Speaking of which, Natalie Solent has an excellent contribution to the subject, giving better expression than I could to the reasons why LGF doesn't need "balance", LGF is a balance. Natalie's speculation on why LGF is a hit monster should lead, with half a moment's reflection, to the question at the bottom of all the fuss: what is more pernicious, and in the end more dangerous to society - offensive speech, or successful efforts to quarantine what is perceived as offensive speech? (Thomas believes that Charles's providing a forum for the LGF regulars is the road to an anti-Muslim Kristallnacht in America. I say that's hooey.)
I'm sorry, count me unimpressed with Thomas Nephew and his lofty attitude. I've added my comments to his post, and no doubt he will think me as avoiding of the point and sarcastic as he claims you were. (I think all the "snideness," by the way, was on his side.)
Posted by: Andrea Harris on November 26, 2002
Oh, I think he's completely wrongheaded in the post in question. But he has a good blog, and I enjoy reading it.
Posted by: Moira on November 27, 2002
My one and only comment on your blog re this subject:
I do not think it's reasonable to say I stand for "quarantining" or restricting speech. I tried to convince someone to change his speech. Speech has consequences, too, was the point of the "Kristallnacht" reference. As I acknowledged, the possibility may be remote today, but it wasn't always so, and it may again become so. I'd rather know I tried to discourage that in some small way, than have to admit I did nothing about it. I cited specific and to my mind egregious comments by Mr. Johnson, and suggested he reconsider what he's doing. That does not equate to quarantining or censorship; that's discussion on the merits.
I also do not assume the reading public "comprise persons stupid, vicious, and in need of guidance," from your last comment on my site. I made a suggestion to one person, who I consider neither stupid nor vicious. Surely that is as much my free speech right as it is for Charles to say what he says. (You'll recall I wrote in the original post you object to, "You, of course, don't have to do a solitary thing.")
In my post, I acknowledged that what Charles describes are true, very troubling instances of some Muslims saying and doing terrible things. It was titling such entries "Religion of Peace" that bothered me, when repeated over and over; also, a couple of specific instances of Charles himself -- not readers -- crossing a line of propriety bothered me. If his point can be calling people to account for their speech -- which I think is perfectly legitimate -- so can mine.
But thank you for the positive comments, Moira. Have a nice Thanksgiving. You too, Andrea.
Posted by: Thomas Nephew on November 28, 2002
So I get the last word, eh?
If you really believe that exposure to the speech at LGF could lead to a Kristallnacht, you are certainly making a highly negative statement about the intelligence and morals of its readers.
At bottom I believe that we have wildly different perceptions about current failings in public speech. Some of us are more troubled by cant and inanity.
But you're quite welcome. I hope you're enjoying the holiday.
Posted by: Moira on November 29, 2002