[Vision2020] Freedom of expression

[Ted Moffett]

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com wrote:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html

"According to my views on freedom of expression, political correctness is
a disease that should be purged from the world."

and earlier:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html

"Just point, laugh, roll your eyes, and move on to fight something that
isn't just hyperbole."

So after the above advice to "...point, laugh, roll your eyes, and
move on..." regarding the New Saint Andrews' website discussion on
Vision2020, you later state you want to purge the world of the disease
political correctness?  Why not just "...point, laugh, roll your eyes,
and move on..." when someone makes a politically correct statement?
Are politically correct statements more harmful to the world than
statements suggesting violence and hate, as some have interpreted the
statements on the NSA website to imply?

"Political correctness" could be defined to suit whatever I want to
purge from society.  Advocating purging a point of view is alarming
language.  Perhaps you were making a joke of some sort in this
comment, and I am missing the joke by taking you literally?

But consider this example:  I define publicly exposing undercover CIA
government assassins as a "politically correct" agenda, that must be
"purged" to protect the necessary for national security assassinations
carried out in secret by the CIA..  Thus in purging political
correctness in this example, I am supporting government secrecy
regarding CIA assassinations.  It might be justifed to purge somone
planning to expose undercover CIA assassins, to protect national
security.

Some examples of what might be reasonably defined as "politically
correct" can be viewed as idealistic ethically laudable behaviors, the
sort of behaviors it seems you would aprove given your support for
Wikileaks.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just thought I'd weigh in here with a little diatribe of my own.
>
> I think the freedom of an individual or group of individuals to express
> themselves is sacrosanct.  The freedom to express your opinion should be
> held dearly by everyone, if they want to live in a free society.
>
> There are very few limits that should be placed on speech, in my humble
> opinion, most having to do with statements of facts and not opinions.  I
> agree with libel laws, for example.  On the other hand, I disagree with
> obscenity laws probably universally.  If groups want to get together and
> form islands of information in which certain ideas are suppressed, I'm
> for that, too, as long as other options exist.  For example, if someone
> wanted to create a separate internet targeted at children that enforced
> it's own censorship, I would be OK with that.  If parents were OK with
> their kids surfing unrestrained on the Big Bad Internet, then they
> should be allowed to do so without repercussions if their child ends up
> on a porn site or a site about Islam or whatever your favorite boogey
> man is.
>
> As an aside, this is why I support Wikileaks.  Our government works *for
> us*.  They should only have secrets in very narrowly defined areas for
> very specific reasons.  And no, "they shouldn't see it because it will
> make our leaders look like hypocrites" does not qualify.  The people
> behind Wikileaks are exposing secrets that shouldn't be secrets in a
> reasonable world.
>
> According to my views on freedom of expression, political correctness is
> a disease that should be purged from the  world.  Instead of helping, it
> just sweeps the problem under the rug.  If a person hates blacks because
> of an incident when they were younger, or because they just don't like
> people who are "different", then they should be free to express that
> opinion.  Others will likely disagree, and a dialogue will probably
> ensue, but this is healthy.  This tendency by people to shun these sorts
> of debates is unhealthy for society (in my opinion, anyway).
>
> In an effort to totally ostracize myself from the community, I might as
> well go ahead and add that I also disagree with some of the child
> pornography laws as they exist on the books, as they relate to freedom
> of expression.  These laws have been expanded so much under the guise of
> "save the children" that they are insane.  In Australia, one man was
> arrested for having downloaded a drawing of Bart Simpson engaged in
> having sex, and was convicted under that countries child pornography
> laws.  In Iowa, another man was arrested for possessing manga comics
> from Japan that contained drawings of children having sex.  Was Bart
> Simpson actually hurt by this?  Or the fictional Japanese schoolgirl?  I
> can understand the prohibition against possession of real child porn
> (because it creates a market for such things) though I don't agree with
> it completely.  I think it should be a prohibition against
> *distribution* of child pornography, not simply "possession", if for no
> other reason than people might be likely to hand it over to law
> enforcement without the fear of going to jail themselves.  Prohibition
> against "virtual porn" is crazy and needs to be fought.
>
> So what does this mean to us?  It means that if something offends you,
> you should suck it up and learn to live with it.  Grow some thicker skin
> and see if you can find a sense of humor on sale somewhere.  Freedom of
> expression, if that's a concept you agree with, has to trump "freedom
> from being offended".  The minute you allow the idea that some things
> are just too horrible to be read or viewed, then you've just thrown the
> concept of freedom of expression out the window.  Now you'll have a
> slippery slope where the definition of "too horrible" tends to match the
> ideals of the people who are in power at any given moment.
>
> The odd irony for people who really believe in freedom of expression is
> that they most often end up defending things that they might vehemently
> disagree with.  They defend the speech of people they simply don't like
> or don't agree with, and they defend speech they are personally offended
> by because the speech that everyone agrees with is not threatened.
>
> Very little offends me, but even if I was offended by the NSA website,
> which I wasn't, then I would still be fighting for their right to be as
> inane with their metaphors as they wish.  I applaud them, really, for
> not rushing to change the page in an orgy of political correctness.
>
> Paul
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>