In his recent blog entry about me, he’s even gone so far as to say that I don’t believe in free speech. You can read about it here. For the record, his assertions are incorrect, facile, and pedestrian. He has made assumptions that he should not have made, but to be fair to him, I have not yet had a chance to correct them or clarify my position.
Before I do so, however, I am simply asking him to engage this debate with some honesty and maturity. So far, even though I have asked the question in two or three different ways, he refuses to answer the question.
Basically, I asked him if his position on free speech were to change if, instead of a religious figure being maliciously defamed, the same tactic were to apply to someone he loved or cherished. My point was a simple one: libertarians are rarely put into a situation where someone very close to them is publicly skewered. The reason for that, of course, is that few of them can get past their philosophical nihilism and meaninglessness to their existence. They sit there in their pompous “free speech” chairs clucking at their opponents and pontificating to them about the great virtues of “free expression”. And yet, if, say, someone were to carve a statue of their mother or wife, spread elephant shit all over it (as they did with Our Lord’s Mother), put it out in display and call it “art”, would they be so as accommodating to the principle of “free expression”?
It’s a simple question, really. I simply want to know if Rob Breakenridge is going to hold firm to his absolute belief in free speech. Either the answer is yea or it’s nea. It’s not a difficult question, Rob. Just answer it.
I brought this scenario up to Rob – not to argue for or against the merits of freedom of speech, but to show him how so hypocritical those who are libertarian “free speechers” truly are.
And even if Rob were to say that he would have no legal problem with someone smearing elephant dung over a resemblance of his mother or that he would not resort to violence to correct the offender, it is not difficult to see how some of his more passionate friends might not want to be lumbered with the title “candy ass” – which, of course, proves my point.
And what is the point? When you cross the boundaries of NATURAL JUSTICE, you cannot expect EVERYONE to respect the principle of “free speech”.
If you come up to a man and insult his wife to his face, what fool would suppose that, in flattening the offender, such a man doesn’t believe in free speech?
A libertarian is like the sharp-tongued little pest in the playground: he demands the right to insult, berate, and offend well beyond the natural boundaries of justice, and then becomes indignant when he gets a bloody nose from someone who’s had enough of his bleatings. And what is worse, he is totally dumfounded to see the rest of the kids cheering at his pummelling, even though he’s just exercising his “right to free speech”.