The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 14)

Mr. Christopher Orlet is fixated on Idea # 38,567,045 which most people long ago recognized as a really stupid, vicious idea. Mr. Orlet, however, thinks it's our civilizational duty to shut down expression of the idea.

But Idea # 23,875,306 (partially superseded by Idea # 23,875,403(b)) was far more horrible in its implementation in the 20th century, yet its expression is proscribed precisely nowhere in Europe.

What's up with that?

The answer to Mr. Orlet's implied question "How far does one allow treacherous ideas -- ideas proven to have deadly consequences -- to spread and corrupt?" is "To the horizon and beyond. Way, wayyyyy out there."

Come ON! It was not the ideas themselves that caused all the damage. The damage was caused by degenerate street fighters who fought for political power, won the battle, and then set about implementing Idea # 495 (particularly odious), Idea # 23,588, Idea # 777,856, Idea # 27,459,443, and Idea # 29,112,004, among others.

That they succeeded as they did had everything to do with (1) the chaos of postwar German and (2) political cowardice in other countries. The success of these monsters had very little to do with the lack of polemical ability on the part of their opponents. Once vicious people get their hands on power, any half-baked idea will serve as a justification for whim (e.g., Idea # 52, currently very much back in vogue at UCLA).

The remedy for bad speech is more bad speech, which is hardly an original idea with me. I mean, isn't it delicious to hear the Islamicists actually saying out loud, right there in public, that they believe Ideas ## 456,970 through 577,859? The more they say how much they like them, the more laughable they become. It's hysterical. I want them to repeat these pathetic ideas over and over again. QED.

That we collectively remain so silent about the worthlessness of those particular ideas is far more worrisome to me than allowing them to be promulgated (though I must confess that I wonder why we make it so easy for the Saudis, a hostile foreign power, to finance the promulgation in the U.S. of Idea # 359,888).

p>Nonetheless, trying to shut down speech (other than the kind that (1) starts stampedes to theater exits, (2) scares the horses, or (3) immediately incites riots and fainting spells) is an exercise that is unworthy of our great Western tradition of skepticism, inflates the importance of the feared speech, and reflects a sad lack of confidence in the ability of reasonable people to refute stupid ideas. Yelling "Shut the [bleep] up" has some initial appeal as a control mechanism but, in the end, it's a heck of a lot more work than you expect. br> -- Richard Ong br> Cassville, Missouri /p>

Too much Freedom?

No, I don't think so. I disagree with laws against denial of the Holocaust for the same reason I disagree with economic protectionism: interference in the market, whether it is the market of ideas or the market of goods and services, ultimately hurts consumers (which in the realm of ideas, is the public itself).

topics:
Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Mainstream Media, Business, Sports, Religion, Islam, Environment, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Russia, Israel, NATO, Fascism