Comments on: God Hates Speech

By: Pagan Temple

Pagan Temple — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:16:30 +0000

The problem with Britain, and in fact all of Europe, is that they really don't have a longstanding tradition of free speech, at least not to the extent that we do. They also don't have a very impressive record of minority rights when you get right down to it. From their perspective, such controls are possibly seen as the most efficient way of preventing democratic society from degenerating into mob rule.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:36:04 +0000

She can speak for herself quite eloquently, when she so desires, oh please, so I'll ask you: What do you believe her point to be?

I've read her comments at Shakesville, and they boil down to: I support free speech, but what Phelps says is not speech, because it incites hatred and violence (leaving aside that Phelps has never committed a violent act, indeed, he invites it upon himself in a twisted parody of King and other civil disobedience advocates), or that the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to say hateful things about identified classes of people.

Well, it does de jure in the United States, and we think that to be wise law. You obviously don't, but I'd love to see you explain why, and why such laws (where they exist) shouldn't be turned on the likes of McEwan who, my distaste for Donohue aside, has said some pretty foul stuff herself through the years.

The benefit of a broad outlook on free speech is that it can't be turned against either a Phelps or a McEwan, depending on the outlook of those who would use such weapons.

By: oh, please

oh, please — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:21:47 +0000

Atta boy, don't be honest, be preachy!

Nevermind what her point is – point fingers and declare yourself king of Truth and Wisdom.

Adorably clueless, Kenny. Adorably.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:44:34 +0000

Ken, I am a new and only a part-time follower of your blog, but I want to thank you for a very well-written sentence in your last paragraph: "Such people take too much pleasure in the temporary triumph of their ideals and beliefs over those of others, and don’t want to sully the feeling with thought about the implications of how they got there." If you substitute the word Such with Some, you have a sentence applicable to many of the (nearsighted) opinions and actions of current political "leadership."

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:24 +0000

In Ms. McEwan's defense, she has a complicated history with questions of the consequences of speech (not in the First Amendment sense, but generally), and what she calls incitation to hatred by religious bigots.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/02/announcement.html

No doubt the campaign William Donohue, a thug of the first order, ran against her colors her views in ways we can't understand. It does surprise me that someone who had been put through Donohue's meat grinder would support turning similar weapons on others, but I can't say how such an experience would affect me, were I in her shoes.