Lest we forget the how central the principle of free speech is to the Western tradition, today's online edition of the Guardian provides this Timeline: a history of free speech.
Obviously, it's a somewhat idiosyncratic list. By all means feel free to contribute your additions to the timeline. Whazzat? Nah, I wasn't all that the 2 Live Crew trial didn't make the cut...
David Smith and Luc Torres
Sunday February 5, 2006
The Observer
399BC Socrates speaks to jury at his trial: 'If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind... I should say to you, "Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you."'
1215 Magna Carta, wrung from the unwilling King John by his rebellious barons, is signed. It will later be regarded as the cornerstone of liberty in England.
1516 The Education of a Christian Prince by Erasmus. 'In a free state, tongues too should be free.'
1633 Galileo Galilei hauled before the Inquisition after claiming the sun does not revolve around the earth.
1644 'Areopagitica', a pamphlet by the poet John Milton, argues against restrictions of freedom of the press. 'He who destroys a good book, kills reason itself.'
1689 Bill of Rights grants 'freedom of speech in Parliament' after James II is overthrown and William and Mary installed as co-rulers.
1770 Voltaire writes in a letter: 'Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.'
1789 'The Declaration of the Rights of Man', a fundamental document of the French Revolution, provides for freedom of speech .
1791 The First Amend-ment of the US Bill of Rights guarantees four freedoms: of religion, speech, the press and the right to assemble.
1859 'On Liberty', an essay by the philosopher John Stuart Mill, argues for toleration and individuality. 'If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.'
1859 On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, expounds the theory of natural selection. TH Huxley publicly defends Darwin against religious fundamentalists.
1929 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, of the US Supreme Court, outlines his belief in free speech: 'The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.'
1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is adopted virtually unanimously by the UN General Assembly. It urges member nations to promote human, civil, economic and social rights, including freedom of expression and religion.
1958 Two Concepts of Liberty, by Isaiah Berlin, identifies negative liberty as an absence or lack of impediments, obstacles or coercion, as distinct from positive liberty (self-mastery and the presence of conditions for freedom).
1960 After a trial at Old Bailey, Penguin wins the right to publish D H Lawrence's sexually explicit novel, Lady Chatterley's Lover.
1962 One Day In the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn describes life in a labour camp during Stalin's era. Solzhenitsyn is exiled in 1974.
1989 Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini issues a fatwa against Salman Rushdie over the 'blasphemous' content of his novel, The Satanic Verses. The fatwa is lifted in 1998.
1992 In Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky points out: 'Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.'
2001 In the wake of 9/11, the Patriot Act gives the US government new powers to investigate individuals suspected of being a threat, raising fears for civil liberties.
2002 Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel incenses Muslims by writing about the Prophet Mohammed and Miss World, provoking riots which leave more than 200 dead.
2004 Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh is killed after release of his movie about violence against women in Islamic societies.
2005 The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act bans protest without permit within 1km of the British Parliament.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Saturday, February 04, 2006
One Last Swig of Christmas '05: Photo of the Day #35
A tasty beer to be sure, but as seasonal winter brews go, the Shepheard Neame doesn't compare to the Anchor Steam's hearty and flavorful Christmas Ale.
Never Mind the Bullocks: A Call to Arses
With the Danish embassy in Damascus in flames, radical Muslims parading through the streets of London calling for another 7/7, and the Bush administration siding with the Islamic protesters, this editorial by Matthew Parris defending the right to satirize and mock figures of authority, religious or otherwise, was an inspiring read: So they have thin skins. That shouldn't stop us poking fun at them.
Indeed, perhaps a little mad laughter would do us all good right about now, for the outcry over a bunch of cartoons is simply absurd. Isn't it a bit silly for the Bushies to be siding with the 'offended' Islamic fundamentalists? Is the Bush Administration cowardly backstabbing the Danes in their hour of need, or is this finally, a show of that much vaunted compassionate conservatisim? I wonder? And there is something perversely funny about the stupidity (or is it just hypocrisy?) of the Muslim protesters in London who brazenly celebrate the 7/7 bombers as the "Fantastic Four" and call for more terrorist killings whilst claiming to be offended by the now infamous cartoons of Muhammand.
The pen, it seems, is, if not mightier, than more offensive than the sword.
I tip my hat (sadly, my stylish souvenier Danmark stocking cap is back in Chicago) to the Brits for not [ahem] taking offense and maintaining order in what, I imagine, could have become an ugly situation. While I respect the London police for upholding the right to a public assembly, I hope that they, and the MI5, were monitoring the protest carefully. I've been critical of the way civilian populations have been surveilled by Western intelligence agencies (most notably in the U.S. and France) but in this instance, where people are openly calling for the killing of innocents, it's perfectly just to keep close tabs on them.
But back to the op-ed piece that prompted these thoughts...
Parris's essay does an excellent job explaining what it means to believe in something and why we should not capitulate and cater to those who choose to take offense at our refusal to believe something which we regard to be mistaken and wrong. Doing so foolishly allows the supersensitive group member's feelings - which, as affective responses, cannot be judged right or wrong - to trump rational argumentation.
But Parris is not so naive as to believe that arguing one's position well in a rational debate will convince the other to change his or her mind. The next step isn't a call to violence, but - in the tradition of Rabelais, Swift, Voltaire, Joyce, Pynchon, Python, Groening - a call to satire, to ridicule, to mockery.
Against reverence and awe the best argument is sometimes not logic, but mockery. Structures of oppression that may not be susceptible to rational debate may in the end yield to derision. When people see that a priest, rabbi, imam or uniformed official may be giggled at without lightning striking the impertinent, arguments may be won on a deeper level than logic.
We should never, therefore, relinquish, nor lightly value, our right not to argue in the face of other people’s gods — but to fart.
In the name of wits and wiseasses around the world, I propose a collective toot. If some smørrebrød and a few beers are required, by all means indulge (may I humbly suggest a Tuborg Gold or a Carlsberg Elephant - reminding us not to forget the GOP's betrayal - on this occasion)! It's time to get cheeky! Blow yr butt-trumpet loudly and proudly in support of not only the right to free speech but also the right to satirize.
I'm sick and tired of people taking offense. It's a big, bad, dirty world and we're allowed to be a little bit lewd, a little bit crude, even a little bit rude at times.
Let the hypersensitive plug their noses. Raise yr arse and let the would-be censors know that their authoritarian demands Stank!
Indeed, perhaps a little mad laughter would do us all good right about now, for the outcry over a bunch of cartoons is simply absurd. Isn't it a bit silly for the Bushies to be siding with the 'offended' Islamic fundamentalists? Is the Bush Administration cowardly backstabbing the Danes in their hour of need, or is this finally, a show of that much vaunted compassionate conservatisim? I wonder? And there is something perversely funny about the stupidity (or is it just hypocrisy?) of the Muslim protesters in London who brazenly celebrate the 7/7 bombers as the "Fantastic Four" and call for more terrorist killings whilst claiming to be offended by the now infamous cartoons of Muhammand.
The pen, it seems, is, if not mightier, than more offensive than the sword.
I tip my hat (sadly, my stylish souvenier Danmark stocking cap is back in Chicago) to the Brits for not [ahem] taking offense and maintaining order in what, I imagine, could have become an ugly situation. While I respect the London police for upholding the right to a public assembly, I hope that they, and the MI5, were monitoring the protest carefully. I've been critical of the way civilian populations have been surveilled by Western intelligence agencies (most notably in the U.S. and France) but in this instance, where people are openly calling for the killing of innocents, it's perfectly just to keep close tabs on them.
But back to the op-ed piece that prompted these thoughts...
Parris's essay does an excellent job explaining what it means to believe in something and why we should not capitulate and cater to those who choose to take offense at our refusal to believe something which we regard to be mistaken and wrong. Doing so foolishly allows the supersensitive group member's feelings - which, as affective responses, cannot be judged right or wrong - to trump rational argumentation.
But Parris is not so naive as to believe that arguing one's position well in a rational debate will convince the other to change his or her mind. The next step isn't a call to violence, but - in the tradition of Rabelais, Swift, Voltaire, Joyce, Pynchon, Python, Groening - a call to satire, to ridicule, to mockery.
Against reverence and awe the best argument is sometimes not logic, but mockery. Structures of oppression that may not be susceptible to rational debate may in the end yield to derision. When people see that a priest, rabbi, imam or uniformed official may be giggled at without lightning striking the impertinent, arguments may be won on a deeper level than logic.
We should never, therefore, relinquish, nor lightly value, our right not to argue in the face of other people’s gods — but to fart.
In the name of wits and wiseasses around the world, I propose a collective toot. If some smørrebrød and a few beers are required, by all means indulge (may I humbly suggest a Tuborg Gold or a Carlsberg Elephant - reminding us not to forget the GOP's betrayal - on this occasion)! It's time to get cheeky! Blow yr butt-trumpet loudly and proudly in support of not only the right to free speech but also the right to satirize.
I'm sick and tired of people taking offense. It's a big, bad, dirty world and we're allowed to be a little bit lewd, a little bit crude, even a little bit rude at times.
Let the hypersensitive plug their noses. Raise yr arse and let the would-be censors know that their authoritarian demands Stank!
Belle & Sebastian Are Back
I wanted to take ira to see belle & sebastian + the new pornographers in chicago but the show sold out. the venue, the riviera, is just a seven minute walk from our flat, but we're in sweden and the tix are only available via ticketmaster. 2 tix cost around $60 but w/ the ticketmaster fisting, $90!!! outrageous. I couldn’t justify spending that and waffled about buying tix. in the meantime, the show sold out. [sigh]
billy bragg plays the double door on our wedding anniversary this year. here's hoping we can get tix for that one.
billy bragg plays the double door on our wedding anniversary this year. here's hoping we can get tix for that one.
Higher Ed as Infotainment...
Here's yet another article describing the antipathy to learning displayed by too many of today's college students. I'm filing it to share with colleagues (or perhaps to reread myself) who are distraught after reading disparaging comments on students' course-evaluation forms. Like Stanley Fish and others, I find these anonymous evaluation forms not just useless but counterproductive. They most definitely reinforce the paradigm of education as fast food described in this essay by Doug Mann.
Mann's article contains some cringeworthy anecdotes and makes some good points. I have a couple minor objections. His opening, the exchange between Professor Lovechild and Dr. Sunshine, strikes me as reactionary drug scapegoating. Here the culprit is LSD and pot brownies. I have heard one tale from a now retired professor of LSD use in the classroom back in the 1960s. It occurred in a graduate seminar on Melville. LSD was still legal and the prof ordered the drug from a company advertising in a psychology journal. Memebers of the seminar who chose to do so dosed before a discussion of Moby Dick. According to this professor, the seminar discussion was the most intense and rigorous he'd attending.
But I digress. My point is not to advocate (or condemn) psychotropic drug use in conjunction with literature courses. Rather, I think Mann's target should not be the 'hippie freak' professors he's conjured into existence, but rather the corporate-minded administrators who, in my experience, are the ones that envision higher ed as yet another commodity to be bought and sold at a negotiable (relative to market fluctuations) price.
This brings me to my second reservation about the article: Mann's use of postmodern as a modifier for students who appear to be lazy, arrogant, unmotivated, rude, etc. What needs to be stressed is that the students' disgegard for higher learning is not some inexplicable phenomenon unique to this generation. Rather the tendency to treat a college degree as but another commodity to be aquired in the pursuit of capital is symptomatic of what Fredric Jameson refers to as the "cultural logic of late capitalism." The logic is promoted by the Bush Administration, which continues to cut federal funds for higher education, paraticularly programs designed to help students from lower-income families adjust to college and university life.
Mann's article contains some cringeworthy anecdotes and makes some good points. I have a couple minor objections. His opening, the exchange between Professor Lovechild and Dr. Sunshine, strikes me as reactionary drug scapegoating. Here the culprit is LSD and pot brownies. I have heard one tale from a now retired professor of LSD use in the classroom back in the 1960s. It occurred in a graduate seminar on Melville. LSD was still legal and the prof ordered the drug from a company advertising in a psychology journal. Memebers of the seminar who chose to do so dosed before a discussion of Moby Dick. According to this professor, the seminar discussion was the most intense and rigorous he'd attending.
But I digress. My point is not to advocate (or condemn) psychotropic drug use in conjunction with literature courses. Rather, I think Mann's target should not be the 'hippie freak' professors he's conjured into existence, but rather the corporate-minded administrators who, in my experience, are the ones that envision higher ed as yet another commodity to be bought and sold at a negotiable (relative to market fluctuations) price.
This brings me to my second reservation about the article: Mann's use of postmodern as a modifier for students who appear to be lazy, arrogant, unmotivated, rude, etc. What needs to be stressed is that the students' disgegard for higher learning is not some inexplicable phenomenon unique to this generation. Rather the tendency to treat a college degree as but another commodity to be aquired in the pursuit of capital is symptomatic of what Fredric Jameson refers to as the "cultural logic of late capitalism." The logic is promoted by the Bush Administration, which continues to cut federal funds for higher education, paraticularly programs designed to help students from lower-income families adjust to college and university life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
