see the alarmists doing me a favour and decreasing my compliance requirements.
**There, how’s that? Do I qualify as being abrasive? There’s an old Libertarian saying: Free speech is offensive speech. Does this qualify as free speech in a thread about free speech?**
No, but you qualify as being stupid.
Nobody challenged your freedom to comment.
Your comment was peripheral to the topic, and that was his objective point.
Jeff wrote:
“Hey Larry; I would have thought that seeing this is an Environment site, rather than using GWB & GHB as examples liars you might have picked Al’s AIT movie as a good starting point. At least the lies in that movie were proven in a court of (British) law!”
Good point. But I think that Gore should have the freedom to shoot sci fi movies if he wants to. At the time he made AIT, His Goreness was a private citizen. If he’d done that during his tenure as veep, that would have been a different ball of wax, in my book.
While I’m generally sympathetic to Donna’s point of view, I disagree on the specific point of freedom of speech for government employees who knowingly make public lies. And yes, Obama’s comment about CO2 being a poisonous gas is either a baldfaced lie, or an indication that he’s scientifically illiterate, like his predecessor.
And while Luke may despise spangled drongos, he would defend with his life my right to be one.
just as I would his right to be, er, what he is. [bloody alarmist creep]
Please go to http://co2u.info
Thank You
Bruce A. Kershaw
Water vapor and carbon based oxygen ~ caused ~ the environment.
All the dioxide we breathe today, came from 4.6 billion years of carbon based oxygen (CO2) from the core of this carbon based planet through the ocean.
Water vapor and CO2 caused the atmosphere and environment,
causing all carbon based life and energy on this carbon based planet.
CO2 can not hurt the environment,
CO2 caused the environment.