That old, familiar song-and-dance
I forgot my cell today, when I went off to work. It happens, occasionally; the mornings are not my best time, and it's a small device, easily misplaced with little spare time to turn around and retrieve it once I notice its absence. So, phoneless, I went about my day.
And never have I regretted its absence more.
The CBC, like all media, was much concerned today with Ann Coulter. Scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa, she declined when her security staff claimed that 2,000 protestors were outside, and the event was unsafe. In fact, according to both police and the CBC reporter on-scene, the number was more in the range of 200 protestors, with a full thousand or so supporters there to hear her speak. The incident has opened up a rather useful dialogue on how far is too far, and how much free speech Canadians are actually willing to give people when it comes to thinks like expressing bigotry or hatred. Unfortunately, it's all largely been overshadowed by the way the media seem to consistently get this thing wrong.
It was censorship, they cry! Shameful! How can we be free if there are legal limits on our expression! Free speech, free speech, free speech!
Coming to the point where I really regretted my cells absence, the CBC call-in show Ontario Today was talking about this today. And by talking, of course, I mean getting it wrong. Caller after caller talked about how censorship is wrong, and we should all support free speech, and what happened at the University of Ottawa was just awful. And as I listened, caller after caller fell into the familiar pattern you see when conservative speakers are shouted down; 'free speech for me but not for thee'. Whenever they have something to say, it's 'free speech', but if you disagree with them, or protest them, or even sometimes just prove them wrong, then suddenly you're 'infringing on their free speech'. As though you were guaranteed not just speech, but undivided attention. And as I listened to them, with Rita Celli just making noises of agreement time after time and fretting about 'censorship', I could feel my blood pressure spiking. It was, quite literally, enraging to listen to them.
But finally, finally, with the very last caller of the program, someone got it right. Yes, Ann Coulter should have, and does have, the right to free speech. But so do the protestors. You can't claim that her free speech is inviolate while at the same time complaining about their expressed opinions. And she wasn't 'censored', at least not by anyone other than herself. She tried to use her right to free speech, and the protestors tried to use their right to free speech, and theirs overwhelmed hers. And that's fine. That's what happens in an open society. That's why you have the right to speak, instead of the right to be heard; because it is perfectly legal for someone who disagrees with you to talk over you, or shout you down, or put their fingers in their ears and sing 'la la la' if they want to. Free speech doesn't mean you get a 'turn' where the other groups have to sit down and listen quietly to you. Free speech isn't some sporting event, with clearly delineated rules, structured to be fair to both sides. Free speech is conflict, it's a blood sport. And if you can't handle other people exercising their free speech because theirs is louder than yours, and more compelling, then you aren't really in favour of free speech at all.
So thank you to that last caller, for finally getting it right. And along the way, protecting me from an aneurysm.
And never have I regretted its absence more.
The CBC, like all media, was much concerned today with Ann Coulter. Scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa, she declined when her security staff claimed that 2,000 protestors were outside, and the event was unsafe. In fact, according to both police and the CBC reporter on-scene, the number was more in the range of 200 protestors, with a full thousand or so supporters there to hear her speak. The incident has opened up a rather useful dialogue on how far is too far, and how much free speech Canadians are actually willing to give people when it comes to thinks like expressing bigotry or hatred. Unfortunately, it's all largely been overshadowed by the way the media seem to consistently get this thing wrong.
It was censorship, they cry! Shameful! How can we be free if there are legal limits on our expression! Free speech, free speech, free speech!
Coming to the point where I really regretted my cells absence, the CBC call-in show Ontario Today was talking about this today. And by talking, of course, I mean getting it wrong. Caller after caller talked about how censorship is wrong, and we should all support free speech, and what happened at the University of Ottawa was just awful. And as I listened, caller after caller fell into the familiar pattern you see when conservative speakers are shouted down; 'free speech for me but not for thee'. Whenever they have something to say, it's 'free speech', but if you disagree with them, or protest them, or even sometimes just prove them wrong, then suddenly you're 'infringing on their free speech'. As though you were guaranteed not just speech, but undivided attention. And as I listened to them, with Rita Celli just making noises of agreement time after time and fretting about 'censorship', I could feel my blood pressure spiking. It was, quite literally, enraging to listen to them.
But finally, finally, with the very last caller of the program, someone got it right. Yes, Ann Coulter should have, and does have, the right to free speech. But so do the protestors. You can't claim that her free speech is inviolate while at the same time complaining about their expressed opinions. And she wasn't 'censored', at least not by anyone other than herself. She tried to use her right to free speech, and the protestors tried to use their right to free speech, and theirs overwhelmed hers. And that's fine. That's what happens in an open society. That's why you have the right to speak, instead of the right to be heard; because it is perfectly legal for someone who disagrees with you to talk over you, or shout you down, or put their fingers in their ears and sing 'la la la' if they want to. Free speech doesn't mean you get a 'turn' where the other groups have to sit down and listen quietly to you. Free speech isn't some sporting event, with clearly delineated rules, structured to be fair to both sides. Free speech is conflict, it's a blood sport. And if you can't handle other people exercising their free speech because theirs is louder than yours, and more compelling, then you aren't really in favour of free speech at all.
So thank you to that last caller, for finally getting it right. And along the way, protecting me from an aneurysm.