House of Eratosthenes

Now here is an interesting proposal for us to contemplate, although it’s not being presented as a theory subject to our private consideration, but as empirical truth. It goes like this: Disapproval expressed by an agent of the government has a surplus chilling effect upon the target, above & beyond the effect from a private entity expressing equivalent disapproval. Therefore, anyone who is part of the (Republican) government should be put on a much shorter leash in expressing disapproval than, say, ~~radio talk show hosts~~ liberal bloggers and smarmy newspaper cartoonists.

Eschaton, a.k.a Atrios, a.k.a Duncan Black has done a very thoughtful job of breaking this argument down for us.

It of course isn’t strictly censorship, but any time a member of the government complains in this way, behind a government podium or on official letterhead, it does indeed get closer to official censorship. The point is to have a chilling effect…The point is there’s a big difference between someone like Bill O’Reilly saying “people should watch what they say” and Ari Fleischer saying it. Both are meant to intimidate, but one is an agent of the government and one is not. Both can have a chilling effect on speech, but only one has the official government approval on doing so. Censorship? Not quite. But creeping close to it.

Got that? Proliferation of a chilling effect, or an attempt to cause this chilling effect, potent or not, creeps close to censorship.

Atrios thinks a venture into that direction is worth pointing out, whether the journey eventually crosses the line into the umbra of actual censorhip, or not. Therefore, it seems a logical inference that the direction of this journey is subject to all of the moral disdain that would be invoked in response to real censorship — just, maybe, not as much of that disdain. It is the coercive quality involved when someone like Ari Fleischer notes that people should watch what they say. The “chilling effect.” That is the test.

That, and the question of whether the “watch what you say” guy works for the government.

But wait! Isn’t there a chilling effect involved when someone who is not associated with the Government in any way says that people should watch what they say? There must be…or else, why do it? Atrios says “The point is to have a chilling effect.” That is his test. But Bill O’Reilly wants to have a chilling effect too, does he not?

I’m afraid the distinction between O’Reilly and Fleischer has escaped me. One works for the government and one does not, that I get…but how is this made meaningful? If Bill O’Reilly thinks I should watch what I say, here at the blog nobody reads, I just might listen to him. The potential is there. Similarly, if the White House Press Secretary tells me to watch what I say, I just might tell him to stick it and keep talking; bloggers do so all the time. So I guess I need a little more foundation to the argument that these two kinds of “censorship” reside in somewhat different neighborhoods. Having trouble seeing it, from where I sit.

Now, if the the White House uses some kind of police power over me, THEN we can talk. That would be categorically different, since, of course, Bill O’Reilly can’t do anything to me. So let’s go back to Chapter One Verse One. Let’s find out what was done. What did the Joint Chiefs of Staff do to drum up this cry about censorship? — Or, rather, this cry about creeping toward censorship?

They wrote a letter. All six of the Chiefs of Staff put their signatures on the letter, and the letter was written to protest a cartoon (right). The Washington Post, today, put up a slightly edited version of what they received from the Chiefs:

We were extremely disappointed to see the Jan. 29 editorial cartoon by Tom Toles.

Using the likeness of a service member who has lost his arms and legs in war as the central theme of a cartoon was beyond tasteless. Editorial cartoons are often designed to exaggerate issues, and The Post is obviously free to address any topic, including the state of readiness of the armed forces. However, The Post and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to readers and to The Post’s reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who volunteered to defend this nation and, as a result, suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds.

Those who visit wounded veterans in hospitals have found lives profoundly changed by pain and loss. They also have found brave men and women with a sense of purpose and selfless commitment that causes battle-hardened warriors to pause.

While The Post and some of its readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, these men and women and their families are owed the decency of not having a cartoon make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices.

As the joint chiefs, we rarely put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered.

Now because the Joint Chiefs took the extraordinary step of signing off chief-by-chief on a letter on Department of Defense letterhead, we are being requested to accept this new rule from liberal-land that this creeps “closer to official censorship” and is therefore to be regarded as a clarion call. Our rights are in danger. The Washington Post evidently agrees, having stated in their comments about the episode that “a cartoonist works best if he or she doesn’t feel there’s someone breathing over their shoulder,” according to Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt. Now, that is an interesting perspective. A cartoonist puts into pictorial form an opinion that is solid enough to appear in the pages of a major newspaper that will ultimately be seen by millions. But in forming that opinion and translating it into pictorial form, the cartoonist works best if he doesn’t feel that it will be exposed to the harsh scrutiny of…anyone.

Best of the Web, today, makes exactly the same point I’m making.

The equation of criticism with censorship is a tiresomely common left-wing trope. Of course, if Black’s [Atrios’] own comments are meant to be hortatory, his “point is to have a chilling effect” too. He would like the Joint Chiefs to keep their views to themselves. Does it matter, as Black suggests it does, that the Joint Chiefs are government officials? Only if you think that they have some way of enforcing their views, or that the Post is going to be intimidated by them, which seems about as likely as the Joint Chiefs being intimidated by a left-wing blogger.

And therein lies the entire issue, since I’m sure Atrios’ response is going to be some variation of “well I don’t work for the government, and they do.” He has left himself in a poor position to take advantage of any other flavor of intellectual defense; The Joint Chiefs have engaged in “censorship” by deploring the cartoon, and Duncan Black & Co. have engaged in “anti-censorship” by sounding Chicken-Little alarms about what the Joint Chiefs wrote. It’s valid to hold the opinion that the association with the Government, is a critical and defining distinction. My beef with Atrios is, that he isn’t consistent with this distinction. He says the “point is to have a chilling effect.” Which is it? What’s the acid test? Working for the government, or engaging in an attempt to coerce someone to keep their point-of-view to themselves?

Actually, if the latter of the two has anything to do with “creeping toward censorship,” I would have to regard the Joint Chiefs of Staff as having failed in their mission, since the cartoon has already appeared and no coercing by anyone is ever going to make it go away. Protesting the political use made from the injured service members by this cartoon, however, seems to be in keeping with the mission of the Department of Defense, whether it’s in the “censorship” business or not. The Joint Chiefs are the generals who run the military. They have command authority over the general officers, and through them, over the senior enlisted personnel who are charged to look after the day-to-day well-being of the rank-and-file.

If I had lost four limbs in Iraq, and had someone specifically tasked with looking after my day-to-day well-being, I’d sure want them to engage in a “chilling effect” the first time a cartoon exploited my condition so cheaply for someone else’s political agenda. And had no chilling been forthcoming, I would want that person to resign and make room for someone else more effective. Obviously, the need is there. Would Duncan Black prefer that some private enterprise be put in charge of writing the protest letters that I would want written? If so, who would pay for that? And under what moral underpinning could the U.S. Government abdicate this responsibility to me, leaving it for another entity to handle, after having called me into the service that cost me my limbs? Would not the Government’s silence on the issue be interpreted as an endorsement of Mr. Toles’ cartoon and his illustration of my injuries? It would be awfully hard for me not to take it that way.

Moral of the story: Free speech means free speech for everyone, whether some of us work for a (Republican) government or not — since if any among us are denied it, then all of us are. Lately, that seems to be something that conservatives get, and liberals don’t. And it looks more and more as if that’s the case, the more I see of this “common left-wing trope.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Anti-CensorshipThursday, February 2nd, 2006

Anti-Censorship
Thursday, February 2nd, 2006