Young Americans For Liberty is great at putting out lots of content. They're very active in promoting liberty, and I'm a fan of most of what they put out. I was, however, disappointed to see the following cross my screen this morning:
#Freespeech is precious [&] fragile, and we do not get to choose who exercises it, or how they exercise it. http://t.co/T1u0x06r69 | #tlot
— YALiberty (@YALiberty) January 8, 2015
"We don't have freedom of speech to talk about the weather." — @RonPaul | #CharlieHebdo pic.twitter.com/eFhYPnYKVN
— YALiberty (@YALiberty) January 8, 2015
As a believer in the libertarian non-aggression principle (which clearly was not upheld in Paris) I sympathize very much with the victims. This was an initiation of violence and not self-defense.
At the same time, it's important to put the event into proper perspective. It was not an attack on "free speech" per se. If that were the real problem, there's plenty of focus that can be placed on the U.S. surveillance state that spies on every single American.
Robert Wenzel accurately describes the Paris tragedy:
...Charlie Hebdo employees pissed people off. This, in itself is not a good or bad thing. When you piss people off, they might come back at you. If you don't want to deal with blowback, then don't do the deed. The government is not going to be there to protect you when the blowback occurs. [...]Young Americans for Liberty did not zero in properly. They opened a door for government opportunists by tying the attack to "free speech" in general. Then to make matters worse, they misplace a very good Ron Paul image and quote. That quote does not apply to this incident. Paris had nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment was intended to protect Americans from their own government, not from a few radical Islamists who get pissed off and attack a French satire publication.
I feel absolutely know threat from the attackers at the Charlie Hebdo office. It's a terrible thing as to what happened, but the lesson learned is that if you piss people off they may very well come after you and you better be prepared.
The further lesson is that government officials are opportunists that will cling to any tragedy and pretend they are going to help stop such things in the future, while they reach into your pocket and pull out more of your money. Those are the criminals I fear. Their attacks are entirely unprovoked but are sustained.
Ron Paul himself has commented on Paris, and he accurately tied the attack as blowback to France's interventionism. Dan Sanchez reports at Antiwar.com that "One of the Paris terror suspects was radicalized by outrage over American torture and the invasion of Iraq."
Tying the attack to "free speech" is an error. Government opportunists will say that the attack was "against all of us," and an attack on "our way of life," and on "free speech." They'll take any pretext that they need to "do something," which can only mean a further restriction on our liberties.
I'm sad to report that, in this case, Young Americans for Liberty fell into the trap.
Chris Rossini is author of Set Money Free: What Every American Needs To Know About The Federal Reserve. Follow @chrisrossini on Twitter.
Good analysis. I've been saying for a few days that only idiots kick hornets' nests on purpose and expect not to be stung.
ReplyDeleteWasn't one of the victims a body guard? I would argue that they knew there could be some blowback, but that they were under-prepared for it. They either underestimated what kind of attack they might receive or French law prevented them from properly preparing for an attack. Looser gun restrictions would have allowed them to keep more effective weapons, or any weapons at all, to defend themselves. Would also make it more likely that a neighbor or bystander would be able to intervene. Also could have taken precautions such as restricting access to their building via locked doors or card scanners required to open the door. There are several lessons to be learned from this incident. People who say they shouldn't have made the cartoons just don't understand freedom. Freedom allows you to accept risk if you wish and the smart thing to do is to make sure you've mitigated that risk.
DeleteThis is so off the mark, I'm not sure what the goal is here.
ReplyDeleteFree speech doesn't just exist because of the first amendment. It's an idea that applies to any civilized society - what is wrong with demanding this?
The terrorists see themselves as a state enforcing Islamic law, so it seems very libertarian to argue against this state's violent censorship.
Larger states will probably use this event as a pretext for more restrictions and tyranny, but why is that the YAL's fault for advocating free speech? Seems that Ron Paul's quote advocates "saying controversial things", not shying away from them because it might offend someone.
This is such a bizarre criticism of YAL.
"Free speech doesn't just exist because of the first amendment. It's an idea that applies to any civilized society - what is wrong with demanding this?"
DeleteApollo, it is because according to libertarian theory, "free speech" doesn't actually exist in the way in which we perceive it. There is only property rights. I have the right to do as I please with my body and property. So if I own a printing press or website, I can publish whatever the heck I want. You, of course, don't have to read it. The modern notion of "free speech" is that it is a right that is granted by the state. Libertarians reject this.
They would, I think, agree with your next point, that "The terrorists see themselves as a state enforcing Islamic law, so it seems very libertarian to argue against this state's violent censorship."
"...Charlie Hebdo employees pissed people off. This, in itself is not a good or bad thing. When you piss people off, they might come back at you. If you don't want to deal with blowback, then don't do the deed. The government is not going to be there to protect you when the blowback occurs. [...]
DeleteI feel absolutely know threat from the attackers at the Charlie Hebdo office. It's a terrible thing as to what happened, but the lesson learned is that if you piss people off they may very well come after you and you better be prepared."
This is incredibly strange. Wenzel misses the mark here. The right to publish whatever the hell Charlie wanted, given the printing presses were privately held, whether it pissed people off or not, is a right that ought to be vehemently defended. The question is whether it should be defended by the state (no!) or by private protection agencies and insurance companies. Private protection companies may decide that they don't want to defend against such attacks, at which point the Charlie corporation can decide, given the risk, whether they want to continue to publish the offensive material.
The broader point, I think, is that we should heartedly reject the idea that ideas, beliefs and faith itself, are beyond criticism.
This is not a case of Islamist extremists attacking French journalists over their meddling with ISIS or any other blowback. Blowback doesn't cover what just happened in France.
ReplyDeleteThis is a group of radical muslims trying to enforce their blasphemy laws where they don't exist. Period.
In a libertarian society, this would also happen, given that a large minority of Muslims believe that the punishment for blasphemy is death. A private property society would not be immune to people trying to impose their religious laws on the rest of us. In pp society, I should be able to publish what ever the hell I want, with my paper and my ink. Hopefully there would be a very good private defense company willing to defend my right to do so.
How can you be so certain? I lean the other way pretty hard.
DeleteThese men were most likely trained in regions the west has been messing with. France has been meddling in north Africa. Facts are not clear at this point. The easy answer is they were pissed about a cartoon.
I still find it hard to believe there are 3 crazy people able to get so upset about just a cartoon. I think it could be just the straw that broke the camal's back. But had western forieng policy in the middle east and other Muslim regions not been so awful for ever this attack never would have happened. People don't get this revved up and hate the west for just the freedoms. There has to other motives. See dying to win for an analog.
You are right. I shouldn't have said "Period." That does give the air of certainty when my position is tentative.
Delete"I still find it hard to believe there are 3 crazy people able to get so upset about just a cartoon."
Study Islamic law and you'll find that blasphemy against Mohammad is a major offense. Indeed, a Saudi Arabian blogger was just flogged for insulting the prophet. ( http://tinyurl.com/njnyn49)
The punishment for apostasy is death.
I understand that it is hard to imagine that people that are willing to kill over their beliefs in god(s). Western liberalism has tempered fundamentalism in Christianity and Judaism. The Torah explicitly says to kill witches and stone unruly children. But the Enlightenment caused a great many Christians to rethink these positions. A great many Muslims, (in number, not in percentage), still follow a very strict interpretation of the Qur'an.
"People don't get this revved up and hate the west for just the freedoms. There has to other motives."
Why are we so willing to give these people excuses they didn't ask for? They haven't claimed as a motive French meddling in the middle east. They explicitly stated that the "prophet was avenged" and shouted "God is greatest!" This is about freedoms. We need to stop thinking like liberal religionists and really try to wrap our heads around what it means to take an ancient book literally.
Sam Harris makes these points in the End of Faith.
It sounds like they were pissed off by the images in this case. Not US foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteFrench foreign policy and in the article, he references another article showing that one of the suspects was originally radicalized by interventionism in Iraq. The images simply turned this radical's attention on to Charlie Hebdo, particularly since the French govt has laws against offensive speech directed towards religion and yet Charlie Hebdo had won previous lawsuits against them for similar images. This would leave muslims feeling as though they were not getting justice from the govt and so motivating them to take matters into their own hands. Neither of you are wrong, but also, French law not protecting free speech is another factor.
DeleteCommenter from Paris here. Killing people over a cartoon is stupid and goes against free society. Whether the killers are government employees (the biggest menace to free speech, certainly), religous inquisitors, mafia members, or offended private individuals, the principle remains the same. Supporters of libertarian theory should be outraged about the attacks.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that part of the story worth mentioning is blowback of Western intervention, torture and enormities in the Middle East and this leads to anti-Western sentiments, but the choice of the target here is because they were publishing cartoons the killers disagreed with.
Beyond libertarian theory, as advice on a practical, personal level to ensure self-preservation, Robert Wenzel takes a "libwap" although correct position: while you are free to express yourself as you want, you are not free from other people feeling pissed off or offended about your expression. It is reasonable to expect that some people will unfortunately want to respond with violence rather than dialogue or other peaceful means. The editors of Charlie Hebdo were aware of this and had 24 hour police protection since their old offices were firebombed a few years ago, but after the fact it is easy to say they could have taken more precautions.
As a principle though, that you should shut up and conform to non-threatening, publicly acceptable opinion, to-go-along-to-get-along, that is voluntarily forfeiting your right to express ideas and opinions you believe in. I don't know if I would have the courage or foolishness to continue publishing after threats on my life were made, but nonetheless I find their perseverance admirable.
Bob, I don't know if you faced the same situation over the years of your insightful, honest and sometimes provocative blogging, but if someone told you to stop publishing libertarian ideas or investigative articles on powerful elites on your blog or else face serious threats against you and your family, how would you respond? Would you stop blogging about the things you cared about?