We have recently decided to moderate a comment for the first time. Being advocates of not just free speech but offensively free speech this decision burns us like white phosphorous. I often say that if people aren't trying to take your freedom of expression away from you, then you aren't actually using it. However, we here at the Fringe Element agree that this is not the place for unrestrained purely profane textual outbursts.
We like to think that every time we use an offensive word it is as carefully chosen as every other word we use in our works of expression here. When we swear or present an offensive concept it is to either focus the attention of the reader on the emotion evoked by the idea or calculated to knock the reader off balance in order to shock you the reader out of comfortable ways of thinking, or the word may be chosen simply to properly express our own emotional response to a situation in the news. But vulgar outbursts by anonymous posters have no potential of adding value to what we are trying to do here. Though it pains me to say even that much. If this post was a purely vulgar attack from a person that identified themselves it might have value as an expression of that person's emotional reaction to our content, but as an anonymous outburst from the tubes its just the kind of behavior that would embarrass the poster's mother. Really, you should think of what your mom would say if she saw you filling the wholesomeness of the intertubes with your potty mouth.
Anonymous posts have been a source of much enjoyment for me personally. Contributing to a blog has given me the opportunity to be exposed to the kind of virulent criticism, madness, and ad homenim attacks that can only be generated by painfully sane and mundane minds. I am glad that the intellectual hurdles involved in operating a computer, gaining access to the Internet, surfing the Internet, literacy, and posting a comment don't include the ability to think clearly and express oneself. If they did, the log cabin would be a much less entertaining place.
So we have decided to continue rejecting anonymous profane comments without context as a matter of policy. This is because, without posting your name to such a comment, we are unable to verify whether or not it is an actual person making said comment, thus we do not have to worry about violating an individual's freedom of speech. So if you feel the need to simply leave a profane remark, have the character and gumption to put your name to it. Also, this type of comment doesn't benefit anyone, even the individual responsible for it. It doesn't serve to elevate the discourse, provide any more information that might be lacking from the original posting, or doesn't meet the aforementioned 'mother' criteria, it only makes the commenter vent some emotion and lowers others' opinions of him or her. If on the other hand, you feel passionate about a particular subject and are offended by our thoughts, conceptualizations, ideas, or writings, and comment in a form such as 'fuck you, X is (positive adjective) because Y', this type of comment would be acceptable. So, in summary, please try to keep your comments above the level of an elementary school ad hominem. Thank you for reading, and we hope that you continue to enjoy our content here at the Fringe Element.
First, a new study shows that half of all American doctors prescribe a placebo to their patients, and most of them that do, do not inform the patient that the medication will not do anything for their condition. The study goes on to say that doctors usually use pain medication, vitamins, or stress medications rather than the sugar pill one usually associates with placebo.
This throws into question medical ethics and the doctrine of informed consent. It would be possible to meet the standard of informed consent and still get the beneficial effects of a placebo. It also raises questions of further wasting money in the already inefficient American medical system.
This strikes me as similar to the use of tazers since in both cases a professional with a fiduciary duty to the people is using a device as a shortcut around dealing with the psychological difficulty's of the individual they are faced with at the time. It's lazy. It's laziness that has harmful consequences.
Second, the McCain campaign volunteer who claimed to have been attacked and beaten by a black man who carved a "B" into her face to signify Barrac Obama, admitted to lying about the attack. Apparently the woman is mentally unstable and probably did it to herself.
Lastly, we have the Maryland police spying scandal. The state police went to public meetings of politically left protest organizations and entered the names of participants in a database of persons suspected for involvement in terrorism. So essentially what we have is a law enforcement body labeling as terrorists, U.S. citizens who are exercising their constitutionally guaranteed first amendment rights without any evidence that any crime had or would be committed.
The ACLU were the ones credited with this story seeing the light of day because of an information request. This week the state started sending out letters to people who's names are on the list. There are varying accounts of what the letters say or what their purpose is. Questions need to be answered like; why were these people targeted, was it because they were politically liberal, why not investigate groups like the KKK which is already listed as a terrorist group, what prompted this spying, will the victims be able to see what is in their file, what criteria are used to determine someone is a terrorist, how does someone get their name off the list, is it possible to remove someones name?
This again gives an answer the question, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to fear?" These people were not doing anything wrong. One officers reports even showed that these people were not planning on doing anything wrong. Yet they were labeled as terrorists. At this point we still do not know why. Again, most people don't concern themselves with the draconian methods of dealing with suspected terrorists since 9/11. Except we have been repeatedly shown that one does not need to do anything wrong to be labeled a terrorist and be subjected to torture. But then again, this woman seems to think that protesters, or anyone that is vocal about their political opinions deserves to be given the third degree.
There are two issues going before the Supreme Court in the news today. The hearing challenging the Washington D.C. gun ban and a challenge to broadcast indecency regulation by Fox. Both of these cases have to do with the relationship of individual to one's government. And, in both of these cases freedom is being defended by right wing maniacs. The same maniacs who have been decidedly anti-freedom under the Bush administration.
It's difficult to defend freedom of speech when its offensive, and it's difficult to defend the right to have and use a lethal weapon without resorting to a slippery slope argument that evokes an opressive totalatarian 1984 regime.
Many of the Founding Fathers were philosophically libertarian. This philosophy describes the American way the individual relates to one's government. Power is vested in the government by the citizens and the purpose of the government is to preserve the rights of its citizens. This is the only way sovereignty can be legitimate. Under this philosophy, the rights delineated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not granted by the document but ensured by it. Every human has these rights, it is the purpose of government to ensure the freedom to use these rights.
Freedom can be a scary thing. Its hard to trust strangers not to abuse their freedoms and infringe upon ours, but that is the freedom that each of us gives up to live within civilization. As long as no one infringes on your rights, you do not have the right to be offended.
The national debate over guns is often depicted as having one side that declares, possessing guns is an individual human right, and another side that declares that guns kill people. I do not see these as counterpoints to one another. Saying that a gun kills is like saying water is wet. A gun is a tool for killing and a pistol is a tool for killing other humans. The point is so obvious that it overlooks a fundamental difference in ideology that stems from the Western fear of death. We believe that death is bad and killing is wrong as if they are intrinsic universal truths. In an urban life, separated from the terrifying freedom of nature, and surrounded by a comforting layer of concrete and glass it is easy to believe, "my life does not cause death," but that is not true. It seems to me that this is the same kind of foolishness that leads to veganism. Though, as much as I believe it to be foolish, it is each person's right to choose when it is acceptable to kill. And in a society where our killing is done for us by others, it is difficult to stop. I can only accept that by being alive that my life necessarily causes death, one day I will die, and something will eat my body.
All this wheel of life shit is too philosophical for the debate at hand. The point is that sometimes, killing is necessary. Sometimes it is necessary to kill another human being. For instance, in self defense when that human is trying to rape you, kill you, or severely injure you it is acceptable to use lethal force to protect yourself. Libertarian philosophy supports this conclusion and our laws regulate its effect by apportioning guilt. If you accept these two points, that there are acceptable times to kill and one of those times is to protect your person, the only remaining debate is one of tool choice and the question of banning guns becomes one of reasonable regulation. Should weapon choice be limited, and in what way?
Meaningful hard data is difficult to come by since through studies have been done by either side of the issue and anecdotal evidence can be pointed to by either side. In my recent posts on this blog I have referenced some stories from the past year that tend to support the conclusion that gun regulation either does not work or is counterproductive. One story noted a significant decline in violent crime in Detroit, every year for the last ten years since the passing of Michigan's concealed carry law. In the tragic massacre at Virginia Tech, the killer had been declared to be a danger to himself or others. Existing gun control laws prohibited him from purchasing a gun but he was able to anyhow, either because of bureaucratic bungling by law enforcement or through the negligence of the shop owner. Even more recently a gun toting maniac shot up a convent and was stopped from killing more people by an armed member of the congregation that had the lawful right to carry and had been a police officer.
One last point about the Second Amendment. The founding fathers were radical revolutionaries who had just overthrown their government through a violent war. They knew this was only possible by having armed citizens who could be loosely organized into militia when there was a need for extra military force. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Such an audacious quote brings me to the topic of freedom of speech. You are not really using your freedom of speech unless someone is trying to take it away from you. The gurantee of this freedom exists not to protect mundane and polite speech, but offensive, shocking, profane, and challenging speech. This is why freedom of speech means you do not have the right to be offended.
Speech is impossible to regulate. Profane language is derived from emotion and is meant to convey that emotional content. The power is only marginally in the words but it really stems from the emotional content they are meant to convey and the power we invest in them. You might as well attempt to regulate anger and criminalize rage.
Even if one could make a list of say, seven words, that must never be spoken and if that regulation can actually have an effect on stamping out those words. Other words will be granted offensive power by being filled with the same emotional content and social stigma making the old words meaningless and silly. Language is fluid and meaning changes in relatively quick time even in regular words. "Humbug" used to be a profoundly profane word and is hardly used today.
Further, such regulation is inherently self-defeating. Labeling certain words as taboo only encourages their use for the purpose of shocking others. Thusly, restricting a words use as profane, only enshrines its profanity, and further empowers it to do harm.
I am certain that this was the goal of the performers who used these offensive words and caused Fox to be fined by the FCC. It seems ironic to me that Fox, the network that curtailed political speech and freedom of the press through social pressure and jingoism in the frantic run-up to the Iraq war where the MSM failed its duty to the entire world, is the one who is fighting for a small victory for free speech. Then again, if anyone is going to go to court over profanity, its going to be the network that brought you "Who wants to marry a millionaire?"
Its really easy to make the argument about tolerance Romney is making when you are in a minority religion, or are being discriminated against like Romney is. I wonder if he, or the conservative evangaliticals he is courting with this speech, would apply the same tolerance to Islam or Rastafarianism, or Wicca. Their behavior in the past does not fill me with confidence.
As has been the case more times than necessary to enumerate here, the Bill of Rights in general, and the Freedom of Speech enshrined in the first Amendment specifically has come under attack in the years of the Bush administration. In a more local example, a blogger known as daTruthSquad has come under attack for revealing details of an underhanded land deal. The Township of Manalapan in New Jersey has gone so far as to file for an injunction to force Google to reveal the identity of the blogger in a tax-payer sponsored fishing expedition. Check it out, and here.
