The Shotgun Blog

« WS Radio: Tom Palmer podcast | Main | Shotgun: Top 25 in Canada »

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Oh, the free speech confusion

Dr. Dawg, who is fun to read, gets it all wrong. And in a predictable way.

Here's the case: Wal-Mart, due to public pressure from so-cons and other conservatives, decides not to give money away to "controversial" causes and charities.

Here's Dr. Dawg's interpretation: That's anti-free-speech!

Here's the mistake: No free speechnik/free speecher has ever argued that telling someone they ought not x, y, or z, or ought not say this or that is a violation of the principle of freedom of speech. Instead, the argument is that we can't use the government (or other methods of physical coercion) to silence speech. However--please pay attention--persuasion, social ostracisim, calling someone a "jerk," boycotting, and so on, are all legitimate methods, consistent with the principle of freedom of speech, of moving towards an outcome you prefer (whether for moral reasons or other reasons).

There's no hypocrisy here. There's not even a hint of violating the principle of free speech. It's fully consistent with the principle of free speech. If the so-cons had called the police, and tried to force Wal-Mart to stop their charitable contributions, then you would have a free speech issue. Otherwise, you don't.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on July 2, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5539e2c378834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oh, the free speech confusion:

Comments

Here is the comment I left at Doc Dawg's place:

Dawg,

I'm not sure I understand your claim. Free speech libertarians (me being one of them) discuss freedom of speech as a right against interference from the _state_. This doesn't require them to object to the practice of one party persuading another to simply shut up.

Someone doesn't violate my free speech rights when he convinces me that it would be better (in terms of my interests) not to make a stupid point I'm thinking of raising in a seminar room, for example.

You may think it is disingenuous to affirm a right to free speech that is compatible with powerful groups being able to threaten less powerful groups into silence. But libertarians will point out that the "threat" in the Wal-Mart case is one the group making the threat is entitled to make (e.g. "If you don't shut up, we'll boycott you or say you're a bad person"), and is fully compatible with respecting the rights of all parties involved.

How could it be otherwise? Should Christian groups be forbidden from telling Wal-Mart they don't like what Wal-Mart is doing?

Anyway, your post is now featured on the Shotgun blog. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your point -- and, like the person in my seminar example, should have just stayed silent

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-02 3:39:17 PM

You haven't got it quite right, Terrence, with respect. But the fault may have been mine.

I'm objecting to forcing Wal-Mart to remove books from its shelves. If people want to persuade it not to give money away to X or Y, that's one thing. But having books removed is another. I don't hold with those who claim to be in favour of free expression one minute, until it's expression they don't happen to like.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-02 3:49:03 PM

Dr.Dawg, I see your point but disagree. Wal-Mart could have ignored these people and an equal or larger number of people could have attempted to pressure Wal-Mart not to remove the books. As long as it is not some government agency doing the forcing, why should people be prevented from taking this action?

Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-02 4:25:05 PM

On the one hand, I'm no fan of mob rule, organized boycotts, pushy interest groups, and obnoxious twerps. On the other hand, they haven't broken the letter of the law, and if Wal-Mart wants to set itself up for an activist, they had best be prepared to deal with rebuttal and rejection. To become an activist is to draw a line in the sand; you can have no complaint if you find that more people than you thought stood on the other side.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-02 4:35:01 PM

One does not need to be a fan of the activists or their cause to support their right, as long as they remain within the law - as Shane pointed out. Roadblocks, vandalism and other tactics so common these days should never be allowed and are a different matter altogether.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-02 4:42:06 PM

Jaws (and Terrence),

I don't claim to speak for the good Doctor, but I think I can offer some thoughts that help here. Whenever the government restricts speech it is wrong because it is a violation of the right to free expression. But why do (or should) we care about this right? Free expression might be thought by some to simply be good for its own sake, but for most of us the reason we worry about state imposed restrictions on speech is because the exchange of ideas has value. The free exchange of political ideas is the best way to get to the right public policies, the free exchange of scientific ideas is the best way to make scientific progress that benefits us all, etc.

So when a government stops someone from saying something we care not just for the sake of the speakers right to speak, but also for the value that that speech could have for all of us. So while a private organization tries to use pressure tactics in order to silence speech (by, for example, getting a store not to sell certain books or by getting a publisher not to print it in the first place) they do not violate anyone's rights, but they do act in a way that can have the same effect as the public suppression of speech - impoverishing us all by keeping certain contributions out of the marketplace of ideas.

So to say that these private actions is a violation of the right of free speech is wrong, but to say that they go against the idea of having a society with the unrestrained expression and exchange of as wide a range of ideas as possible for mutual benefit is right. One can say that private supression of speech is a bad thing even if it does not violate anyone's rights. In fact, one argument for the very existence of a "public square" - be it a physical space for somone to stand on a soapbox or a virtual place like a publically owned media outlet - is that it can help ensure that voices that might not otherwise be heard have an avenue for expression. It means that marginal voices need not be at the mercy of the rich and powerful to facilitate their being able to express their ideas to us all.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-07-02 6:18:05 PM

Unfortunately, Fact Check, there is more to crafting good policy than "one can say" or "one can argue." Certainly you have a right to say those things, but that won't make them true. Avoid such phrases--they weaken your argument.

Wal-Mart's right to free speech is not being suppressed. They are simply being told that if they continue to take their clients' money and spend it on things their clients disapprove of, their clients won't give them any more. The alternative is FORCING people to shop there on the grounds that "this cause is so important that people have to support it." You tell me which is the greater sin.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-02 7:03:43 PM

Dr Dawg said

"I'm objecting to forcing Wal-Mart to remove books from its shelves. If people want to persuade it not to give money away to X or Y, that's one thing. But having books removed is another. I don't hold with those who claim to be in favour of free expression one minute, until it's expression they don't happen to like. "

Me neither. Ahem.

"A person who happens to be a comedian objected to being heckled by a couple of lesbians. He threw a torrent of abuse at them in a public place, based upon their sexual orientation.

A lot of alcohol was involved on everybody's part. But people ought to be able to go into a public place and have a drink without being exposed to loud homophobic ridicule, while the owner of the place does nothing about it."

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 27-Jun-08 1:53:21 PM

Removing books...bad. Removing unfunny comedians...good. Got it. Thanks.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-02 7:44:10 PM

"Whenever the government restricts speech it is wrong because it is a violation of the right to free expression. But why do (or should) we care about this right? Free expression might be thought by some to simply be good for its own sake, but for most of us the reason we worry about state imposed restrictions on speech is because the exchange of ideas has value."

Fact Check,

You make an interesting argument. I think the libertarian is going to separate the moral status of a right (the fact that it imposes obligations or restricts action) from the (impersonal) value that is produced in a society when that right is not merely upheld by the state, but given consideration more generally by (say) Wal-Mart and other entities.

It may be that, other things equal, we're all better off when a lot of speech and debate goes on. This may give us reason to criticize Wal-Mart for its decision to remove books from the shelves. You're exactly right: typically, it's a bad thing when a debate gets shut down (as a graduate student, it is very easy for me to say this.)

However, many libertarians are not going to claim that rights are _grounded_ in the interests they protect or promote. Rights, on the usual story, have a kind of primary moral status. It may be that this is just wrong: we may think that specifying a right to perform some action commits us to affirming the value of that action being performed.

I think this may be where Dr. Dawg is finding the hypocrisy: if libertarians think free discussion is important because of the value it produces, then they should object to the suppression of such discussion, whether it occurs at the behest of the state or Wal-Mart. But I think there is room to affirm a) the value of free discussion; and b) a right to free speech, in a way in which the latter does not conceptually depend on the former.

That, I think, is the typical libertarian position. And maybe it's the wrong position, but it's enough to save them (perhaps) from the charge of hypocrisy.

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-02 7:57:18 PM

Here's an argument I endorse:

There are morally permissible, and morally impermissible methods of trying to alter someone's behaviour.

Morally permissible methods include persuasion (a form of expression), ostracism (expression), threatened boycotts (expression), and so on.

Morally impermissible methods include threats of violence, the use of violence, or the getting of anyone (including the police) to use violence on your behalf.

We defend free speech/expression when we defend speech acts from violence or the threat of violence. To defend, on behalf of free speech, the silencing of those who would protest, picket, or threaten boycotts is to pick sides in a battle that pits one kind of speech (with a specific content) against another kind of speech (with a different kind of content). In short, we privilege one kind of content against a different kind of content, since both are instances of speech/expression.

(Legally) privileging content is one way of *violating* freedom of speech/expression.

(I should be clear that I do not endorse what happened in the Wal-Mart case. Far from it. In point of fact, I wish Wal-Mart had stuck to their guns and kept the gay-friendly books. But even though I don't personally like it, it's part and parcel of the civil playground. And that playground shouldn't be infested by the cops, even if it means that my preferred position gets the short end of the stick. I don't have any claim on the thoughts in other people's heads--All I can do is try to change them via morally permissible methods).

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-02 9:32:14 PM

Jaworski is right on this one. A WKRP episode comes to mind where the "Christian right" orchestrated a boycott and told the station's advertisers they would boycott their products because they advertised on WKRP (because the station was playing John Lennon's "Imagine" amongst other "evil" songs.) I don't see the issue with that. Arthur Carlson considered caving and removing the songs from the playlist. He ended up standing his ground. That's all part of the free market. Not a free speech issue at all. Neither is Heather Reisman choosing not to sell certain books she dislikes nor Wal-Mart caving in to this pressure.

Posted by: Buchanan | 2008-07-02 9:36:47 PM

Free speech promotes "The free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and democratic institutions" and limits the ability of the state to subvert other rights and freedoms.

That is the big one.

We may like the softer benefits such as a free flow of ideas that furthers science, for example, but this is not as important as freedom in that you cannot have the free flow of any ideas with the freedom first.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-02 11:12:36 PM

Obviously I'm not coming at this from the libertarian position, which seems to be the majority view here. Fact Check really sums up my own views on the matter of free expression, which entails public expression. If it's a good, we should consistently uphold it. If it's not an unqualified good, then we should discuss what restrictions might apply. E.g., we might want to make the pitifully obvious distinction between forcing books off the shelves of a supermarket (hence interfering not only with the right of public expression of the author, but also with my own right to read what I like) and screaming insults at someone in a public place.

Now, if the only issue is force, as Terrence appears to be arguing, then we need to examine that concept of force. Everyone here understands state force. Not everyone, however, appears to understand that there are other forms of force: for example, using one's wealth to indulge in SLAPP-suitery against a financially weak opponent (using a state institution, the courts, to advantage). Or intimidating a retailer not to permit free public expression of a view you dislike.

Let's, by the way, stay on course here. I'm not being critical of Wal-Mart in this instance (although I could be). I'm being critical of a person who invokes freedom of expression as a cloak for his own beliefs, but a magic cloak that becomes invisible when used by an opponent.

Let's return, then, to my initial claim, which was modest enough: if you support free public expression, as John Pacheco claims to, you can't logically apply that principle only when discourse you like is threatened. I'd have far more respect for the Pacheco's of this world if they'd put their cards on the table and tell us why suppression in some cases is OK, and in other cases violates some universal principle.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-03 6:20:52 AM

I see the reasons behind Fact Check's restatement of what may be your position, Dr. Dawg, and I'm sympathetic to those reasons.

But there's an internal problem in the accusation of hypocrisy that you're making. "Suppressing" speech/expression takes at least two forms: Via violence, and via speech/expression. The latter pits speech against speech. And then we have to pick *on the basis of something other than speech considerations* between the two different types of speech.

An op-ed might read: "Don't read Harry Potter. It would be good, in fact, if bookstores stopped selling Harry Potter. Because Harry Potter is bad." (I don't think this, by the way. I think Potter is just fine, and possible great). That's a clear instance of speech with the aim of getting enough agreement to make retailers think twice about stocking copies of Potter, a different kind of speech.

On what basis do we choose between acts of expression here?

We might be utilitarians about speech: More speech acts is better than less speech acts. Some speech acts seek to suppress other kinds of speech. Those instances of speech are bad instances, because we get less speech.

Or we might actually be after something else: Free speech is good because it tends to promote the common good/get at the truth/etc. Some instances of speech, however, fail at getting us to what morally matters--the truth, or the common good, or whatever. Those instances of speech are bad instances of speech, and we shouldn't endorse those.

But there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy on the part of a free speechnik who does not support free speech for "utilitarianism of speech" or "the aims of speech" considerations; someone who endorses speech as either good in itself, or a right, or for some other, similar, reason.

I agree with your criticism of the "magic cloak" defender of speech (which, by the way, is a clever way of putting it). And I agree with your suspicion that there are way too many magic cloak speechers.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-03 8:54:52 AM

Freedom of speech means the right to discriminate for whatever rational or irrational reasons. Lets not mix it up with PC moral relativism. The alternative to the sometimes ugly world of free expression is the monotone mushy pabulum of a world glimpsed at with the recent BCHRC Roo court.

Yuppies shouldn't be in Wall Mart anyway! That's for them gun-toten, homophobic, Jesus freaks who have grossly overindulged in Coke and chips. Yuppies belong in the Body Shop where they can learn about saving the planet and smelling nice. The free market provides for all tastes.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-07-03 10:32:40 AM

John:

If I accept your premise, for the sake of argument, then at least agree with me that brining organized pressure to bear in order to suppress views that you don't like might be your right--but don't call yourself a defender of free expression at the same time. That's what I've been objecting to.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-03 10:57:36 AM

Dr. Dawg, removing a viewpoint from a splashy magazine stand is hardly the same as forbidding that viewpoint altogether. If these were child porn magazines, I doubt you'd complain--you'd feel morally obliged to speak up. That's all these folks are doing, for something they find equally immoral. It's only a very ancient taboo that laws against taking more than one wife, or mothers sleeping with sons, or with beasts, or until recently the same sex, illegal.

Gay activists are essentially saying that two, maybe three of those four old taboos are still okay, but the one concerning them is not, on the grounds that, hey, it's them, get used to it. How's that for a magic-cloak argument?

If the "ick" factor is still acceptable for three of these taboos, I should like to know, why not for the fourth? And we'd better decide pretty quick, because we're already hearing the rumblings of child molestors and polygamists demanding the same "rights" accorded to homosexuals, and what will we be able to say?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-03 11:09:54 AM

"removing a viewpoint from a splashy magazine stand is hardly the same as forbidding that viewpoint altogether."

Without getting into those tempting other areas for discussion, Shane, why not apply that self-same argument to Maclean's magazine? "Removing Mark Steyn's viewpoint from a splashy magazine is hardly the same as forbidding that viewpoint altogether." Indeed. He's always got Steyn On-Line. See where this is headed?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-03 11:50:11 AM

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 3-Jul-08 11:50:11 AM

I also seem to remember quite clearly the outcry on here when ChaptersIndigo decided not to carry the Western Standard issue with the Mohammad cartoons....

Guess it's all relative.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-03 12:07:06 PM

There you go again Snowrunner ever faithful to twisted thinking. That people voiced their opinion of chapters boycott of the WS issue was freedom of expression in practice, especially as no one was whining for police or government intervention. See there is really nothing complicated about freedom of expression.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-03 12:21:11 PM

Snowrunner,

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a decision some agent makes while still affirming the agent had a right to make that decision.

If my parents give a car to my sister instead of me, that's really upsetting; still, the parents had the right to sell the car to whomever they wished.

I still don't understand all this confusion about what acknowledging an agent's moral right to perform some action, X, entails. All it entails, as I understand the term, is that everyone else has a duty not to use violence to stop the person from doing that action. It doesn't mean I have to approve of or "feel nice" about each and every exercise of that right.

You may argue that this is an impoverished or unattractive way of thinking about rights. But there's nothing positively incoherent about it; and those who wish to engage libertarians should at least understand where they're coming from.

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-03 12:29:03 PM

Terrance:

I can tell the difference between freedom of expression and approval of all expression. Where I take issue with you is in the notion of violence that you are employing. It seems incredibly narrow. The state can coerce, and that, you would argue, is violent. But threatening a person's financial well-being with a SLAPP suit somehow isn't. Or threatening a store-owner's livelihood by organizing a boycott against him: again, an unequal contest. This is intimidation. Coercion.

Restricting your rule to the threat of/the exercise of physical violence seems arbitrary to me. Given that the state has a monopoly on violence, you've pretty well built a wall around any exercise of coercion in the private sphere other than the illegal use of violence by private citizens. But there are lots of ways of forcing people to do things against their will that do not involve physical violence or the threat of it. Without going too far (because we might both agree that some coercion is OK, like correcting a child, or imprisoning a murderer), it seems to me that a consistent position for a libertarian would be that the use of coercion to muzzle opinion is suspect

Coercion is coercion. Surely a libertarian should be wary of making narrowly-conceived distinctions between physical and other forms of coercion, especially when the exercise of any of them eventuates in the exact-same outcome.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-03 1:00:47 PM

Dawg,

Yep, the notion of violence is narrow -- maybe too narrow to be reasonable, in fact. Still, if that's the libertarian position, you can't really think that libertarians are being hypocrites in their acceptance of boycotts and other non-violent measures as legitimate ways of ending debates.

As for varieties of non-violent coercion, you may have a point. This is really the start of another discussion (maybe someone should put up a new post on the Shotgun :) ) There are a few questions here.

First, what is involved in forcing someone to do something? Is physical violence the only way to force someone to do what you want him to do? Maybe not.

But here is (perhaps) a way of justifying the libertarian emphasis on the use of violence. Suppose someone has formed a judgment to perform some action. He's a reasonable person, has considered all the factors for and against that action, and is about to perform it. Then I come in and threaten to bash him in the head if he does what he's judged is the thing to do.

It's not ridiculous in this case to say that in threatening him, I'm ignoring the fact that he's a reasonable person, who made a good faith judgment in favor of some action. And to the extent that our moral status is bound up with our capacity to reason (controversial, I know), I've devalued him; or, at least, I'm pretending he is without the special, intrinsic value that distinguishes persons from things (what Kant called "dignity.")

Now things get tricky. Superficially, the threat of physical violence and the threat of a boycott look exactly the same: do this, or there will be consequences (and you won't like them.) This is probably what's driving the intuition that there really is no distinction worth making between the two cases.

But my dignity, as understood here, generates _claims_ on other people (and perhaps claims over bits of the world, too.) The mugger, the story is going to go, has no claim on either my wallet or my life. This is what is problematic about the offer he is making: he's offering what he has no right to offer.

The boycott case is rather different. A store owner's dignity does not generate a claim on other people that they purchase a sufficient number of his products to keep him in business (for example.) That, at least, is going to be libertarian's argument, as I understand it.

Other people are at liberty to buy the products or not, for basically any reason. If they choose not to, this is wholly compatible with continuing to recognize the dignity of the store owner (and the claims that dignity _does_ generate.) A boycott seems to be nothing more than a bunch of people with similar preferences getting together and coming to the decision that none of them are going to exercise their liberty in a way the shop owner wants them to.

One may think this is a whole lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo (and, as Jaws will point out, terribly Kantian to boot.) But really, what kind of claim could the shop owner make against the boycott group? That they should keep buying his products, even when they don't really want to do so?

But wouldn't that claim amount to the position that those in the group are nothing more than _potential consumers_, with no right to direct their assets as they wish, on the basis of their own best judgment? Wouldn't that amount to a devaluing of the dignity of those persons?

I can understand the idea that people have a claim against others not to be, say, folded up and thrown around like a piece of paper. If a person threatens to throw me around unless I do what he says, I have a ready response: "I have a claim against you, rooted in my dignity, that forbids you from treating me in like a mere object, so back off!" What kind of claim could the shop owner formulate against an actual or potential boycott group?

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-03 2:44:03 PM

Posted by: Alain | 3-Jul-08 12:21:11 PM

The words thrown around were "Censorship" etc.

I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinion, I have a problem with people wanting it both ways as the WS is really well known for. We're back at your definition of Freedom: "You can have all the Freedom you like, as long as it is MINE."

Have a pleasent day.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-03 2:53:48 PM

"Other people are at liberty to buy the products or not, for basically any reason. If they choose not to, this is wholly compatible with continuing to recognize the dignity of the store owner (and the claims that dignity _does_ generate.) A boycott seems to be nothing more than a bunch of people with similar preferences getting together and coming to the decision that none of them are going to exercise their liberty in a way the shop owner wants them to."

The nub of the discussion is contained here, I think.

There can be no claim on customers, as you say. But that's not really where the difficulty lies. You are forgetting the other customers, who, passing the book aisle, see something they had not seen before and decide to purchase it.

The latter will never have the opportunity to make a free choice, because a zealous, organized group, who may or may not be customers or potential customers, has intimidated the store owner into removing the book from his shelves.

The first group has no legitimate claim on either the store owner or upon potential customers who are being robbed of the right to choose. Your analogy of a mugger is quite apropos in this connection.

Regards,
Dawg

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-03 3:00:01 PM

Sorry: not "the first group." Read "the latter" (last para.)

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-03 3:02:24 PM

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a decision some agent makes while still affirming the agent had a right to make that decision.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 3-Jul-08 12:29:03 PM

True, but that wasn't the tone of the postings back then. From the editorial staff the one being the loudest about: "Do as I say, not as I do" is clearly Adam who seems to have some strange notion about Freedom and "Censorship".

-----------------------

If my parents give a car to my sister instead of me, that's really upsetting; still, the parents had the right to sell the car to whomever they wished.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 3-Jul-08 12:29:03 PM

This is a personal transaction between one person or a nother. Your parents don't have a chain of stores with a sign in the window: "No black allowed".

Companies aren't individuals, despite what modern US law seems to have decided (and from what I read, that isn't quite as clear cut as it has made out to be). To transfer the logic of dealing between you and me to companies is a fallacy IMO.

----------------

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 3-Jul-08 12:29:03 PM

The problem is not that they made the choice, but rather that the choice was forced on them. The problem with your understanding of Censorship / Freedom of Speech whatever you want to call it is that it is set in the mindset that only the State can suppress ideas / speech.

This was surely true when the idea of censorship was first developed, but over the course of the last 50 years we have gone beyond this and now the majority of "knowledge distribution" is in private hands, much of this ideologically driven.

The idea that it doesn't matter if one outlet gets silenced because there are other private enterprises is charming, but in reality, with a grab for the money bag, utterly secondary. As much as the original drivers behind magainzes, TV Stations or even stores may have been ideologically motivated, but these days (especially with publicly traded companies) the Dollar has taken over. As such, the threat of boycott by a large group can "scare" companies into submitting.

Censorship doesn't require jackboots, these days there are finer ways of doing things and to write these things off as "not censorship because the state wasn't involved" is in my opinion short sighted and has hurt freedom of expression and the communication of ideas much more than any Government rule in the last 30 years.

----------------------

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 3-Jul-08 12:29:03 PM

I do understand this, but maybe I don't really fall in line with Liberitarian Group Think, because I do not consider the State the only enemy to the individual. I would go as far as saying that the State has been clipped to a degree where it cannot function anymore in any meaningful way for any individual, but instead acts as a protector of big business.

And just to make something clear before the peanut gallery starts swooping in again: I do not have a problem with business. But I do not believe that Big Businesses serve either a community or an individual, the idea of making as much profit as possible being the only motivator cannot work well in the long run.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-03 3:03:18 PM

Dawg & Snowrunner,

I can't respond to your insightful comments at the moment, but I wanted to let you both know that I've really enjoyed this discussion.

In my opinion, you're both making good points against the adequacy of certain libertarian commitments. Thank you for that.

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-03 3:45:49 PM

A gentle reminder: Terrence and I are addressing ourselves to the following question: Is an organized boycott against a gay-friendly book a demonstration of hypocrisy on the part of free speechers?

To answer this question, both of us have assumed the role of the libertarian (which it turns out both of us are, but that's incidental), because libertarians are awesome on this issue (and by "awesome" I just mean "consistent"). We've been busy trying to demonstrate that no hypocrisy is involved.

I think we've made that case (please forgive my presumptuousness, but I think that point has been conceded).

Then there was a separate question, we can call it the "value of speech" question, and a third question, we can call it the "same outcomes, no difference" question, which we've taken up here and there sporadically. More recently, the question that has come up can be called the "non-violent coercion" question.

Value of speech argument: Surely, when we support free speech there is some value at stake. That value is the outcome of permitting free speech. The content of that value cannot itself be the speech. Whatever that is, we should not lose sight of the fact that freedom of speech is merely instrumental, or a mere means, towards that end.

I'm not unsympathetic to this argument. But I won't comment.

Same outcome, no difference argument: What difference does it make whether my liberty to cross the street is taken away by a bunch of cops, or by a gust of wind? The net effect is the same: I don't get to cross the street, something that I wanted to do. Similarly, what difference does it make whether I don't have a venue to express myself at because the cops come blundering in guns-at-the-ready yelling "shut up," or my livelihood is threatened via private, voluntary activity (like a boycott)? The net effect is the same: I am silenced.

I am not unsympathetic to this argument, but I won't comment.

Finally, the "non-violent coercion" question is this (I don't have the wherewithal to properly formulate the argument, perhaps someone will pick up the slack for me?): Isn't it possible that not just physical acts of aggression count as coercion? If you are my only customer, you have effective control over a wide range of my actions. Isn't that just as bad as if you pointed a gun at me and restricted my actions in that way?

I am also not unsympathetic to this view.

That's all I'll say for now. I like to organize the arguments before I address them, and I also like to be clear on what we're arguing where, and to what end. This helps me, maybe it helps you too. We'll get to those other questions a bit later (and by "we'll" I mean "I'll" because you, dear reader, have no obligation to do anything you don't want to).

Hugs.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-03 4:26:06 PM

Dr. Dawg wrote: "Without getting into those tempting other areas for discussion, Shane, why not apply that self-same argument to Maclean's magazine? "Removing Mark Steyn's viewpoint from a splashy magazine is hardly the same as forbidding that viewpoint altogether." Indeed. He's always got Steyn On-Line. See where this is headed?"

Right to a dead end, Dawg. If a vendor decides to stop carrying a magazine for entirely his own reasons, is the vendor then stifling free speech? Of course not. This isn't the slippery slope you think it is.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-03 4:40:22 PM

Snowrunner wrote: "I also seem to remember quite clearly the outcry on here when ChaptersIndigo decided not to carry the Western Standard issue with the Mohammad cartoons...."

I believe the charge was one of "coward," not of "stifling free speech." A person's acts are always open to criticism; it doesn't make that person an enemy of freedom.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-03 4:41:41 PM

"But I do not believe that Big Businesses serve either a community or an individual, the idea of making as much profit as possible being the only motivator cannot work well in the long run". Snowy

The clientele of Walmart are well served by them. That's what maximizes their profits. Serving the Gay advocacy minority pisses their clientele off. The Gay advocacy clientele can go to Gay bookstores or the NDP or anywhere else where they feel good. Forcing Walmart to sell products which adversely affect sales is a violation of their property rights.

Big business is only a threat to freedom when the amoral proclivity to suck-up to customers combines with the monopoly user of force (the state) and conspires to restrict trade or market entry.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-07-03 4:52:08 PM

Dr. Dawg,

1. Actually, no, I’m not sure you CAN tell the difference between freedom of expression and approval of all expression. Because the foundation of your argument is based on the conflation of the two.

2. The notion of violence is what the dictionary says it is. Don’t go all “living tree” on us and apply to it whatever perceived injustice you think fit, simply because it’s an ugly word that’s likely to provoke a response. What you call intimidation and coercion is more like persuasion. All these people are threatening to do is take their custom elsewhere, which they can do because of gay books, bad service, change of residence, or any old reason they fucking well feel like.

3. The state does not have a monopoly on violence. The great majority of violence in this country is perpetrated by private parties toward private parties. For that matter, so is the great majority of coercion. Every time your boss tells you to do something, he’s coercing you—obey or lose your livelihood. In the case of a teacher and student, obey or get detention. In the case of a parent and child, obey or face punishment. And on and on.

4. Thanks to the Left, “narrow” is a loaded word; the implication being that there is something wrong with the listener’s thinking. Often the intent is to create a lot of vagueness and uncertainty so that, in effect, “anything goes.” Trust me. You’ll see more in black and white than you will in a fog of grey.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-03 4:53:09 PM

Snowy said

"I also seem to remember quite clearly the outcry on here when ChaptersIndigo decided not to carry the Western Standard issue with the Mohammad cartoons..."

I fail to see the difference between their "outcry" and your "outcry" on this issue.
(ie. both you and those posters made comments on a blog expressing your opinions).

"Guess it's all relative."

No...it's exactly the same.

Snowy said,
"The words thrown around were "Censorship" etc."

Show me! If it wasn't the same people posting here now then your point is irrelevant as noone here would be a hypocrite. So what's your point?

Snowy said

"I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinion, I have a problem with people wanting it both ways as the WS is really well known for. "

Me too. However, as I've already shown, Dr. Dawg said the same thing as you and I've already pointed to his own hypocrisy. If the WS is known for having it both ways it must be because it allows the Dr. Dawgs of the world to post both ways. I await your criticism of him and his blog to show your consistency.

Snowy said

"And just to make something clear before the peanut gallery starts swooping in again: I do not have a problem with business. But I do not believe that Big Businesses serve either a community or an individual, the idea of making as much profit as possible being the only motivator cannot work well in the long run."

So, you don't want the peanut gallery making unfair assumptions about you yet here you are making assumptions about the peanut gallery and what they believe of you. I believe this is called a pre-emptive strike. Others call it projection.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-03 5:45:49 PM

Jaws:

I look forward to your arguments.

"We've been busy trying to demonstrate that no hypocrisy is involved.I think we've made that case (please forgive my presumptuousness, but I think that point has been conceded)."

Not by me. Let me try once more. I am an author: I have the right to freedom of expression. I have a potential audience. But a group combines to use coercion to cut me off from that audience.

Surely a consistent libertarian would let the market decide, not short-cut the process by threatening the owner of a business.

Shane:

"If a vendor decides to stop carrying a magazine for entirely his own reasons, is the vendor then stifling free speech? Of course not. This isn't the slippery slope you think it is."

You're missing a couple of things. First, I'm not accusing Wel-Mart of doing much more than knuckling under. Wal-Mart for me isn't the issue. I would suggest that if the vendor's "own reasons" are that he has been threatened, then the real villain of the piece here is the group doing the threatening. And what is the ultimate aim of the threateners? To stifle the free expression of an author, by interfering with his communication to an audience. (You would agree, I hope, that freedom of expression doesn't mean very much if no one is allowed to see or hear the content of that expression.)

John:

"Serving the Gay advocacy minority pisses their clientele off. The Gay advocacy clientele can go to Gay bookstores or the NDP or anywhere else where they feel good. Forcing Walmart to sell products which adversely affect sales is a violation of their property rights."

We don't know that your first sentence is true. As I noted above, only the market can really decide that question. But the zealots aren't content to let the marketplace decide: they short-circuited the process by organizing a boycott.

Organized boycotts are not simply a kind of collective consumer choice: they take on a life of their own, by worrying the business owners. The latter respond to the threat in a cost-benefit kind of way, weighing the loss of profits from a book on their shelves against the possible, and I stress the word possible, effects of a negative, well-financed campaign.

Put that way, Wal-Mart's decision seems a bit of a no-brainer, really. And so the freedom of the author to express his views to an audience is diminished; and the freedom of consumers to make choices for themselves is likewise diminished.

Shane:

"All these people are threatening to do is take their custom elsewhere, which they can do because of gay books, bad service, change of residence, or any old reason they fucking well feel like."

Well, not really. They are threatening a negative campaign. For all you know, the organizers aren't even customers. They are religious zealots who want to prevent an author from reaching an audience. And why, do you suppose, would they want to do that? Because some folks will actually buy the book, and maybe even agree with the views it contains.

The object of the exercise is to interfere with an author's right to freedom of expression. I don't see how anyone can deny that. But the zealots have a right to organize to achieve their ends. So far, well and good: but don't then claim that these self-same people are defenders of the very right that they are actively seeking to curtail.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-03 5:55:13 PM

Dr. Dawg,

" I am an author: I have the right to freedom of expression. I have a potential audience. But a group combines to use coercion to cut me off from that audience."

I am a comedian: I have the right to freedom of expression. I have a potential fan club. But a group (human rights commission and complainants) combines to use coercion (big, powerful government coercion) to cut me off from that fan club.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-03 6:17:44 PM

Go H20 Go!

Posted by: The Ghost of George Carlin | 2008-07-03 6:23:28 PM

As noted earlier, if one is silly enough to argue that the right to place a book before possible buyers and readers without interference is equivalent to screaming insults at someone in a public place, then we have nothing to discuss.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-03 6:49:57 PM

Apologies: "is equivalent to a hypothetical 'right' to scream insults..."

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-03 6:52:11 PM

Dr. Dawg,

"Let's return, then, to my initial claim, which was modest enough: if you support free public expression, as John Pacheco claims to, you can't logically apply that principle only when discourse you like is threatened."

I support free public expression. Even to scream insulting public expression. My discourse is threatend because you don't like it.

Dr. Dawg,

"The latter will never have the opportunity to make a free choice, because a zealous, organized group, who may or may not be customers or potential customers, has intimidated the store owner into removing the book from his shelves."

I, the comedian, will never have a free choice because a zealous, organized group (gov't) is intimidating potential night club oweners into removing me from their stages.

Dr. Dawg,

"The object of the exercise is to interfere with an author's right to freedom of expression. I don't see how anyone can deny that. But the zealots have a right to organize to achieve their ends. So far, well and good: but don't then claim that these self-same people are defenders of the very right that they are actively seeking to curtail. "

Starting to see a familiar pattern in the mirror yet?

Dr. Dawg,
"if one is silly enough to argue that the right to place a book before possible buyers and readers without interference is equivalent to screaming insults at someone in a public place, then we have nothing to discuss."

Are you saying my speech is silly? Isn't that an attempt at marginalizing someone who disagrees with you?

Why not discuss it? Is the matter settled? Is a human rights complaint in my future for defending offensive speech though I don't agree with it? Doesn't that make me the archetypical defender and you the archetypical hypocrite?

You don't agree with the offensive speech and want it marginalized by gov't. I don't agree with the offensive speech and want it left alone.

Dr. Dawg, I remind you:

"I don't hold with those who claim to be in favour of free expression one minute, until it's expression they don't happen to like. "

Do you like the comedians speech? No.
Do you want to allow it? No. You don't even want to discuss it. How long before you won't even allow it to be discussed?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-03 7:10:12 PM

Since I'm not a free speech absolutist, Eights, and have never claimed to be a libertarian, I do draw the line somewhere. You don't. Kewl.

I don't think all expression should be permitted. Just the vast majority of it. Fire in a crowded theatre? No. Incitement to riot? No. Defamation? No. Screaming at people from the stage in a public place because they're lesbians? No.

The latter is a right you would defend. Ezra Levant, in his usual "facts are for pussies" style, claims it was off-colour jokes. Nope.

(The facts of the case may reveal that the fellow was provoked beyond endurance by hecklers. And everybody was drunk. But that's not the way either you or Ezra are presenting the case, so I'm responding to your construction of it.)

Now, when you have something useful to add to a pretty decent thread, please do so.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-03 7:32:52 PM

Dr. Dawg,

"if one is silly enough to argue that the right to place a book before possible buyers and readers without interference is equivalent to screaming insults at someone in a public place, then we have nothing to discuss."

I'm curious. Certainly, you knew that posting on a website where there would be individuals who would defend the comedian's right to freedom of expression. If there was nothing to discuss, why bother at all?

Could it be that there really is something to discuss and you felt it necessary to add your voice?

I applaud you for it.

However, I just can't understand your attempts at marginalizing their opinions while criticizing others for attempting to marginalize the opinions of others (via books sales).

By the way. How do you feel about those stores who carry McLeans, Steyn, Western Standard or other books/magazines with whom you disagree? Would you equally criticize groups who boycott or vocally criticize those stores?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-03 7:47:48 PM

Dr. Dawg,

"I don't think all expression should be permitted. Just the vast majority of it."

Freudian slip Her Feuhrer?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-03 7:54:06 PM

I believe the charge was one of "coward," not of "stifling free speech." A person's acts are always open to criticism; it doesn't make that person an enemy of freedom.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 3-Jul-08 4:41:41 PM

Have a look again, I tried to find this yesterday but wasn't able to because it doesn't seem to do a search on the comments. But I am pretty sure that the term "censorship" was thrown around more than once.

But let's just say they did just say "Cowards", I guess the same should be directed here against Wal-Mart. They cowardly gave in to a group of Extremists out of fear for their profits. At least with Chapters one could argue that they were afraid of being blown up (of course they weren't, it was also a money decision in the end, but appearances are everything after all).

So, anybody who cried foul against Chapters, should cry and voice their disgust against Wal-Mart now too.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-04 9:05:05 AM

Snowy

"So, anybody who cried foul against Chapters, should cry and voice their disgust against Wal-Mart now too."

Fair enough.

"I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinion, I have a problem with people wanting it both ways as the WS is really well known for. "

And your opinion on Dr. Dawg who wants it both ways?

He did say

" I don't hold with those who claim to be in favour of free expression one minute, until it's expression they don't happen to like. "

After all, he doesn't agree with the book protesters expression. He doesn't agree with the comedian's expression or that it should be allowed. He doesn't even think debating the comedian's right to express himself is open to debate.

What's next? Debates about the debate about the comedian's right to express himself becomes off-limits as well?

Show me where this is offensive.

His list of permitted expression is shrinking rapidly.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-04 10:23:05 AM

Snowrunner wrote: "Have a look again, I tried to find this yesterday but wasn't able to because it doesn't seem to do a search on the comments. But I am pretty sure that the term 'censorship' was thrown around more than once."

You're "pretty sure" the word was "thrown around at least twice," huh? Well, when faced with such incontrovertible proof as that, what can I do but concede defeat?

Snowrunner wrote: "But let's just say they did just say "Cowards", I guess the same should be directed here against Wal-Mart. They cowardly gave in to a group of Extremists out of fear for their profits."

Ah, yes--those who hold Right-wing beliefs are always "extremists." At least you didn't say "neo-cons" or "wing-nuts." And naturally you believe profit is evil, so of course Wal-Mart should gleefully sacrifice it for the sake of your shining principles.

Snowrunner wrote: "At least with Chapters one could argue that they were afraid of being blown up (of course they weren't, it was also a money decision in the end, but appearances are everything after all)."

Appearances are nothing. You gain nothing by this glib talk. Next.

Snowrunner wrote: "So, anybody who cried foul against Chapters, should cry and voice their disgust against Wal-Mart now too."

Dares go first. Did you--can you remember--are you "pretty sure" you spoke out against Chapter's decision?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-04 11:14:11 AM

1. Um…how do you know that these “religious zealots” (because of course anyone who isn’t for Pride Day is automatically a religious zealot) aren’t customers? I’m a practicing Catholic and I shop at Wal-Mart. Practically everybody does. And these “zealots” know that those who want the magazines can buy them down the street, fill out a subscription card, or order them online. They just don’t think a family venue like Wal-Mart is an appropriate place for sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular. And I can’t say I disagree. Gays in general would probably receive a better public reception if they weren’t so in-your-face, taking whole cities to court and HRC roo courts for their own special day.

2. No, the object of the exercise is to ensure that the author’s work is sold in appropriate venues. A family environment like Wal-Mart is not it. There, I denied it, with what I must confess was little effort, and plausibly, at that. And while we’re on the subject, the original story to which J.M. linked was simply an entry on a Christian blog (not even a bona fide news story!) mentioning that Wal-Mart has resolved to stop supporting ALL controversial issues, presumably including Right-wing ones like anti-abortionist and pro-death-penalty stances. So whence, exactly, this assertion of the removal of books?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-04 11:35:54 AM

Dr. Dawg wrote: "As noted earlier, if one is silly enough to argue that the right to place a book before possible buyers and readers without interference is equivalent to screaming insults at someone in a public place, then we have nothing to discuss."

You're right, we don't. Because you didn't bring anything worth discussing to begin with. All you have is your outrage. Perhaps someday you'll learn that there is more to the world than your own feelings. Eventually you may even come to prefer it that way.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-04 11:49:36 AM

Terrence,

Thanks for the invite, but the signal-to-noise ratio here has decreased substantially, and I'm out of here. If Jaws wants to post his arguments at my place, or even continue the discussion by email, he's more than welcome, as are you.

Happy 4th of July.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-07-04 2:23:38 PM

Dr. Dawg,

"...but the signal-to-noise ratio here has decreased substantially..."

I could say that it is because you don't want to discuss that with which you disagree. Hence, you've reduced your signal.

However, that would be leaving out the second part where you denounce others for the same thing. Hence, your noise is also reduced.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-04 3:56:15 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Oh, the free speech confusion

TrackBack

Comments