« Be Careful What You Wish For | Main | Ay-eeee-yah! The Perfidy! »
February 14, 2005
Chill Wind For Me, But Not For Thee?
In this TCS article, James D. Miller argues that blogs, of all things, are likely to have a chilling effect on free speech. First we have the Scary Setup. Watch out America - if the Big Bad Blogs have their way, Thought Crime is just around the corner:
Imagine that mind reading were suddenly imposed on humanity automatically transmitting all our thoughts to those around us. Involuntary telepathy would destroy countless marriages as wives learned of their husbands perverse fantasies. Bosses would fire millions after they found out what their employees really thought of them. Police would be inundated with reports of ordinary citizens contemplating hideous crimes. But eventually we would realize that all humans harbor evil thoughts and an equilibrium would emerge in which we forgave bad thoughts that didn't lead to terrible deeds.
There's just one tragic flaw in Mr. Miller's doomsday scenario: so far, no one has forced us to voice our thoughts. We still control, via human judgement, what we choose to say. That is the role of free will and (hopefully) intelligence. Mr. Miller, to his credit, admits this:
People have more control over their spoken words than their unannounced thoughts, but occasionally most of us still say things we later regret. Recently, three powerful men have been damaged or brought down by their own utterances. Eason Jordan resigned his position as top news executive at CNN because he had allegedly said that the U.S. military was deliberately killing journalists in Iraq. Trent Lott had to give up his position as Senate Majority Leader because of his too-profuse praise of former segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond. And the not-yet former president of Harvard Larry Summers was forced to repent and apologize for suggesting that biological differences might explain the paucity of female science professors.
Mr. Miller might care to contemplate that people are, rightly, held to different standards of care in their utterances. What we say in the privacy of our own homes is one thing. The statements of a professional journalist might, with some justification, be expected to be based not upon wild conjecture and rumor, but upon fact. The reason for this is that a journalist's profession vests him with an apparent authority or credibility superior to that possessed by, say, the dude who picks up your trash each Friday.
You are more likely to believe Eason Jordan when he says the US military has targeted and tortured journalists than you are to believe, say, your friendly neighborhood sanitation worker. Likewise, remarks made in a professional setting are generally treated with greater gravity than those made over a few brewskis at Chuck-E-Cheese.
To make another point, of the three examples quoted by Mr. Miller, two (Trent Lott and Larry Summers) were heavily flogged by the professional media. The Eason Jordan story, by contrast, was virtually blacked out of the MSM. Until Jordan's resignation forced their hand, the media would have happily ignored the entire sordid affair.
Which brings me to an important point. The media have destroyed reputations and careers for years. But until now they have had a virtual stranglehold on the news cycle. Mr. Miller's complaint seems to be not so much that the news is getting out, but that the media no longer control whose careers are destroyed by a careless word or indiscreet action. I would remind him that, though the Clinton administration paid for 26 of the same type of ads highlighted in the recent Armstrong Williams debacle, we never heard a single peep about this from the MSM. But both Mr. Williams and Jeff Gannon heartily wish they had never heard of the Blogosphere. Whatever their faults, blogs span a wide spectrum of political beliefs and they're hard to control.
I think the world could do far worse than for people to start thinking a bit more carefully before they open their mouths. I found the following statement rather risable:
Unless we change the rules of engagement ambitious people will start being extremely circumspect in conversation with those they don't completely trust.
Since when has it been good policy to shoot your mouth off in the company of those one distrusts? I doubt General Mattis would recommend the practice (a name, oddly, that didn't suggest itself to Mr. Miller when writing this story).
And if, as he fears, the world is suddenly beset with a torrent of PC scandals via the Blogosphere, does it not occur to him that the natural consequence of this may well be a general desensitization to, and backlash against, such jihads from the public?
Mr. Miller finishes with this plea:
I plead for a new social order under which a few offensive spoken remarks, even if highly odious and taken in context, are forgiven. Most everyone has some fairly nasty thoughts and occasionally these thoughts turn into speech. If we allow a few obnoxious comments to destroy someone's career, many will avoid engaging in free-wielding discussions.
There is just one problem with this: Eason Jordan did not state an opinion, as General Mattis did. Mattis was pilloried for stating a personal opinion. To make matters worse, his statement was hyped by a biased MSM to make it sound as though his philosophy was something other than what he had stated in his guidance to his troops, although this was freely available to the media and the general public.
Jordan made serious charges of criminal misconduct against the United States military. It was not the first time he had done so. He then failed to back up these charges, or apologize for them, or produce the facts to justify them, or produce the tape to prove he had been misquoted.
Eason Jordan never had to resign. The problem with Mr. Jordan is that he refused to hold himself accountable to the same standards CNN tried to apply to the subjects of its news stories: transparency and accountability. A quick mea culpa would have stopped this story in its tracks.
He has no one to blame but himself.
UPDATE: I trekked on over to Mudville to harrass Greyhawk about something completely unrelated and stumbled across this interview with Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald regarding targeting of journalists by the military.
A must-read. You know I don't say that often. Go...
Posted by Cassandra at February 14, 2005 08:49 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/340
Comments
Well, in a sense, bloggers are a danger to "free" speech - especially when it appears to be defined as "We can say whatever we want, and you can't do anything about it."
However, bloggers are certainly supporters of responsible speech....
Posted by: Romeocat ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 14, 2005 10:44 AM
Cassandra, I didn't know you went to Chuck E. Cheese. Was it your deprived childhood?
Again, a good article and I believe you are correct when you state that the MSM is on the run because of the stranglehold they have had on the news.
All the blogosphere wants is the TRUTH, not spin.
How many times have you pointed out that the other side can be worth listening to if we can learn something from it?
Posted by: Cricket at February 14, 2005 10:51 AM
How about this:
"Absent absolute proof that every word he uttered was accurate, Eason Jodan shouldn't be saying them in an international forum. As with the Killian memos, it's not up to anybody else to prove beyond doubt that they're false (though with the memos that did happen).
Fake but accurate isn't a standard we can accept, despite Dan Rather's go at it. This seems to be the standard some are accepting here. Jordan can't prove the allegations, and he immediately backed off of them. Yet some are sure that they're accurate, so what's the big deal?
This is why Rather, and now Eason, are seen by some as victims of the right-wing attack machine or blog swarms, rather than as fools who got caught making bold statements that they couldn't back up. When speaking "truth to power", fake but accurate will get you burned."
Posted by: Brian O'Connell | February 12, 2005 09:06 AM
Posted here
Or an excerpt from the same site:
Here is an excerpt from another former colleague who was also in the audience at Davos. He hasn't responded to my emails asking whether I can use his name (his mailbox is full and I keep getting "bounce" messages), so I'll leave it anonymous and am taking out identifying information, but I think it's worth sharing:
"Well I am NEVER going to make fun of blogging again!. The meaning I got was that Eason was using the word "target" as pointing the barrel of a gun rather than the meaning that's been construed. What is amazing to me is that he and others did not do a more spirited job of defending the premise. ... Seems to me this is/was a perfect opportunity to push the Congressmen for an investigation.... Pretty sad affair all in all."
Rebecca McKinnon was there and she also knows Jordan since she used to work with him.
Posted by: Joatmoaf at February 14, 2005 10:52 AM
Mr. Miller is really doing some mental light duty here. Wasn't Jordan making a speech, or a talk in front of a group, or was it during a Q&A? Either way it was a setting in which one might reasonably be expected to prepare some remarks and give some thought as to what you might say. As opposed to shooting your mouth off at the bar.
Chuck-E-Cheese serves beer?
Posted by: Pile On® at February 14, 2005 10:54 AM
Good Lord, I hope so. I've never set foot in one though.
Posted by: Bush Ate My Soul... at February 14, 2005 11:03 AM
We mad the mistake of going to one a them. Afterward, I had to stop at a fabric store for a little pick-me-up.
One of the ladies who worked there commented on my harrassed-looking expression, and I told her where we had just come from. She reeled in shock, then asked, "They still sell beer there, don't they?"
The impression was given that she used to drink beer to get through the activites at Mr. Cheese's.
I ruefully informed her I didn't imbibe and she was highly sympathetic, allowing me to touch fabric and linger over which selections I wanted and had to narrow down.
The rest of the staff tiptoed and spoke in reverent and hushed tones, pointing at me and noting my shell shocked expression.
Posted by: Cricket at February 14, 2005 11:48 AM
I may go there when I have grandchildren.
I did not love my own progeny enough to venture there on their behalf.
Posted by: Bush Ate My Soul... at February 14, 2005 12:00 PM
Most Dr's prescibe Chuck E Cheese---- to parents who aren't yet convinced their child needs to be on Ritalin.
When my middle bro and sis in law were here several months ago with my 3 yr. old nephew, we went to CEC. I noticed then that they had a pharmacy adjoining where you cash in your tickets fpr prizes.
Posted by: CKC at February 14, 2005 01:36 PM
For the kiddos or the parents?
I tell you, I have never seen my kids go hyper ballistic until we went to CEC. My husband and I
cowered under the table and managed to get all four of them corralled, calmed down, and THEN we had to pass the ticket cash in booth. All helk broke loose again.
After they got their cheesy prizes (no pun intended), they were happy until shortly after I emerged from the fabric store, when one of the things broke.
Never again. I still twitch at the mention of the place. No parent, grandparent, caregiver or other adult who loves children would go into one.
As we were leaving, TWO birthday parties were kicking into high gear, with MOUNDS of presents for the kiddos at each table and the bodies!
All I could think of was Carol Burnett singing "Little Girls" in Annie and drowning her sorrows.
I truly understood that for the first time. You almost LIKED Miss Hannigan.
Ed Edd and Eddy is on. Okay, it is a guilty pleasure.
Posted by: Cricket at February 14, 2005 03:34 PM
What`s wrong with Chucky Cheeze?
If we had one here I`d go all the time.
The motto is "Where a kid can be a kid" it doesn`t say I have to stop being a kid at a certain age.
Call me crazy but I love Hooters™ too!!
I like going to malls and carnivals and heavy metal concerts.
Don`t hate me 'cause I`m beautiful.
Posted by: Joatmoaf at February 14, 2005 05:11 PM
Oh and I take Provigil not Ritalin :p ← that`s me sticking my tongue out at you guys : )
Posted by: Joatmoaf at February 14, 2005 05:15 PM
So it was fine when the MSM was crucifying people like Linda Tripp, because, well, she's just trash, but now the blogs are picking on fine upstanding professionals.
How did this comment thread get into Carol Burnett?
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 14, 2005 05:56 PM
jeff, most of the crew here started over on ScrappleFace, and the first thing you learn is that THERE ARE NO LIMITS.
You have just entered the Twilight Zone. Before you know it, you will be talking about Chinese Jewish Mexican-American lawn help and bootlicking, Chinese-toy-loving, Ayn-Rand worshipping minions of the richest 1%.
Bandwidth is no object.
Posted by: Bush Ate My Soul... at February 14, 2005 06:07 PM
Right, okay. Lemme see if I got this straight... Joat is a *Hooters* fan, but no potty-mouth on his blog.
Aviators, can't live with 'em, not supposed to shoot 'em down...
Cricket - ya need to come visit SWWBO and I, we'll fix that teetotalin' problem of yours.
She certainly fixed mine! he said, looking around for his Margarita...
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at February 14, 2005 06:57 PM
In Chuck E Cheese, stick to the beer, do not (I can not stress this enough) try the wine.
Or else you will be chucking cheese.
It's the screaming kids, that nasty rodent, and that gawd awful puppet band.
must... control... do not use claw of ...
Posted by: Purple Raider at February 14, 2005 07:11 PM
I'm hardly convinced that Chuck E Cheese [and their over the over the over the top stimuli] isn't a sinister brain child plot of post-birth-pro-abortion advocates.
...and I'm also suspicious of must how much time joatmoaf spent there during his childhood.
Posted by: CK [conspiracy theorist] Cat at February 14, 2005 07:25 PM
That about sums it up John.
Hooters = Good
Cussing on Site = Bad
I never said I didn`t cuss, I do but it`s very rare and I have to be mightily ticked off.
I never claimed to be perfect either although I try.
I try to do the best I can with what I have and hope that, in the end, I can say to myself "job well done."
That`s the best anyone can do really.
Posted by: Joatmoaf at February 14, 2005 08:16 PM
joat, you are a sweetheart.
It is hard to be someone who has turned their back on doing things and decided to do what's right.
I, for one, respect that. My hat is off to you sir, for standing up for what you believe in. No one but you can draw that line. It's different for each person.
You know I love you (and I mean that platonically and respectfully).
Posted by: Cassandra at February 14, 2005 08:26 PM
The feelings are mutual Cass. Keep up the good work and Happy Valentines day!!!
Posted by: Joatmoaf at February 14, 2005 09:01 PM