Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 6:38 AM CST

"Our Religion Does Not Allow Unconditional Freedom of Speech"

Are you saying that we do allow unconditional freedom of speech?

I recall reading here a few months back - in regard to some outrage voiced by "Mother Sheehan" - your saying that there were limits on free speech in a free society.

You may take it that Americans are concerned about the violation of our Fourth and Fifth Amendments and do not give a ratsass about NSA monitoring of free speech in Pakistan.

Do you know what AG Gonzalez said yesterday?

"Our enemy is listening, and I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program," he said. "How can anyone conclude that it is not necessary and appropriate to intercept al Qaeda phone calls?"

Can you believe it? "Our enemy is listening." Recognize those words? The German translation is "Feind hort mit." That was the name and slogan of a Nazi propaganda campaign initiated by Joseph Goebbels in September, 1939. It featured posters with a shadowy, spectral character called "Shadowman" who lowered over conversations as an invisible third party. The campaign promoted the idea that innocent speech could contain information that would be of use to the enemy. This then became the justification for the intensive surveillance of ordinary Germans by the Nazis, which was what the campaign was really all about. So here we are, walking down the same road again. And we are well along it, my friend.

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 12:55 PM CST

I certainly don't recall saying that Mother Sheehan has no right to her free speech. She can have all of it she wants, but she isn't immune ---as the far Left would hope she would be--- to counter-criticisms and condemnation in the strongest possible terms.

I still believe in the marketplace of ideas, you know.

But aren't you guilty of invoking Godwin's Law with this stuff about the Fourth Reich?

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 5:56 PM CST

You're right. It wasn't "Mother Sheehan" it was "Dhimmi Carter" who had made statements saying that the detention of terror suspect at Guantanamo was an embarrassment. You condemned him, said his security clearance should be revoked, and quoted Goldstein who said that he was aiding the enemy:

"Carter is a former President. What he says against our war aims and policies is bound to be used as propaganda by the Islamofascists. That's why he deserves the harshest sort of condemnation.

Anyway, whatever happened to the idea that discretion is the better part of valor? When the enemy of Civilization can profitably use your words, that ought to be a sign to clam up."

Do you seriously think this cartoon crap is not being used as propaganda by the Islamofascists? In a different way than you allege for Carter, but they are very likely using it in recruiting to make the claim that the West is out to destroy Islam. It's far more likely they are using the cartoon attacks in propaganda than that they are using Carter's statements, which would undermine their claim that Americans are rabid wolves. What happened to discretion being the better part of valor in Denmark? So much for your marketplace of ideas. Face it. You think free speech and the free press is only for people who agree with you.

As for Godwin's Law, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck....

Thursday, 9 February 2006 - 12:50 PM CST

Rider:

You condemned him, said his security clearance should be revoked[...]

Carter is in a very rare class of people whose public utterances raise the stakes in whatever controversy is at hand. I do think he skates very closely to that line between free speech and outright sedition, but what else can I do except to criticize and denounce him?

I am all for a free press and free speech, though. You needn't doubt that. Maybe you just find my rhetoric too dire.