First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
--Pastor Martin Niemoller
I have long lived with the goal that I shall not be the person Pastor Niemoller speaks of. When I see something that isn't right, I speak up about it. Sometimes forcably; sometimes out of proportion to the offense.
Today, I'd like to talk about the "ban an idiot today" petition that is being circulated on LJ. No, I'm not going to provide the petion, or a link to it... it's probably been on your friends list, and if not... well, I'm not going to strengthen something I'm arguing against by providing a link to it.
I know that the user named in the petition is ficticious. I know that the sample entry is a fake written by someone who thought they were being clever. I know that my reaction is out of scale with what's being presented.
However, I do feel the need to say that, by advocating the removal of the right to express whatever opinion they have, the authors and circulators of this petition are doing something shameful.
Please take a careful look at what I just wrote. I did not say that you should not belittle the style of writing involved. I feel that you shouldn't, but that's not the point. I support your right to do so, just as I support their right to express themselves as they see fit.
What I find shameful is your advocation of removing their expression, your advocation of censoring their expression.
As a veteran of the United States Navy, I made a literal sacrifice to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Amendments, duely made, to that document say that all Americans have the right to freedom of speech and of the press. Supreme Court decisions have extended those rights of expression to include all forms of the press, including internet journals.
If you advocate taking away the right of expression from someone you consider an idiot, how can you complain when your right to express yourself is taken away because someone considers you an idiot?
In the words of Monty Python, "Monty Python's Flying Circus has proven to be a singularly effective tool for offending the easily offended. If you're one of those, do us both a favor, and don't watch!"
If you find someone's journal offensive for whatever reason, no one is forcing you to read it. Snicker if you want, snear if you must, but don't even try getting them silenced... or maybe, you'll be the next voice to fall silent.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Comments
My students just wrote letters to some soldiers in Iraq. We're mailing them to a friend who is over there and he will pass them out.
Before we wrote, we had a discussion of freedom, what it means, what is the price of freedom, etc. They were really good, for 7 and 8 year olds. =)
Your posting is timely, for me. =)
However, now you're actually misrepresenting me, and I feel it's time to speak up:
No, I'm not advocating that LiveJournal should prevent idiots from using the service.
I thought that the first person who objected to my entry would do so because they didn't realize it was a joke, even as blatantly parodic as it is -- but you've proven me wrong. You've recognized that it's a joke, yet you still continue to take it as a serious represenation of my beliefs.
This boggles my mind. Seriously. I just can't get my mind around how you can think that making a joke about disconnecting idiots from the internet means that I must really want to do it.
In
I won't argue the rest of the points of your post, because all of your melodrama aside, on them I agree -- I'm a vociferous advocate for free speech (which doesn't apply on LiveJournal, by the way), which makes this "censuring" of yours an even sadder affair than immediately apparent.
I'm not misrepresenting you. You did write a petition which has been presented on other people's journals, advocating the removal of internet priviledges (and thus, self-expression) from those you consider idiots.
You did give an example of the style of writing you consider to be idiotic.
Regardless of whether you intended it as a joke, and regardless of whether I understand that your intent was not as presented, history is full of people who didn't get the joke.
Someone's going to look at what you wrote, and take it at face value. Someone's going to look at what you wrote, and think, "Well, this isn't censorship; after all, they're just morons studying to be idiots, and not studying very hard."
I understand that you don't agree with me, and that's fine. I understand that you think I'm melodramatic, and perhaps you even have some justification in thinking so.
But you can't deny that you wrote what you wrote, and that prima facie it says what I've presented it to say. I can not react to your intent, because as a reader, I do not know your intent. I know only what you wrote.
If it does not reflect your values, perhaps you should be more careful in your writing.
You're misrepresenting me by ascribing intentions to my "petition" that aren't there. You wrote that I'm advocating removing the free speech rights of people I consider to be idiots, when I'm not.
Yes, my entry, if taken literally, is requesting that LiveJournal make it possible for us to disconnect idiots from the internet, which would curtail their speech. However, the entry is an obvious joke. So obvious, in fact, that I think its humor is undermined.
You suggest that I should be more careful with my writing, which I would accept as good advice were it being universally or even just frequently misinterpreted. As it is, you're the only one that I'm aware of who has issues recognizing the joke, which suggests to me that the fault is not with my writing, but with your interpretation of it.
You claim that you don't know my intent, but this is wrong. Because the entry is a satirical joke, it follows that the position it advances isn't seriously held. Its intent, or rather, lack of serious intent, should be as clear as day.
I'm sorry that you felt offended by it, but writing a piece of parody isn't wrong.
But-it-is-not-a-petition. It does not advocate anything. It is a joke.
You keep saying that
It's not a real petition, even if it's written on it. Satire and parody tend to work that way. And writing a name on a thing doesn't turn it into that. A desk doesn't turn into a chair when you write "chair" on it (I know, this example is a bit...overdone but I think it's expressing what I want to say), a joke doesn't turn into a real petition because it's written on it. It has to be meant that way. And in this case it isn't.
Sure, people could misunderstand that, but well, that is the case in every moment of our life.
Okay you didn't find it funny. Fine, I didn't think it a knee-slapper myself.
However what you don't get is that they aren't trying to do anything.
Hell what the petition is about is physically impossible anyway. A
AFAIK there is no way to actually stop someone from getting online or posting, unless you somehow develop psychic powers and use them to short out all their electronic equipment.
You're basically freaking out about something that logically couldn't happen.
And if you don't like the meme you don't have to post it on your journal.
I'm not American, but AFAIK, the constitution protects the right of free speech *from the government*.
LJ is a business, and if they want to censor people left and right, they're free to do that. Mind you, it would not be good business practice, but it'd not be a violation of the consitution.
For example - I'm a free speech maeven, so I don't delete posts in my livejournal even if they're criticizing me, nor do I keep anonymous posters from posting. The one exception was that Passion spambot, and I thought for a bit about leaving it simply because I have a personal no-deletion policy.
So in that way, I'm living up to my ideal of free speech - anyone can say anything they want and I won't censor it where I have control of such things - however I will criticize if I disagree. The response to free speech one disagrees with is ...free speech. 8)
Of course, I am also prone to mocking, so I started this whole thing by posting a parody petition... and I stand by the original post being hysterically funny. I also have a policy of holding my beliefs as lightly as possible, as beliefs often stand of faulty ground. I try to make it so my beliefs can be well-questioned semi-regularly (though I also try to allow for the irrational emotional response of *threat* to well-held beliefs being questioned; feelings are feelings and should be respected and honored).
гадоперидоломъ подколоть.
I'd like to get to know you better, so shall we friend eachother?