..But I will defend to the….
To the…
Hold on, this is all happening too fast. Let’s stop and breathe and consider this a moment.
I mean, don’t get me wrong. I really, really want you to have the right to say it. Honestly, I do.
But although I really, really want you to have the right to say it, I really, really, really, really, REALLY want to continue living. So just in terms of number and font choice of “really”s, there’s no comparison there.
To be truthful, not only would I not give up my life to defend your right to say it. I don’t honestly think I’d give up my hands. Or even a thumb – I use both my thumbs very frequently. I’ve even been known to twiddle them.
How about “I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the loss of a small toe your right to say it.” I could give up a small toe. But there’d have to be some kind of anesthetic.
How badly do you want to say it, anyhow? Why isn’t it your toe on the chopping block? You’re the one who wanted to say it! This whole system seems very unfair to me.
FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This should be a cartoon.
Amp:
Maybe this whole post is supposed to be taken tongue in cheek (like some kind of Woody Allen monologue).
But, the serious response is that everyone’s toes ARE on the chopping block. Only the most devoted sycophant is not going to say something to offend those in power (or the mob). For the rest of us, our ability to say stupid, offensive, and obnoxious things (some of which might actually be the truth) depends upon our joint effort and obligation to protect the freedom of others to say things that are stupid, offensive, and obnoxious.
-Jut
How about “I may not like what you say, but I will defend to YOUR death the right to say it.”
There, easy enough to fix.
Jut’s right of course. Your right to say things that offend The Powers That Be is the very same as MY right to say such things. Those Powers are very interested in controlling the discourse so that no one discovers the truth about them.
Maybe you’re right about this. :-p
Willing to sacrifice your little toe in the interest of free speech? Wow, I’m impressed — not.
Apparently nobody remembers Amp saying that he was born with only four toes on each foot. At the time he speculated that this was part of his comic-drawing genius: He has something in common with Mickey Mouse’s hands.
Think about it: After all these years, have you ever seen a picture of Amp in flip-flops? ‘Nuf said.
This reminded me of how annoying I find about 99% of non-humorous invocations of that quote. Very few people would defend the free speech rights of even someone they agreed with to the death (and I don’t think that’s unreasonable – of course people want to continue living). As a street medic for protests, I’ve risked injury, and perhaps death if things went incredibly wrong but it’s also extremely unlikely that they’d go that wrong and that I’d be the one who got unlucky if they did, to defend the free speech rights of people I mostly ballpark-agree with, and I can’t honestly say that I would defend anyone’s free speech rights actually for real to the death, because I also really really really want to go on living. The people who go around trumpeting the quote mostly come off as blowhards.
This might be a more irritable comment than Amp was expecting in response to his funny (I laughed) monologue. :) That quote hits one of my rant buttons.
I recall a bit of dialogue:
“And to this end I pledge the pound of flesh nearest your heart.”
“Your heart, you mean.”
“I phrased it most carefully.”
Grace
Lirael,
You are probably right, but only because we take freedom of speech so very much for granted. And, that is a good thing. We have such a tradition of freedom of speech that it is not often a life and death matter (at least not with respect to the actions of the government). In an earlier time (and in modern times in certain places (North Korea, anyone? Tiananmen Square?)), speaking your mind could get you killed (or “disappeared”).
-Jut
How about people enforce their own right to free speech and suffer their own consequences. It’s their right after all. Who cares if they ridicule someone else’s faith colour ethnicity gender sexuality. As long as they get to exercise their right to do so. (Sarcasm of course). Provided they are willing to defend their right to the ….. and leave the rest of us alone. I won’t defend a racist a hate monger an aggressor a sexist a bigot anon anon anon we go. Bridges not walls
@JutGory
Sure, but in societies where you can get killed for speaking your mind, most people just don’t speak their minds most of the time, and there are still very few who would risk their lives for another’s free speech. The people who throw that quote around make me think of the people who are sure that they would have been part of the Resistance if they’d lived in Germany in the 1930s or early 1940s, that they would have been conductors on the Underground Railroad pre-Civil-War, and so on. There are obviously people who actually would, otherwise such historical examples wouldn’t exist, but those historical examples always involve a small minority and self-congratulatory talk is cheap.
I have a friend, another street medic – in the US – who was brain-damaged (her visual processing periodically stops working right) after being clubbed in the head by police, while trying to protect people engaged in political speech. I met someone the first time I was in Ferguson, one of the wonderful National Lawyers Guild legal observers, who, the first night he was there, stayed in a group that was being surrounded by officers wielding both less-lethal and live-fire guns, and who ended up being pepper-sprayed, tackled, and arrested, so that he could continue protecting the protesters’ political speech rights. Those are people who have stood up for free speech rights in this country when there was a need (which I suspect most of the people spouting the quote have not done), and suffered for it. If either of those people spouted that quote at me I might say “Hmm, really, death? When you don’t agree? That’s pretty hardcore,” but I wouldn’t laugh. If I were privileged enough to meet, say, an actual Resistance fighter from WWII, and they said that, I’d figure they were serious. Some rando wanting to argue about the latest campus speech controversy or whatever? I’m probably going to laugh and say “Yeah, right, sure you will” (either to myself or out loud).
As I said above, I’d like to think I’ve done more (and risked more) than a lot of people in the US for the free speech/assembly cause, but I wouldn’t invoke that quote for myself, either. I don’t think it would be honest for me to do so, or at least, I don’t think I’ve done anything to demonstrate that it would be honest for me to do so.
(As you might be able to tell, I very much try not to take freedom of speech for granted.)
Ellaine @11:
What about the right to vote? Hell, it’s their right and if they are going to vote for racist, sexist, bigots, they can defend their own damn right to vote.
Do I have your line of reasoning down?
-Jut
Absolutely. That would be like supporting a white supremist. So people get what they deserve I suppose. Like the saying goes “be careful what you wish for….it just might come true.” I strongly agree with free speech…a huge proponent…and not like by my government because of that, however having said that when free speech is used to ridicule, or to spread hate or bigotry then those who chose to go that route can stand alone, just as I have stood alone when advocating, marching, protesting, not just for my rights but the rights of the disabled, against the Vietnam War, for peace, clean water, education for our children………
Ellaine:
Do they have any rights that you would defend?
-Jut
What, specifically, does “defending” consist of?
I mean, I have to admit, I probably wouldn’t be willing to die for someone else’s free speech rights. Or for my own, for that matter.
Amp,
I guess the original post vacillated somewhere between death and the chopping off of a toe.
My last comment, however was less about the actual defense than about the rights worth defending. I find her view that people with whom she disagrees do not have voting rights that she would defend to be appalling. We may as well bring back poll taxes and literacy tests. That’s just what those uppity folks deserve.
And, if we refuse to defend the rights of people we don’t like, we may as well re-open those internment camps, because their right to free movement is not worth defending, and we outnumber them, so what are they going to do when we come for them? Who would stand in our way?
(I hope I would.)
-Jut
Jut: To me, “the rights worth defending” just isn’t a meaningful statement if you’re not going to say what “defending” means.
I mean, do you just mean that as an abstract principle, would I argue that those I disagree with still have free speech rights that should be defended, if someone asks me? Or do you mean something more?
I defend the rights of everyone in free speech, voting practices etc. I do not condone bigotry, hatred, racial profiling, etc. There are certain rights (mine and others) that I have and would put myself in danger to defend as long as those rights defend the majority. People reap what they sow and who am I do speak to that. Nor would I defend the right to practice any of the above.
I’m curious Jut, how many times have you died defending the free speech rights of any of the hundreds of millions of people in the world who routinely have their free speech rights denied? My impression is that you are not a poor man, so the cost of a plane ticket to Iran or Honduras shouldn’t be prohibitive (admittedly, as an American, you are probably more likely to just get deported than killed). How much time do you actually spend defending the voting rights of minority voters in the US (or of Democratic voters in Texas)? Would you say that that amount of time is commensurate with being willing to lay down your life for them? Would anyone believe if you said that?
It is easy to declare that you would support the free speech rights and voting rights of others, either at all or with your life, but for most people, those claims are empty. Elaine makes clear that she supports free speech rights in the abstract, but that she is not going to put any effort into defending the free speech rights of the KKK (for example). Most people don’t.
“I will defend your right to say it by periodically donating to the ACLU.”
Amnesty International is another good one to support.
1. Why does the name Brendan Eich keep popping into my head as I read this?
2. Thanks for the kernels of honesty in both post and comments, which confirm many suspicions The Rest of Us have about the seriousness, consistency, and permanence of modern progressives’ commitment to classical liberal principles.
@ Ben David 23
How do you feel about the “seriousness, consistency, and permanence” of modern conservatives to conservative principles?
Also, at least as I understand it, “classical liberal” is more or less a synonym for libertarian, not progressive. Maybe you could clarify your understanding of that term (not taking a position on anything in the post, just not sure exactly where you’re coming from).
Also also, I’ve been re-watching Lost during my glorious bouts of insomnia. Your “The Rest of Us” comment reminded me a lot of “The Survivors” vs. “The Others.” No particular point, I just got a chuckle out of it.
Can I count on you to die for me, Ben David, next time my free speech is suppressed? I’m making a list.
Hey, Ben David. Here’s the latest installment of your customary instruction to buzz off.
Buzz off. If people want to start letting you in another thread, they will.
Thank you, Mandolin.
“I may not like what you say, but I will be very pleased that it gives me an opportunity to make sweeping generalisations in comment threads”
There are very few rights I would actually defend with my life. I do consider free speech one of the more important rights worth spending political capital on, because it allows for error correction regarding other political rights/problems and error correction is super important for a functioning political system. So almost any time I see people suggesting that free speech ought to be curtailed because of some other right, they are wrong. (Usually because they vastly overestimate the damage that free speech does with respect to the right they claim to be defending).