More on recent free speech controversies. Apparently, the President of Bard College doesn't think inviting controversial national leaders to give a talk at one's university has anything but entertainment value:
"This was not an academic exercise," he said, referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech. "This was show business."
Unclear about that ... given the wild over the top comments against him, including by the college's own President (maybe out of fear) during the introduction. One might even think hearing from foreign leaders would be inherently useful. But, hey, he's a demon, right?
There is also the MoveOn ad, which the public editor of the NYT criticized both on the grounds of the paper's ad rate policy (the paper said it made an error) and because it violated its policy on accepting ads with personal attacks. "We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature." And, the public editor then went on to analyze the situation:
By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the "liberal media."
And, to suggest what is/should be the NYT policy:
a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues.
First, it does annoy when people have to repeatedly (and this includes various judges in free speech opinions) underline how they don't like the speech, but hey, the First Amendment works that way. [Or, some other reason, like Congress shouldn't be wasting its time doing this etc.] A blatant case was the Justice Kennedy's concurrence in the first flag burning case. Or, as the link above suggests, the college president who introduced the Iranian president.
So, I'm not a big one really to analyze the MoveOn ad, making sure to tell you that "hey, I didn't really like the ad but," in part since it shouldn't matter. But, I guess, it does, so people have to protect themselves. Second, it is unclear how horrible the ad was, including pragmatically. It might be that being so worried about it (including the continual need to assure people it is bad) helps the Republicans by keeping what otherwise would not be in public view that deeply.
After all, not everyone eats up this stuff as much as some of us. There is an insider bias there. Next, people have noted that MoveOn has had a nice increase in donations of late ... Atrios wondered at one point if perhaps more people can criticize him. Next, some libs in Congress have told people in the know that they need to be pushed. If they are for ending the occupation, this allows them to criticize something. It moves the line so to speak if this, not them is the issue. This is often the case for advocacy groups who are so "bad" and "controversial."
Finally, there is the ad itself. I linked it. Someone noted that other than the "name calling," that others have said basically the same thing. Its website backs up the allegations. I read a Balkinization criticism of the ad recently that started with a comment that a veteran of Iraq (!) raised the issue to him at some point long before the ad. In one of the comment streams, a veteran mentioned a deep respect for the military, but was quite willing to not deify them. The vet did think the general politicized the war to the deep detriment of the troops, violating his oath.
But, we don't hear much about these people ... ala Rush only "phony" soldiers strongly criticize the war, including in personal terms.* What is this horrible name calling instance? One word? The public editor underlined the problem here -- but, the general is dedicated with a row of ribbons!!!! How DARE someone suggest (with facts to support it) that he "betrayed" us. BTW, John Kerry was vilified for suggesting his own -- because of policy out of their immediate control -- did bad things. IOW, he could say "us." The "us" here is said by a civilian. The betrayal of one's own, that is, is simply not there.
If MoveOn is right (the professor at Balkanization suggested the general deluded himself ... if delusion leads to a parent causing a child to be hungry, does it not mean betrayal? with this civilian leadership, if the military leadership is willing to delude themselves, they deserve our ire), betrayal can be shown. Sorry for expected a bit more honor from my leaders, civilian and military. Put that aside. Think the ad was pragmatically bad? Fine enough. Don't give me this rows of ribbon shit. Respected general. King and country. Powell served our country, until that day in the UN. Does his service save his dishonor?
BTW, the people didn't change their sentiments on the occupation, even after the general with all those ribbons tried to promote the company line with spun facts. This, not MoveOn, is the ultimate story. The rest is detail.
---
* Glen Greenwald thinks Democrats need to support a censure resolution against Rush's comments. I find this takes us down a bad path, one that I simply don't think will end nicely. Oh, and the whole tit for tat shit sickens me. It helps that I think it is pragmatically a bad idea. My nausea at such tactics generally factors that in too. See his post yesterday and comments thereto.
[As to the title of this post, we ultimately need to be concerned with the spirit of our freedoms. GG was sure to remind that a resolution is not a governmental act officially abridging speech. It just dishonors it by selectively targeting criticism. Dare one say betrays it? No, that would be too neat, perhaps.]