Saturday, December 28, 2013

Freedom of Speech and the Wrong Side of the Tracks

So it would seem that A&E came to its senses and realized that it would be an incredibly bad idea to
suspend Phil Robertson from his own show.  Their move was likely motivated more by ratings potential than Constitutional principle, but it was the right move nonetheless.

So what was the meaning of this scenario?  What have we learned?  Well, for me, this just confirms how monumentally rediculous, hypocritical, and illogical Liberalmerica can be.

Oh right, I forgot that Phil Robertson is an "ignorant bigot," and a "racist."  At least, that's what mainstream Liberalmerica wants me to think.  As usual, Liberalmerica got it way, way wrong by making another failed attempt to frame the discussion around gross misinterpretation.  It's fairly depressing that so many Americans are so incapable of thinking for themselves that they actually bought the crazy Liberalmerica was selling.

Let's get one major factoid straight: Phil Robertson did not engage in hate-speech.  Sorry Liberals, but misquoting and blatantly ignoring the entirety of his words does nothing to damn the man.  Phil Robertson did not say that he hates homosexuals: in fact, he said the exact opposite.  Robertson expressed his thoughts on morality as he sees it.  Just because he thinks a particular lifestyle is immoral and sinful does not mean that he hates anyone.

Liberalmerica seems to have a hard time understanding that concept.  What if Robertson had talked about how he thinks lying is immoral and sinful, and that lying can lead to other terrible things?  Would Liberalmerica assume that Phil Robertson hates liars?  Probably not, but that's only because Liberalmerica has a limited intellectual capability.  They are only capable of engaging in discussion on the premise that their beliefs are universally true.  Since there are likely few Liberals who think lying is actually okay, they could easily accept the message that "lying is wrong," and Liberalmerica would not deem such a message as "hate speech."

Essentially, Liberlamerica only permits freedom of speech when they deem said speech to be unvierally true.  It's a safe bet to assume that most liberals don't believe homosexuality is a sin, and it's a safer bet to assume that many homosexuals are liberal (considering homosexuals aren't very welcomed in Conservative circles).  So when people made a huge deal out of Robertson's words, called it hate-speech, and called for his dismissal from A&E, it's safe to say that Liberalmerica was behind it, and they showed themselves to be intellectually mistaken.

Anyone who has read George Orwell's essay "The Freedom of the Press," would never have called for Robertson's removal, because doing so would be akin to silencing him.  "Liberals are afraid of liberty," Orwell wrote, and they show their fear by attempting to silence speech that is deemed to be unpopular.  If one truly believes in freedom of speech and freedom of thought, then one must allow even awful things to be said so long as those things aren't meant to incite violence and are not blatantly slanderous.

"Well, Jack, freedom of speech also means that I have the freedom to take a shit allover Phil Robertson."  Yes and no.  First of all, to flame Robertson for his views would be an exercise in the intolerance that Liberalmerica claims to combat.  "Tolerance," does not mean you only tolerate like-minded individuals.  Secondly, flaming someone for expressing their views is a method of intimidation, and it is meant to stop him from exercising his freedom of speech.  Intimidation is not an exercise in freedom of speech.

If Americans do not have the safety of expressing their opinions without fear of retribution--in this case, losing your job simply because of your moral convictions--then Freedom of Speech cannot truly exist.  True, I disagree with Robertson's statements, but I didn't call for him to be removed from TV, and if he said those remarks in my presence, I would not have insulted him, nor would I have tried to bully him into silence.

I'm sorry, Liberalmerica, but I don't want a country in which everyone has to agree with your agenda, and those who don't agree need to just sit down and shut up.  The most salient lesson from this is that Liberalmerica proved that they are just as intolerant as their Conservative counterparts.  The sad irony is that Liberals are too entrenched in their pretentious intellectualism to recognize their own hypocrisy.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh man... Jackie... I think I am going to have to partly disagree with your application of the first amendment.

While I do agree with general sentiment, this is the part that gets you the quizzical look:

"If Americans do not have the safety of expressing their opinions without fear of retribution--in this case, losing your job simply because of your moral convictions--then Freedom of Speech cannot truly exist."


Freedom of speech is not really a social protection as much as it is a government protection.

The government could not come down on him... but other people can.

It is a fine line, but one that must be distinguished. Libel and Slander are real issues and while they are not frequently occurring, they are still grounds for legal action.

True freedom of speech as that calls for is me going around calling everyone I meet a "boss nigger cracker jew redneck slave driving homo manchild." and expecting not to get cracked in the jaw.

I realize perhaps you had another intention of that paragraph, and like I said, I agree with most of your assessment. The wording of that sentence did jump out at me.

They sure like crucifying the hardcore christian views in the media though don't they? I suppose the reason is there are so many christians that it is hard to keep the reputation up. You have truly good representatives like Kurt Warner and the Pope mixed in with General Butt Naked and pedophile priests, all of whom are Christians.

Jersey McJones said...

Though I wish conservatives would concern with broader rights issues than just the right to be a jackass, I suppose it's still a good thing that they do at least that.

On the other hand, none of this has anything to do with rights. This is about money, and there is more money to be made idolizing this idiot than demonizing him. Meanwhile people like me, most people, ignore Robertson and his silly show.

For me, and again I think for most people, this was yet another example of "when you have nothing nice to say, shut up, moron." Why does this idiot think anyone cares what he thinks about gays? The only reason I can imagine is that he knew entering the culture war fray would bring him more fame and money. After all, there are only two kinds of people who care what this idiot thinks about anything - people who agree with his idiocy, and the targets of his unpleasantness.

Unfortunately, and shamefully for America, all this episode proved was that there are a lot of nosey idiots out there compelled to arbitrarily announce their useless, nasty, counter-productive opinions in all our faces at every chance.

But, just as I'm grateful for conservatives in their efforts to advocate our right to act like jackasses, I'm just as grateful for liberals advocating our right to be offended. It's all about balance.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

So the implication is the conservatives are perpetual jackasses and the liberals are perpetually offended? Forgive me for asking, but do you really see people as either 100% right or 100% wrong?

I wouldn't go so far as to call him an idiot, but he did express a bit of an ignorant stance. It is almost as if he is using the bible as a shield.

To be fair, he did attempt to clear the air in the very same interview, however the damage was already done.

Jack Camwell said...

"Why does this idiot think anyone cares what he thinks about gays?"

I should ask you the same question.

Anyhow, he was asked in the interview to talk about it. So it's not like he just randomly started talking about it.

Why do you think anyone cares about what you have to say, Jersey? Why do you bother responding to blog posts?

Why do GLAAD members think anyone cares about how they feel about gays? Do you care what GLAAD thinks? Are you saying that opinions are only worth something if YOU think the opinion has worth?

And lets talk about this notion of a "counter-productive opinion." Please explain to me how his opinion is counter-productive. Do you think that his opinion will change anyone's mind about how they feel about homosexuality? Do you think that if no one ever said "homosexuality is a sin," that people would just stop believing that idea? I would argue that the REACTION to his opinion is counter-productive.

"But, just as I'm grateful for conservatives in their efforts to advocate our right to act like jackasses, I'm just as grateful for liberals advocating our right to be offended."

You do realize that all of that is completely a matter of perspective, right? Just as well, is anyone who disagrees with you and voices their opinion automatically a jack-ass?

You confound me at times, Jersey.

Jersey McJones said...

Anon,

"So the implication is the conservatives are perpetual jackasses and the liberals are perpetually offended?"

No. That's just ridiculous.

Why do you think anyone cares about what you have to say, Jersey? Why do you bother responding to blog posts?

Jack,

"Why do GLAAD members think anyone cares about how they feel about gays? Do you care what GLAAD thinks?"

GLAADs entire purpose is to advocate for gays. Their job is to get people thinking about these things. And they're not hurting anyone. They're helping people.

"Are you saying that opinions are only worth something if YOU think the opinion has worth?"

No. As I said, this would fall under the category of "when you have nothing nice to say..."

"Please explain to me how his opinion is counter-productive. Do you think that his opinion will change anyone's mind about how they feel about homosexuality?"

It is counter-productive in that it reinforces culturally counter-productive hostility.

"Do you think that if no one ever said "homosexuality is a sin," that people would just stop believing that idea?"

Yes. The whole notion of "sin" and that homosexuality is a "sin," are purely just the opinions of people based on myths, created by other people, like Free Will and the God of Abraham.

"I would argue that the REACTION to his opinion is counter-productive."

How?

"Just as well, is anyone who disagrees with you and voices their opinion automatically a jack-ass?"

Again with the ridiculousness.

JMJ

Jersey McJones said...

"Why do you think anyone cares about what you have to say, Jersey? Why do you bother responding to blog posts?"

Oops! Because I enjoy it, and just maybe I can convince someone to think a little smarter and more civilly and humanely.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

Here's your problem Jersey: you think that people can easily change their minds. And you think that those who can't change their minds are obviously too stupid to see "truth" as you see it.

People who believe that homosexuality is a sin will continue to believe so, even if no one was ever allowed to say it. Do you honestly think that there is anything on this earth that can convince Phil Robertson that homosexuality is NOT a sin?

Let me put it to you this way: trying to convince Phil Robertson that homosexuality is morally permissible would be like me trying to convince you that homosexuality is a sin.

You, Jersey, are the poster-boy for inflexible minds. You have some good stuff to say, but often times you will make statements that have zero logical consistency no matter what angle you look at them from. And even when someone points out the gaping holes in your logic, all you do is dismiss it as "intellectual dishonesty." Because in your mind, your opinions are universal, objective truth, even if your opinions are not based on anything other than your feelings.

"Just as well, is anyone who disagrees with you and voices their opinion automatically a jack-ass?"

You replied:

"Again with the ridiculousness."

The problem here is that you're so deeply entrenched in your righteousness that you can't even realize that all you ever do is insult people's intelligence when they disagree with you. You call people ridiculous, sleazy, childish, "intellectually dishonest," jackasses.

You and GLAAD share the same problem: you believe that the righteousness of your cause gives you license to shun, ridicule, and intimidate your oposition when instead you should be encouraging civil dialogue and discourse.

The sad irony in it all is that you, and others like you, have become just as intolerant, bitter, and irrational as the people you ridicule; and just like your opposition, you believe that you are justified in your angst simply because you're "in the right."

Welcome to your own, personal hell: the prison of your own blindness and ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Gandhi Dance says

The world sux, kid. Accept it, relax, and get on with what's left of your life.

All this yata yata yata, as if you or anybody else could do anything about it, is robbing you of time and energy.

Get away from this goddam machine, and go out and find somebody you'd like to fuck, take 'er home and fuck 'er. That's what life is all about; it's not some goddam intellectual exercise. Just be sure you wear a condom.

For Chrissakes! Stop thinking so goddam much, and start living.

Jack Camwell said...

Gandhi Dance,

Thank you for visiting.

I could go on about how human beings are more than just their biological urge to seek pleasure, but it would be easier to just point you to the tag line underneath my blog title.

"If 'an unexamined life is a life not worth living,' then I patiently await the mass suicides."

Honestly, it took me maybe 20 minutes to write that article. Maybe 40 minutes if you include the time I took to think about how I wanted to present it and all that jazz. I have plenty of time to do the things I enjoy doing.

I'm sure you were coming from a place of semi-concern, but believe me when I say that thinking and writing about social issues doesn't really lessen my overall enjoyment of life.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to think my expressing my views and arguing them makes the world a better place for more than just the girl I fucked.
But then, liking to think may be my biggest problem.
So I'll just fuck myself and save everyone the hassle.

Micky said...

"All this yata yata yata, as if you or anybody else could do anything about it, is robbing you of time and energy."

This is a horrendous yet perfect example of the entitlement minded morons that sit back and leave it to someone else.
Speaking for myself, and quite possibly many others, we blogbecause we feel that our "one more additional voice" will make the difference that breaks the back of the shit we've come to live and exist upon.
Guys like Jack and other literal soldiers who blog and voice, take that time out of their lives, are the heros, the meat and bones answer to the spoon fed shit minds like yours that watch 30 minutes of politically correct mindbogglingnumbing shit that gets you "thru the night garbage" so you can get behind your own keyboard and spew such ironic hypocrisy.

Herein lies the example;

"I'd like to think my expressing my views and arguing them makes the world a better place for more than just the girl I fucked."

How is it that your word is so fucking important yet any other voice is just a wasted effort ?

"Get away from this goddam machine, and go out and find somebody you'd like to fuck, take 'er home and fuck 'er. "

Jeez, what are you, 19 ?

As you bang on "your" machine you think anyone past the age of your scrotum hasn't lived past that and gotten on to higher expectations of themselves ?
You're a piece of work lady.