I could, but why?
Ever since my radio station changed formats to "Star Country" (translation: crappy country), I've been listening to Mike & Mike in the Morning on ESPN radio. Today's topic, inspired by one of Mike Greenberg's columns, was whether it's ever okay for men to comment on attractive women in the presence of their wives or girlfriends. The final word on the topic came from a listener who said, "I could, but why?"
I could, but why? I love that phrase. I can think of hundreds of ways to apply it to myself and others. I could, for example, plaster my car with dozens of bumper stickers that support my political viewpoints, but why would I? Sure, I'd be exercising my right to free speech, but is it worth it to needlessly tick off other drivers who might disagree with me?
On the other hand, Danish newspaper editors might well say that it absolutely was worth it to publish the Mohammed cartoons. They could do it and it was worth doing if for no other reason than to expose Islamofascists for what they are and to reinforce the notion that Danes live under Danish, not Sharia law.
In both our personal and political lives, I think weighing the consequences of our words is just a damn good idea. Words have power. We should carefully consider how and when to exercise our right to free speech, just as we carefully consider how to utilize our right to bear arms or to "take the Fifth". I don't think there's any particular virtue in free speech for the sake of free speech.
I get sick of reading about how political dissenters in America are so "brave", as if the simple act of expressing disagreement with the government in a free country is some noble thing. While Al Gore, for example, certainly has the right to fly to Saudi Arabia and "deliberately underminine the United States during a time of war", why would he? Aren't some things more important than the words you want to say?
Don't get me wrong, sometimes expressing your opinion with all the passion in your soul is perfectly appropriate. Most of the time, however, you're probably better off playing the silent coyote.
Posted by kris at February 15, 2006 11:05 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1240
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # February 16th, 2006 6:16 PM Daddy |
| Um...no.
If you keep all of your opinions to yourself all of the time, you have no personality. Free speech for the sake of free speech is fine; the ideas don't gain or lose any merit simply because they're poorly timed. The person speaking, however, would suffer the social consequences. And I think that's exactly how it should be. I gather, from this piece, that you would go to Lambeau Field, and expect a Bears fan to sit down and shut up. As attractive as that sounds, it's just WRONG to expect them to do so. It's up to others to control their reactions. |
| # February 18th, 2006 4:54 AM mbrlr |
| Freedom of speech means absolutely nothing if that freedom doesn't include the right --- obligation, actually --- to dissent.
As for those dissenting, much of the passion stems from the war and the feeling that those killed died due to the ideological blinders in the administration and that those deaths could have been avoided and were unnecessary if we'd been told the truth. Right now, we have a government that is acting in a very droit du seigneur sort of way and many of those dissenting feel an obligation to do so precisely because of that. No one's talking about storming the Bastille, but there's a great deal of anger at what is at least perceived as the administration's failure to speak honestly or deal with the realities. So, what have the American people learned from all this mess? Well, (1) that you should listen to your intelligence people and don't make prejudgments of foreign situations based on ideology and (2) never to go hunting with Dick Cheney. It's just hat if we're to keep quiet just because George W. says we should, the automatic reaction should be to say, "hell, no". We have no king and stifling dissent seriously harms our liberties and effectively destroys them. Dissent isn't just a right, it is an obligation at certain times. This is one of those times with the war, the restructuring of the economic tiers, and the assault on something as basic as the necessity for a warrant...many Americans who are speaking out aren't doing so out of hatred for the President, but out of horror at the errors which led us into war and the seeming lack of concern over the erosion of basic rights on the part of the President, the Congress, and even the courts.it coming, right? And the right to bear arms and "take the fifth" analogy? I won't even touch the right to bear arms bit other than to suggest you look at 200 years of precedent concerning that, but exercising one's right under the 5th Amendment is absolutely, unequivocally proper. our history and our law --- but |
Log in here
or Get an Account here.