Disagreements and Free Speech

I. DISCOURSE
For a minute, let’s dance around the more grotesque flaws of governments in the Global Tyranny Hall of Fame. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, Mao-ist China, etc. These flaws being mass murder, slave labor, and poverty. These flaws tend to spark intense emotional responses that sit on abstract, idealized notions of how life must be lived, rather than the elements on how life actually is lived, and unfolded. We can agree on the greatness of 'life,' 'liberty,' 'equality.' and 'free speech.' People can agree that mass murder and slave labor is wrong.

This is the stumbling block: People disagree when these abstractions are put into practice. They disagree on the cosmetics of life, liberty, equality, and free speech. The problem, then, rests on reality. The more we speak in abstractions, the less of reality that is exposed in communication.

Reality is shaped by what people do. The importance of words and abstract notions, then, rest on what those words and abstract notions encourage people to do. Ideas are nonexistent unless acted out. A desire to ask a woman out is executed by asking her out, a desire to win a football game is executed by playing better than the other team, and a desire to grow strawberries is executed by treating those strawberries in such a way as to promote growth.

Reality gets complicated, then, by opinion. We tend to disagree about the necessity of those very actions. We disagree about the tastefulness of approaching dates, about which team deserves the win, and that our time is better spent growing strawberries rather than blueberries.

These divisions of opinion rest on a fractured kind of reality.
Frederick Douglass' opinion on a right to property will differ from the slave master's opinion on the right to property. One will disfavor ownership of human being, the other will support that ownership.

Let's look at more benign disagreements. 'Free Market' supporters will differ about how 'free' those markets should be. Some will believe that corporations need minimal oversight so as to prevent corporate crimes and abuses. Others will believe that corporations can mind themselves, since their search for personal gain will, in turn, happen to help society. The opinions of these free market men will usually be shaped by personal experience and agenda, in the same way that Douglass' life as a slave will mold his opinions of slavery, and the slave master's gain from slavery will mod his support of slavery.

Then, let's consider two men who love car. One loves Ferraris. The other loves Lamborghinis. Why? It depends on the men. They made both agree that a car should be fast, and 'good looking.' But their definition of 'good looking' will vary.

M&Ms versus snickers, milk versus orange juice, BDSM versus missionary. Two lovers will break up because one wants to get married, and the other desires life as a single person, though both lovers agree that a 'passionate life' is the only life worth living.

Dissent is unavoidable when abstractions are put into practice.


II. POLITICAL REGULATION
In Castro's Cuba, legal political expression is shoved into a very narrow box.
Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992 reads [translated into English]:
"Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society."
http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm

Article 62 further reinforces that speech can only fit within the philosophy of a socialist state, and "violations of this principle can be punished by law."

Notice the abstract word 'interest' and the vague noun, 'objective' in Article 53. This can mean anything, depending on how the writers of the constitution write it to mean in law.
Therefore, should speech fall out of line with those definitions of 'interest' and 'objective,' then the violator of articles 53 and 62 can be prosecuted.

Therefore, even though an expressed idea, when applied, can help people more an any idea within the boundaries of acceptable speech, if that idea violates articles 53 and 62, then the speaker of that idea gets punished. The idea is squashed and shut into a prison. Many ideas that can benefit the society is null and void for as long as its implementation if prohibited in a physical fashion.


III. BOUNDARIES
The reason governments--or other organizations of people--cut down on certain speech: that speech is perceived as having negative consequences. A man stalking through the supermarket, shrieking, "9/11 was an inside job!" will be promptly exhorted out the building by either security or police, because he is disturbing the old ladies down the aisle who are deciding between Jiff and Peter Pan peanut butter. He is hurting business. Well, this is an easy scenario to agree with.
Screaming tends to disturb people. It doesn't matter if the screaming was about 9/11, black people, or peanut butter.

Now, let's get dicier. In 1919, the Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., decided in the Schenck v. United States case that speech should only be cut down if it creates "a clear and present danger" that the US Congress "has a right to prevent." He further contextualized this claim by stating that while a nation remains at war, some speech that is acceptable at peacetime can possibly end up hindering the war effort. The man on trial, Charles Schenck, had been prosecuted of violating the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 because he had led the effort to print, and distribute leaflets to thousands of men eligible for the draft. The leaflets called for the draft-age men to oppose the draft. Schenck was found guilty because his effort was seen as causing a harm of the USA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=249&page=47

In America, especially online, a lot of speech is anti-establishment. Just go to YouTube, comments on a video or news article, whatever. Just walk a street in a city with a diverse about of people. Friday, at the subway at Union Square, I saw a man with a cardboard sign hung from his neck that read, "Reinvestigate 9-11" Etc. He was handing out leaflets.

It continues to be legal for groups such as the American Nazi Party to write stuff like, "Only by degrees did the Hebes belatedly psych themselves up to sufficient hysteria. In a convulsive, screaming lunge they fell on Commander Rockwell. But he had the psychological advantage of a larger-than life personal courage. In an utterly one-sided battle too incredible for anyone who has not actually witnessed or fought through such a moment, he bashed and throttled his way into the shrieking crowd. The grasping, spitting devils fell on all sides, as the lone hero of the White race cut a path of blood and broken bones across New York City. They never knocked him off his feet and he never tired of splitting enemy jaws." And claim this to be the truth. http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/index.php

Book stores sell calendars that mark the days George W. Bush has left in office as the President of the USA.

A Columbia University professor, Nicholas DeGenova, said, in regard to the US-led Iraq War, "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." The Military Veterans of Columbia University called for the University to officially reprimand DeGenova. Dozens of Republican politicians called for University President Lee C. Bollinger to fire him. He still works for the University, and teaches several research courses in the anthropology department.
(The following are letters he wrote explaining himself. http://hnn.us/articles/1396.html)

In nations like Cuba, speech that criticized the establishment in such a way would be punished. Such webmasters, calendar-makers, and professors all shoved into prisons. The speech need not opposing the policies of the current government. It can merely fail to coincide with those explicit policies. Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas was arrested in his home country for 'ideological deviation' and sent to the prison. He was openly homosexual, and published abroad without official permission from the government.

America is a free country for as long as citizens are allowed to say and do such things.

Yet, certain speech does hint at shades of chaos and violence. Such speech can possibly lead to creating a "clear and present danger." So why continue to allow it? A man who wishes for "a million Mogadishus" has the potential to begin a riot, even if that was beside his intention.

So why defend inflammatory speech? Why be too free rather than too safe?

The problem is not simply that speech is suppressed, but that those with the power to suppress speech will abuse that power. The line between safe speech and unsafe speech fluctuates due to the actions and opinions of people.

Fidel Castro and his 26th of July Movement, which overthrew the dictator Fulgencio Batista (who had also come to power using force), promised equality and fairness to the average people of Cuba. And after two decades in power--and heavily restricting international travel and communications--this is how much the movement succeeded: In 1980, several Cubans burst through Cuban guards guarding the entrance to the Peruvian Embassy. This event increased an already tense national disgust with the economy. To deal with this tension, Castro removed guards from the Peruvian embassy, and soon after, loads of citizens were pleading for asylum. He claimed to be, at best, indifferent toward the exodus (remember the very beginning of Scarface?) In this event, the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, at least 120,000 Cubans embarked from the Port of Mariel to Southern Florida. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mariel-boatlift.htm) This freedom of transportation was only temporary, and only occurred because of various economic tensions within the nation.

The Cuban economy got so bad that in the 1990s, they had to begin using the US dollar.

In this nation, which shuts down on anti-establishment speech, the quality of life is far less than many believe it could be.
Yet, any speech is illegal that aims to improve quality of life but also goes against the policies of the government. In this environment, some good ideas flourish, and others are squashed.

I remember being in a high school weight training course, and a friend and I noticed another classmate struggling with the lat pull down machine, swerving back and forth in absurd angles, when you are supposed to leave your body stationary while working the machine. On retrospect, I believe she was goofing off, but at the time, we were certain she was just doing it wrong, and my friend walked up to her very kindly, and suggested she doing it the correct way. She snapped at him. He left her alone.

And we were hardly being snobs. When a person is using a weight lifting machine, it is important to use correct form, because incorrect form can easily lead to serious, lifelong injuries such as back problems.

This situation is pretty analogous to authoritarian societies where criticism is punished. Except those societies go further in punishing critics. Now, when that society goes forth in its dealings, those dealings with be undermined by a narrow point of view. The society screws itself. It is stagnant, and oppressive. Those who aimed to create a better world in that manner fail by becoming those they overthrew. This is the problem is restricting speech in a coercive manner. Good ideas get squashed in the name of fighting bad ideas.


IV. DETAILS, COMPREMISE
If a friend has a booger in his nostril, you tell him about it. If you think the person (s)he goes out with is wholly unsuitable, you will be inclined to say why. If you think the president's war policy is unwise, then you are inclined to say why. If they dislike the idea, they will disregard it. As simple as that.

Those with differing viewpoints can educate one another for the better by, communicating their views in an open manner. They only need to listen, and go back and forth, point for point.
Though I fail to consider myself a practicing Christian, I find parts of the Gospel to list wise ideas. Though I consider myself a free market capitalist, certain elements of socialism seem beautiful and worth considering. "Elements of making cake A can improve the making of cake B, and vice versa."

As the philosopher Christopher Julius Rock, III, once said, "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool." Because issues are more difficult and grey than the ideological boxes they are shut in. You can talk about welfare, and war, etc. But how are these supposed to be implemented? Under what events do you give the money out? When do you fight? When do you back down? Who exactly do you give money to? What weapons do you use in a fight?

We should work to free ourselves from abstractions, and dive into the details. Trotsky is not Stalin, though they are both communists. And Abe Lincoln differs from George Bush, and Ron Paul, though they are all Republicans. The Devil is in the details, and to beat him we must fight him there.

The primary roadblock to this kind of open talk is pride. When people talk, generally, they like to come out on top. As if winning the argument settles the issue once and for all. "I beat that Republican in the war debate; that settles everything."

So what happens when people focus on winning arguments with each other? At worst, they will attempt to shut each other up. The element of pride needs to be considered in every decision to cut down on speech. Because when pride pollutes the issue, we, the witnesses of the issue, focus on the abstractions, and then we trip on the ignored details.

To preserve freedom of speech--truly preserve it--requires self-restraint and patience for speech that disgusts us. Because speech that is venomous, inflammatory--That is the ulcer-inducing price of living in a free world. A safe risk. The alternative is a world just a little worse.

(And now I am speaking in abstractions. Hmph.)

Resolved: The Health Effects of Smoking are Outweighed by How Cool They Make You Look

Written September 2007

Smoking doesn’t make you look cool. It makes you look like a wimp.

I remember in high school, when I was walking home from the bus, I’d pass the Chick Fil’A, and the K Mart, and see the employees on their breaks, They were smoking. They huddled together, bent over, and, by the way they pursed their lips, they resembled little mice nibbling on lunch.

Little fucking mice.

Smoking is equivalent to thumb-sucking. It’s nibbling on a paper, ashy stick. When a person smokes, he lets everybody know how nervous and agitated he is. You never see any body smoke when they were already comfortable, only when they need some sort of comfort.

Now, some of you may bring up famous smokers.
Such as journalist Oriana Fallaci, prime-minister Winston Churchill, actress Audrey Hepburn, writer Oscar Wilde, and everybody’s favorite body-builder-turned-actor-turned-governor: Arnold Swartzennegger. These are very, cool, talented people who have been seem smoking many times. It seems, from those instances of them smoking, that the act can be considered cool.
But it isn’t smoking that made those people cool. Those people were already cool. They already made great accomplishments.

Cool people—truly awesome people—do what they have to do when they have to do it. They make eye contact. They have goals, and attempt to fulfill those goals despite opposition. When faced with opposition, cool people grab their balls, and say, "bring it, fuckers."

So when cool people are seen smoking, observers begin to see smoking as cool. And that was where the association began, the situation that created the myth.

Resolved: Suffering makes you legitimate

Writing November 2007

I’ll start this by reading a passage from the Aeschylus play, Agamemnon--
"He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget, falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God."

Real anguish isn’t BS like your parents not buying you a car. Real anguish fucks with a person’s belief in the goodness of life. People who suffered have the potential to better understand human nature. Through pain, they’ve been exposed to their own breaking points and limitations. That’s what pain brings—unbiased self-knowledge, where your façade has been torn away, and you must stare at your real self.

Look at the people of Liberia, they just suffered two civil wars in about 10 years. There, it is said that every family had a son that was part of a militia, and a daughter that had been raped by a militiaman. This was suffering at its most extreme. Child soldiers, cannibalism, 200,000 dead. When these people suffered, they acted in horrific ways, which highlighted their most basic desires and instincts.

If you have not suffered, you have not had the chance to mature. The suffering know how vulnerable their lives are, and what they themselves are capable of. They understand the world to be a potential sham. Therefore, rather than living in spiritual muck, some of them attempt to find a meaning to life. Those who succeed in this have the potential to affect the world more than any one else could because they have a full understanding of the world.

Look at people like current Liberian president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a former political prisoner who is now attempting to reform the country.

Abraham Lincoln, who dealt with depression his entire life, and yet saved the USA.

Malcolm X, the son of a minister killed by white supremacists,
Malcolm X who spent a considerable amount of the early portion of his life in detention centers and prison, and later became one of the last, great American heroes.

Finally, look at Cervantes,
who fought in a war,
crippled his left hand,
lived as a slave in Algiers,
then later, once freed from slavery,
became bankrupt,
went to prison because of money problems,
and had much trouble in living as a writer
until he wrote the legendary first novel, Don Quixote.

And in the prologue of this work, he acknowledged that his life of suffering shaped the story itself. This novel would go on to shape all of literature, and certainly influenced the style of our tongue-in-cheek literary group, the Philolexian Society.

Thank you all for listening.

Resolved: Hentai is sad

Written October 2007

If we wanted other people only for sex, we’d all just masturbate. Forget the effort of meeting people at nightclubs, forget spending evenings out, forget snuggling with them, or getting hung up on them. We’d all just masturbate, because interaction with human beings carries greater emotional and physical risk than masturbation does.

But, obviously, people get into friendships with each other. They pay to have sex with one another. And so forth. There must be another reason why people interact with one another, despite the risks. This reason must be inherent in human interaction.
I mention this because in the case of hentai, the masturbator is utterly removed from people.

There’s no such thing as human interaction, so obviously, this person is missing something other people get.

So, we must ask: what does human interaction get us?

I will begin to answer that question by saying that when I hang out with people I like, I feel a nice little glow. We see a movie, we get some coffee, we sit on Low steps to chat. I enjoy hanging out with them for the sake of hanging out with them. And when we leave each other, I feel that hanging out was good use of my time.

Sex, Adam Sandler once implied, lasts around 8 minutes. Friendships and other relationships last a little longer that. They are more substantial than that. But sex, at least, involves human interaction. If you have sex with someone you like, you’re bound to enjoy yourself as much as you can. The type of lover doesn’t matter--it doesn’t matter if the person is a fuck buddy, or an exclusive lover. What matters is that you’re comfortable with this person—if you’re comfortable.

Therefore, emotional interaction outweighs sexual feeling, even though sexual feeling is pret-ty fucking awesome.

Therefore, hentai is sad because people who love hentai miss out on the warmth of human interaction.

Resolved: The 21st Century Will Be Characterized by Unendurable Boredom

Written September 2007

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Philolexian Society.
Imagine that Santa Claus has crash-landed in the middle of Morningside Park. Blixem cracked two ribs, Rudolph’s broken his nose, Donner’s dead, and Prancer has forever lost the use of his rear legs. Santa’s in trouble, and he needs your help to save Christmas.

Faced with this scenario, you should do one of two things—either help them, or steal Santa’s bag of presents. The latter action should teach him about landing in Morningside Park.

In either case, congratulate yourself—you have fought against boredom. To fight boredom, you must adhere to the spirit of adventure, and the spirit of adventure calls on you to act. It calls on you to stand up, and do whatever it is you prefer to do with your life.

Those in favor of tonight’s resolution may think that past centuries were better than this one. You know, all the major discoveries have been made, and the major challenges have already been completed. The New World, penicillin, Civil Liberties; we landed on the moon. After all this being done, it seems that there is nothing else to discover, no more adventures to be had. It may seem to some that in order to function in any state near contentment, they have got to spend copious amounts of time doing drugs, drinking alcohol, watching TV. Copious, absurd amounts of time spent on distracting on them from their boring lives.

But you know why theirs live are boring? Because they’re not doing anything fun. Because they’ve not having adventures. Therefore, Tonight, I’ve chosen to dedicate my life to having adventures.

The 21st century will be characterized by a surplus of awesome because I live in it.
And you know what?—I have no idea what I’ll be doing after Philo, or tomorrow morning, for that matter. I may just sit in a chair, and read, but I will still emanate fun like an atomic bomb emanates radiation. Millions will die from exposure.

So, if you ever see me holding a big, red, magic bag, and passing out presents to people, you will know what this century has been all about.

Thank you.

Resolved: Seize the day, for tomorrow, we may die

Written April 2007

Fear. It's really fear that keeps alot of people. You ever notice in a seminar how someone will put their hand

It isn't my failures that bother it. It is the things I remember not doing that bothers me. The squandered opportunities.

9th grade of high school, I ran for the track and field team. The 1-mile and 2-mile races. Mid-season, for several weeks, I had a case tendonitis in my knees. At first, not debilitating. I always went to practice, and I went to a meet. But during this meet, it got worse. First, I ran the one-mile, and I did it okay, but the knees felt more stressed than ever before. A little while later, I got in line for the 2-mile race. The only other guy on my team running the race was a guy who did the long jump. He had no delusion as to succeeding or doing well. Coach just put him in there to have another guy from our school run the race. So it was him and me running. And the race started, and right there, the moment I began to run, my knees just screamed. Absolutely painful. After the first curve of the track, I was in the rear of the pack, and my teammate said,

"Are you okay?"

It was as bad as the tendonitis got. Because of the pain, I considered dropping out of the race; now, see, the 2-mile race is 8 laps long if you're running on a 400meter track. For most high schoolers, that race will go over ten minutes. For me, that race would go over ten minute. But, still, I didn't want look bad. I didn't want to look back at that moment and figure, "I pussed out." So I decided to run as hard as I could, for a long as I could, until, physically, I gave out. Until I couldn't possibly run anymore. I decided that if I was going to lose, I was going to lose as a man.
So I sprinted. And after the next curve of the track, I found myself. And, if you have ever been first place in a race, you know how mentally liberating it is. Being behind somebody creates this sense of being boxed in. But when you're in front of everyone, you feel like you have the entire track to yourself. In a race, there is nothing more amazing than the feeling that you receive from being in first place. And, oh my god, now, I cannot possibly give up. It would be very bad to drop from first to last in a race. So, I thought now I've got to finish this well.

And me and three guys from another school, we competed for the top three positions that whole race. One of them ran out far ahead of us all, so it basically and the other two fighting for 2nd and 3rd. So they passed me. And I passed them. And they passed me. And I passed them. The entire race, we practically leap frogged each other.

And my didn't knees even hurt anymore. I don't remember any pain at that point. I finished that race in 3rd place, and it was a personal record.

The way I ran that race is the way I would like to everything in my live. Certainly, considering an amount of moderation, but setting out to do what I need to set to do, and as doing as well I can. Even if I fail, I would like to go out in a blaze of glory. A blaze of glory is much, much better than sitting at home, promising myself I will be adventurous tomorrow.

Resolved: Parents have no business raising their children

Written February 2007

So, I’ll be talking out of my ass. I’ve never fathered a child.

Raising kids requires a bit of self-knowledge. You have to be able to impart some sort of wisdom to the kid. Even if they don’t surpass you financially, they can surpass you as human beings. They can be more disciplined than you are. Just a little improvement, in one area, the body of knowledge of the family collecting over time, by generation. If only that, then your parenting was a success. Then they can set it up so their kids are better than they are.
Please don’t have a baby just to have a baby. This isn’t doll time. You’re not pretending to feed a plastic baby. You’re not going to you have to be there, at least dreadfully conscious of long nights of the baby waking you up.

And every family requires respect amongst the members. The conscious and unconscious knowledge that person before you is someone with emotions, desires, and a brain. The knowledge that regardless of what you feel, or want, you have to understand that you’re not to undermine the other person. You can be angry at them all, ground your kids for a year, not have sex with your spouse, but in no way will you belittle their consciousnesses. That is love: respect. And it must be mutual. Forget wanting to fuck somebody, forget wanting to cuddle with your two year old just to cuddle with them. You have to be prepared and willing to stand with someone through second mortgages, bills, bills, bills, disagreements—whatever, as long as their behavior isn’t the self-destructive bullshit that will take you down too, which means that the respect isn’t mutual because they are not looking out for you. If there is not mutual respect, no love, then there is no family. It is easier said than done, but so be it, it’s really the only general way I can think of. So even if you don’t like your spouse, you had better respect them, and they you, if you’re both to raise the same kids. Then that respect will transfer to your kids.

Resolved: Saying something loud makes it true

Written April 2007

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Philolexian Society.

When I was eight, I had a fever, and when I had this fever I dreamed that a large concrete block landed on my face. Believing this dream to be real, I woke up, and ran screaming throughout the house, yelling at everyone, "I’m dead, I’m dead."

So, if it is true that saying something loud makes it true, then I am the sexiest corpse you have ever seen.

American Rhetoric.dom

Hello,

I wanted to bring a website to your attention:

www.americanrhetoric.com

A speech, 1st draft, written by a drunk man

Dear Leroy and Mei,

Our society places a high standard on looks and money in relationships. Yet, even the most attractive and richest people have trouble keeping married. Many marriages end in divorce.

That is it’s so nice that you too are getting married. I am not saying you two are ugly. Our friends will agree when I state that you are among the most attractive people around. For example, like Kobe Bryant and Lucy Liu. I mean to say that it is nice that this is an interracial marriage, and most marriages are between people of the same race. This highlights the fact that you two really love each other, which you still would if you were of other kinds of races, as long as you had the same personalities.

I hope the sex is good. They say black men have the biggest penises, and asian men have the smallest. If the latter is true, then asian women will have the smallest vaginas. I hope these circumstances result in a pleasurable wedding night.

To a point. I mean to say that I hope that his penis is small enough, and her vagina big enough that sex remains comfortable. If his penis is too big, or her’s too small, then sex will be uncomfortable. I have met a man whose penis was so large that casual sex with women became painful for the women. Many of his relationships ended soon after the first instance of sex. This resulted in depression for him. For the last two years, he has had trouble keeping jobs. In fact, I have not seen or heard of him for weeks, now. I am worried.

Yet, nonetheless, I hope Leroy’s penis is the right fit for Mei’s vagina. I mean to that they his penis is small enough, and her vagina big enough that sex avoids painful. However, I hope his penis is big enough that he remains proud and Mei’s vagina small enough that she remains content. A man wants a big enough penis to feel proud, and a woman wants a vagina tight enough to feel fine with how it looks. No woman wants a vagina with beef jerky flaps. No man wants a vagina like that, either.

Yet, those vaginae help during birth. They lessen the pain for the mother because of the child's big head. A flexible vagina will help the mother during the long, painful labor, unless she gives birth to a headless child.

I wish my penis was bigger. Sometimes, I worry about pleasuring women during sex. They say they don’t mind, but I know that some of them are lying.

I have never seen Leroy’s penis.
I have never seen Mei's vagina, Leroy.
I am only guessing. I hope you two have a long, happy marriage, until death.

With much love,

---------