UPDATED again. Does the Althouse not understand rights?

Here is her scary post... Commentors object, and her replies to them are even scarier:

I think it's something that they express concern about free speech. But they aren't sold on the strong model of free speech that we love, because they have religious values and are worried that people need to be compelled, lest they speak irresponsibly. I would recommend reaching out to these students and not getting in their face about it. There is an opening here. There is some common ground. We need to prove to moderate Muslims that free speech is good. You don't have to get harsh because they won't accept the strong version of free speech. Accept the common ground and work on making connections. If you say it's all or nothing, and unless you accept mockery, you're as bad as the violent extremists, you are missing an important opportunity.

Here is my reply to her:

"Accept the common ground and work on making connections." Any compromise = giving up the right to free speech. I think your way validates the belief that free speech is not an inherent right, not something we are born with that government only seeks to guarantee, but a privelege government grants.

That is exactly wrong. And if anyone thinks that way they should be told they are wrong, and it should be made very clear to them that nobody, and no group, INCLUDING THE US GOVERNMENT, has the right to infringe upon our God given rights.


Let's be clear here- if the US Supreme Court says it is illegal for me to draw a cartoon of Mohammed that does not mean I don't have the right to draw a cartoon of Mohammed. It only means the US Supreme Court is trying to infringe upon my inherent rights, just as any other group which says I cannot draw or show a cartoon of Mohammed is doing.

Honestly, I find it kind of scary that a law professor doesn't hold to this view, which I thought was commonly believed.

Stock up on guns and ammo, boys and girls. The elite of this country, whether it is a smart law professor like Althouse or a war hero Senator like McCain, think free speech is something to be defined and granted by the government, we are in big effing trouble.

UPDATE:
It looks like the last paragraph above was wrong about the Althouse. She replied with this:

Harkennodog: You are not reading my comments with understanding. Calm down and try to read what I'm actually saying, not what you're afraid I'm saying. As a response to me, nothing you're writing makes sense!

I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about getting along with other people and influencing them so that they will share or at least respect your values, including free expression. A lot of people undervalue freedom because they think people will do bad things with their freedom. So it would be a good idea for us to exercise our freedom taking account of the interests of others to show that that isn't true.

Which means she values free expression (she thinks that is a better way to say it than saying "free speech" and I guess I agree) but thinks... well, here's my reply to her reply:

Ann, I understand you and disagree with you.

1st, "I'm talking about getting along with other people and influencing them so that they will share or at least respect your values..."
The best way to influence someone seeking to limit free expression, this grouop included, is NOT by seeking common ground or rapport. It is by telling them too bad if you don't like it. If you want a fight you'll lose, so get over it.

"A lot of people undervalue freedom because they think people will do bad things with their freedom."
I agree with you about why some people undervalue freedom, and in fact those people are entirely correct. Americans WILL use their freedom to lampoon Mohammed, which some consider a bad thing. Why pretend otherwise? Why try to assure people that freedom of expression is okay because nobody will offend Muslims? People will. People are.

"So it would be a good idea for us to exercise our freedom taking account of the interests of others to show that that isn't true."
It IS true, though. And in fact, what you are saying is that we should practice limiting our own free expression, in order to trick a group of people into supporting free expression so that we will someday be able to practice free expression because those people will support it because after a while they will value it.

You're saying we should not practice free expression so those who don't want us to practice it will say it is okay for us to practice it, someday.

That won't work. In fact it will resort to those people further limiting free expression.


It is very strange. This all seems so clear and obvious to me. Yet the Althouse- older, wiser, and probably twice as smart as I am, doesn't get it.

UPDATE 2:
And now, desperate. Here is her latest response:

So, Harkennodog, do you recommend walking up to random strangers and shouting obscenities at them? Do you recommend bluntly telling children that they are ugly? Why not laugh at anyone old and say "You're going to die soon"? If you hold back, you're selling out free speech!

Wow... I think it comes down to a kind of compulsion to appease. And an equally powerful desire not to be aware of the compulsion. How else can such a smart lady be so dumb about something?

Anyway, my answer was:
Ann,
I think you're forgetting the context of these cartoons. They were commissioned specifically to combat the culture of fear in Denmark. People were scared, not of the government, but of individual Muslim citizens.
Given that this fear is real and reasonable, showing the cartoons is not at all comparable to walking up to random strangers and screaming insults at them.
Cheers! (Still a huge fan btw)