tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post374788926624093207..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Al Gore, Al Jazeera, and the Gray LadyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-51898496985654867752013-02-11T10:06:57.113-05:002013-02-11T10:06:57.113-05:00As for using the Sullivan decision to defend indiv...As for using the Sullivan decision to defend individuals accused of "Islamophobia" or any other kind of "hate speech," the first premises to discard are the notions of "Islamophobia" and "hate speech." "Islamophobia" is a deprecatory term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence anyone critical of Islam's demonstrable totalitarian nature and the horrendous crimes the ideology condones and sanctions and regularly committed in Islam's name. One weblog's motto is "It isn't Islamophobia if they're trying to kill you," meaning that one can fear an ideology that pursues one's death or conquest. One can develop a "phobia" for such an ideology and its promulgators and followers. As for "hate speech," the implication is that it is a crime to "hate." But hate per se can be irrational or rational. Hate is a response to something that one considers inimical to one's life and values. <br /><br />But the facts of reality are the final proof of whether or not something is inimical to one's life and values. David Duke, a racist, can hate blacks and ignore the fact that blacks are not intrinsically inimical to his life, yet still have the right to express that hate. His hate does not harm me or any blacks, and he can be called a malicious fool. I can hate Islam because I know from my own, reality-based observations that it is demonstrably inimical to my life and values, and reserve the right to express that "hate" in my writing and also my actions, such as boycotting Muslim-owned enterprises or refusing to deal with individual Muslims (which, in practice, would simply be an expression of contempt for the individual, not hatred). What the terms "Islamophobia" and "hate speech" attempt to do is disarm individuals and bolster the equally fallacious notion of "hate crimes." The terms themselves are defamatory, but our culture sanctions them because Kant has more or less corrupted the culture and few individuals grasp the defamatory nature of the terms. The criminalization of an action, and calling it "hate speech," can only result in the criminalization of thought. And the criminalization of thought is what is being taught in American schools now. Which is another reason the government should be gotten out of education, the sooner the better.<br />Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-91698899842671013672013-02-11T09:41:04.160-05:002013-02-11T09:41:04.160-05:00Ed: The Sullivan decision was a proper one; the co...Ed: The Sullivan decision was a proper one; the court was correct in concluding that one can't get inside an individual's head to examine an intent or motive for writing something that consequently damages another individual's or an organization's reputation. The decision was based on a single episode of alleged defamation. But there is an epistemological gray area that hasn’t been explored yet. For example, the New York Times has for a very long time, as I mentioned in the column, colored its news reportage about Israel with a bias that virtually condemns Israel for not succumbing to the Palestinian "two-state" idea (one which, in fact, would allow her enemies to better attack her; and that issue side-steps the fact that living "Palestinians" are not the ones who were "robbed" by Israel of "their" lands). <br /><br />If one reads a succession of articles in the Times over a period of years that contains this demonstrable bias, then one could say that one has evidence of malice inside the paper's editor's and reporter's heads, because the statements are contrary to demonstrable facts about the Palestinians and Israel, and so "malice" was intended. In defense of this bias, the paper could claim that it was expressing an "opinion," and that its bias was subjective according to how the paper "understood" the facts. It could also claim that the "demonstrable bias" argued by a prosecutor was also an opinion and subjective, and that the demonstrable facts, as well, are open to subjective interpretation. In short, no one can know anything for certain, and all statements are politically motivated to press a particular end. That's where things stand now. And it's here that one encounters the subjectivist's circular reasoning from which there is no escape if the courts uphold that kind of defense. A rock can be a rock and not be a rock at the same time, or A can be A and non-A at the same time. Reality is and isn't at the same time. <br /><br />The Sullivan decision I think was indeed a precedent, one which had consequences that weren't intended by the Court, one completely misunderstood by modern journalists and newspapers. It allowed journalists and the papers to think that they could say anything they wanted about anyone or anything without fear of being held accountable for libelous or slanderous or factually untrue statements. Reality is what they wish it to be. In this instance, for example, Israel can exist peacefully and coexist with a Palestinian state whose leaders are demonstrably and provably dedicated to Israel's destruction (and that's a matter of record in the statements of Palestinian and Islamic spokesmen). But, to the New York Times, such statements are merely taken "out of context," they're just statements made for PR reasons, and mean nothing. Well, if they mean nothing, why are the statements made? Why not just say nothing? The Times would reply it was their freedom of speech, that the spokesmen believe their cause is just. <br /><br />There's no winning an argument with a subjectivist or a relativist because such a person rejects reality as a matter of "principle." <br />Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-77815590973201360982013-02-11T08:42:27.692-05:002013-02-11T08:42:27.692-05:00Factual error, content defamatory...are insufficie...<b>Factual error, content defamatory...are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved.</b><br /><br /><i>"[T]he Court...ruled that malice could not be proven because no one can get inside a reporter's head to prove that he had malicious intent."</i><br /><br />I wonder if the Sullivan case might be cited as a precedent in defending modern-day "hate-speech" criminals who have had extra time tacked onto their sentences for their "speech crimes." Or are reporters given special consideration and immunity for <i>their</i> speech? Are there two Constitutions--one for journalists, another for the common folk? How does one "get in a defendant's head" to prove "actual malice," when one cannot get into the head of another human who happens to write for a famous newspaper?Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06188622297744653212noreply@blogger.com