Blog Check
And speaking of the Interahamwe and what people listen to on the radio and how easy it is to overlook what’s not right in front of our eyes…There is a discussion going on at Crooked Timber about free speech and speech codes. For some reason I was moved to ask a question that always occurs to me in the context of such discussions, and that doesn’t seem to me to get asked enough. What do free speech absolutists say about situations like Rwanda and the Balkans where government leaders went on the radio to incite people to go out and kill or ‘cleanse’ other ethnic groups, with all too much success? So far, I’m interested to see, I haven’t had a real answer – just a lot of careful ignoring the question plus one person saying that sort of thing only happens in places like Rwanda and the Balkans, which seems 1. like perfect hindsight – well we know it happens there! so that’s safe enough, and 2. a tad naive, if one casts one’s mind back a mere six decades. So I am forced to conclude, at least for the moment, that free speech absolutists simply don’t argue honestly.
Another blogger enjoyed my sample of Robyn Wiegman’s academic prose. So I’m glad I was dedicated enough to do all that typing. Your enjoyment is my goal.
Yes, we sometimes forget that Germany was the most advanced, civilized society in the world.
Barney, right. That’s all I’m talking about – the problem of over-simplification. Of just saying ‘free speech should trump all other values’ and then refusing to discuss the possible consequences. Perhaps a hangover from reading Ayn Rand, I don’t know…
“What do free speech absolutists say about situations like Rwanda and the Balkans where government leaders went on the radio to incite people to go out and kill or ‘cleanse’ other ethnic groups, with all too much success?”
I’m not sure what absolutists might say about such things but it seems to me that free speech by citizens is a potent antidote to government propoganda, a key reason why free speech is cherished. The examples of Rwanda and the Balkans seem to support rather than challenge free speech advocacy.
Hm. I don’t know about that. Not when a majority decides it wants to wipe out a minority. If it were the other way around, yes, but when it’s not (as it wasn’t in Rwanda), I’m not sure why it would work that way.
Free speech by citizens *can* be a potent antidote to government propaganda, sure, but it isn’t always, not when most people agree with what the government is saying, as was the case in Rwanda.