The "Yes, but" standard -- "Yes, I believe in free speech, but now's not a good time."

[madfloridian]

This is from an amazing column by Bill Duryea in the St. Pete Times April 20, 2003. We should be careful not to let times like this happen again.

The Death of Dissent.

April 10: The National Baseball Hall of Fame cancels an event commemorating the 15th anniversary of the movie Bull Durham, saying the vocal antiwar stance of two of its stars, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, "ultimately could put our troops in more danger."

I believe shortly before that the Tampa United Way cancelled an appearance by Sarandon because it might upset people because of her anti-war outspokenness. Yes, I found it. It was March 28, 2003.

The United Way group in Tampa Bay, Florida, had invited the actress, who has spoken out against the war in Iraq, to an event on women and volunteering to be held on 11 April.
But the group, which promotes community action and volunteering schemes, had begun to receive complaints about her involvement.

United Way of Tampa Bay chairwoman Robin Carson said the event had the potential to become "divisive".

"The focus of our whole meeting had shifted to whether or not we were creating a political platform for Susan Sarandon," she said.

"That is not our purpose. That's not what we're about."
BBC News

Back to the St Pete Times column.

The Dixie Chicks say they're embarrassed to come from the same state as the president and a nationwide boycott of their music is organized. John Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts and a decorated Vietnam veteran, calls for "regime change" in the White House and he is labeled a traitor. A Lutheran minister who dared to criticize the war in a California town with a large population of U.S. Marines is heckled by townspeople; "Why don't you leave America now!" one sign reads.

..."But then Maher offered this take on the hijackers: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building --say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

..."Maher apologized, but his show was canceled several months later. By that time, the public had already identified a new, and entirely contextual, standard for acceptable dissent. Call it the "Yes, but" standard -- "Yes, I believe in free speech, but now's not a good time."

Times are different now, we have a brilliant, charismatic president with a sense of humor. We are very lucky.

There is never a time though for the "yes, I believe in free speech..but now's not a good time" standard.

[leftstreet]

1. Good examples

[madfloridian]

5. That was a quick sign. How did you do that?

:applause:

[Two Americas]

8. how? because...

[leftstreet]

11. LOL how did you do that?!

[Two Americas]

14. huh?

You haven't seen those buttons? Everyone is wearing them.

[leftstreet]

12. I just found it online

Google searched it

:hi:

[madfloridian]

13. It was a perfect symbol for the moment.

:hi:

[ProfessorGAC]

2. I Was Taught That It's Better To Follow "Yes" With "And"

Rather than "but".

Because yes implies agreement, so if you're agreeing, you should only be adding something not subtracting.

Good finds there, btw.
The Professor

[elleng]

3. Quite right!

.

[madfloridian]

16. Good comment.

:hi:

[elleng]

4. "Freedom is hazardous,

but some restraints are worse."

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/153312904322907829?cookieSet=1&journalCode=elj

[Two Americas]

6. don't get me wrong...

"Don't get me wrong, I agree with you BUT..."

[madfloridian]

7. Heh heh

:hi:

[Two Americas]

9. happy thanksgiving mf!

[madfloridian]

10. That's neat. I am so not good at graphics.

I have websites of old pictures, historical stuff. But not good at creating graphics, even simple ones.

[madfloridian]

15. And Phil Donahue's show cancelled on the eve of the Iraq invasion

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/business/media/26PHIL.htm?ex=1228021200&en=8d56769146ae8e33&ei=5070

All kinds of excuses were given, but the only one not mentioned was his opposition to the war. Others were more manageable.

SNBC canceled Phil Donahue's nightly show yesterday, putting an end to its high-profile effort to challenge CNN and the Fox News Channel in the area of prime-time politically oriented talk.

The move had been expected for many months, as Mr. Donahue never generated the kind of ratings surge that MSNBC had expected. MSNBC plans to extend its program "Countdown: Iraq" with Lester Holt, now on at 7 p.m., to two hours to fill the time slot temporarily.

..."In the 8 p.m. slot, Mr. Donahue's show averaged 439,000 viewers over the past month, far short of his competitors, Connie Chung on CNN, who had 970,000 viewers, and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, who dominated the hour with 2.7 million viewers.

Mr. Donahue's show had been growing slightly over the past few months, and he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC, even the channel's signature prime-time program "Hardball With Chris Matthews." Mr. Matthews's show has averaged 413,000 viewers over the last month.

The difference, an NBC News executive explained, was that Mr. Donahue's show was extremely expensive to produce, because it involved a studio audience. The network was also disappointed that he was not more competitive with Ms. Chung.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. A quibble (i.e. my own "Yes But...)

In each of those cases, dissent speech was deplorably squelched. But these don't seem to be instances of government intervention, which is what the Bill of Rights explicitly forbids. The Dixie Chicks didn't go to jail; they got boycotted. (And I went out and bought their music, which I had never done before.)

I personally believe in the Fairness Doctrine, and would prefer it if broadcasting were more even-handed. It's not fair, but it's not unConstitutional either.

[madfloridian]

20. I was not speaking of government intervention...

I was pointing out that people and groups made life very unpleasant for those who voiced opinions in 2002 and 2003, and even after that.

There has been a tendency here to urge people not to be at all critical of any choices made by the next administration. I disagree with that. I think we should speak out about it.

If one is bringing in people who are conservative or right of center right, people who are not conciliatory to the everyday hodge podge groups of people in the party then most likely that is the way one intends to govern.

Just saying that there is never a time to squelch dissent. It's different this time, but yet again not that much different in the attempts at this board to make liberal or left sound questionable....just as the Republicans did for decades.

We have a wonderful man as president-elect, but he's in the bubble now and hearing mostly center right to conservative voices.

[Jackpine Radical]

22. I have advised a wait-and-see attitude, but

people are free to either listen to me or not. I see myself as counseling a course of action (or inaction), but have no desire to suppress anyone who feels the need to speak out, and I surely see the difference between what I'm doing and what was done to Sarandon, Donohue, and many others. I deplore the latter, but see no real remedy for it. I believe it has been ever thus. I think of those like Robert LaFollette who counseled peace when the nation was hot to get into WW I. He went to prison for his opinion.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Yes, I believe you have the right to free speech,

but that doesn't mean that strips me of the right to call your opinions stupid.

[madfloridian]

19. Yes, you have every right to call my opinions stupid...

and you often do that.

I guess it makes you feel better.

[South Side]

24. Let's Get Real

Everyone feels better when they post how they feel. It's threads like this that make no sense. What you're trying to do here is to get people to post how you really feel, not how they do. It's manipulative. If people want to wait and see what actually happens due to Obama's choices I would say they were logical and intelligent. People who want to guess, surmise, fear, hope or any display other emotional reaction regarding HIS actions will either have a group that agrees with them, or one that does not.

Isn't that just normal conversation? Stop being so......mad.

[madfloridian]

25. Yes, I believe what I posted. Welcome to DU.

I believe what I posted. I don't demand others feel that way.

There is an effort here to shut people up, and it is getting pretty obvious. I must be written up at the famous dummy site again.....so be it.

Manipulative.....what a damn stretch.

No more manipulative than your arriving at DU to lecture me about my thread.

:puke:

And coincidental, too. You think?

[South Side]

27. You Welcome Me By Vomiting

Nice

I"m not trying to shut anyone up, just commenting at the irony of this thread. What are you so mad about? We have a cool president. You agree. What's wrong that is worth being mad all the time?

We've waited a long time for the many victories we just realized. Don't worry I won't be back if this is how you treat newcomers.

[madfloridian]

29. Bye.

.

[madfloridian]

26. Ah, yes, interesting user name.

Again, welcome to DU

[Two Americas]

30. address the message

Speculation on the messenger's emotional state or imagined motivations is a form of ad hominem attack. It is not "normal conversation" nor is it conducive to a free and open discussion.

The OP is not saying that people cannot "wait and see what actually happens due to Obama's choices" nor that this would not be "logical and intelligent."

Disagree with the message. Keep your derogatory opinions about the messenger to yourself.

[madfloridian]

31. Thanks for the back up.

I have been written at the DUmmie site a lot lately. I suspect that is part of it.

Not much I can do about that.

[Hannah Bell]

35. DUmmie - what's this?

One of those places where the in-crowd gossips behind the backs of the out-crowd?

[Two Americas]

38. yes

There is a site where individual DUers are singled out for ridicule and hatred, and mf has been targeted by that.

[Hannah Bell]

47. high school never ends, does it?

jeez.

[South Side]

32. The message is about speaking out without an adjoiner

I spoke out about that message.

Conversation is a give and take, a back and forth. If we all agreed it would be boring.

Have no idea what DUmmie site that is being referred to.

We write from our emotions. Otherwise we'd be dull and unhuman.

Sorry to have upset your group here. I'm sure you'll carry on in your "mad" way. How that is not emotional is beyond the course of reason. Don't comment on emotions, only use it in your user name. Uh huh.

[Two Americas]

34. now the member's user name?

Now you are criticizing the member's user name?

[Hannah Bell]

36. you game = obvious. Put down the poster to discount the message.

Let's see, why would you do that?

Could it be - message board stupidity disorder?

[Lilith Velkor]

21. I give you a hard time sometimes, but I totally agree with you on this one.

As does the Constitution. :patriot:

[madfloridian]

23. Appreciated.

:hi:

[20score]

28. K&R. It seems as if free speech is only okay if it matches the listener's views.

[madville]

33. That logic is all around us

"Yes, I believe in free speech, but now's not a good time."

"Yes I believe in the Second Amendment, but with restrictions."

"Yes I believe in the Fourth Amendment, but we must be tough in the War on Drugs."

The thing about free speech is that only the government is prevented from limiting it(with "reasonable" restrictions of course"). Private entities, charities, the media, internet sites, etc, etc can limit speech anyway they want to.

[DUlover2909]

37. I have a step-grandmother in law with which I bumped heads over the Dixie Chicks.

I said, "I think that they showed courage to speak out about their beliefs."

She said, "If you don't support the president, then you don't support the troops!"

I haven't seen that old dustbag recently, but I would dearly love to tell her that if she doesn't kiss the black ass of our president then she hates the troops!"

I would say "black ass" just because it would piss her off. Sorry if I offend anyone.

[Bucky]

42. Well, if Barack starts to like it...

Michelle might get jealous. So there might be a big scandal, but at least if gramma plays her cards right, you'll be the grandchild of the new First Lady.

Um, assuming that you meant "has to kiss the president's black ass" literally. If you don't, then my speculations have been a waste of time.

Sorry.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. Don't confuse "you shouldn't say that" with "you shouldn't be allowed to say that".

I believe people should be allowed to sayalmost anything.

I believe that people should, voluntarily, refrain from saying most of those things.

If someone says something I disagree with, I will often tell them "you should not say that"; I will seldom tell them "you should not be allowed to say that" or attempt to coerce them into not doing so.

It is always a good time for freedom of speech.

It is usually not a good time for most possible exercises of that right.

[madfloridian]

40. Actually, here and at other Democratic forums right now...

there is an effort to stop any critique of anything going on right now in the new administration.

That is pretty much my point. I am not advocating extreme methods...please read my post again.

Those voices were silenced though they were right and sensible.

Now the only ones appearing in the new administration so far are ones who supported the Iraq War and were even hawkish on it. :shrug:

I see nothing wrong with questioning that. Our new HHS secretary tried to pass an anti-abortion bill in 1997 that was far more stringent than any Republican bill. There is nothing wrong with questioning that.

[Bucky]

43. Sadly, there are some people stuck in "Id development" who can't distinguish

between self editing and censorship. Ironically a lot of them are rightwingers who have no problem with telling me to shut up and sit down.

[Bucky]

41. I think historians are gonna look back on 2001-2004 as a time like the 1919-20 Red Scare

Or like the even more erratic 1950-52 height of McCarthyism, which wasn't even a response to a real threat (there had at least been genuine terrorist attacks in 1919 and 2001 to justify the hysteria).

It just seems like every generation or so, Americans have to lose their wits over some exaggerated demon and go beat each other up about it. I'm not sure people in other countries are really all that different. Countering mass lunacy like that is the unique charge of liberals in society. And how dull life would be without us.

[aikoaiko]

44. Help me out: How is critizing those who criticize those who criticized the war itself not a double..

...standard?

eta: If those who critize those who critized the war is supposed to be a double standard.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

45. Everything can be twisted into what it is not....if the intent is there.

.

[sutz12]

46. Right up there with "New Orleans is drowning, Bush and FEMA are blowing it....but..

but now is not the time to point fingers."

:shrug:

[midnight]

48. Why has there been so much caving into

this "Yes, I believe in free speech, but now's not a good time." Thanks madfloridian for pointing out this very important issue. Too bad I'm seeing this after the 24 hour rec. period, because I sure would of loved to rec. this post.

[skepticscott]

49. Very sad that so many people

still hear and use the term "free speech" without ever having really thought about or understood what it means or why it's important. Nat Hentoff wrote a good but neglected book on this very subject: Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other

[GrpCaptMandrake]

50. The trouble comes from

the "believe" part, before it does from the "but" part.

Subjecting something recognizable and real to a "belief" system renders the thing in question malleable and suppressable. I don't have to "believe" in the First Amendment. The First Amendment "IS."

The authors of the Declaration of Independence could've said "We believe these truths to be self-evident." They didn't, instead opting for "We HOLD these truths . . . " Some might call it a distinction without a difference, but it's a semantic shading that is stronger than simply "believing."

This is at least partially the effect that the Religion Industry has had on the Republic. The faith-based goonies have succeeded in re-framing issues of fact and law in this country to one of "belief."

"I believe in a woman's right to choose." Horseshit. It's the law. It's not bleepin' Tinkerbell and you have to "believe" in her and clap your silly little hands off to bring her back to life. "I believe in the First Amendment." WHY? It's codified, it's real and it's the law of the land. No matter how hard the floor-rollin', strychnine-swillin', tongue-speakin' fundies talk about "believing," many of the things they rail against aren't subject to their "belief;" yet we have a For-Profit-Only Media Complex that gladly toes the faith-based line so as not to "offend" the delicate sensibilities of these dangerous geeks.

Only by subjecting something like the First Amendment to the syster's slippery standard of "belief," may people then dismiss what is actually factual with a big, ol' nasty disjunctive "but.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
www.headonradionetwork.com
America's Liberal Voice

[TBF]

51. Great OP; wish I had found it earlier to rec it. I belonged to a political forum

in which the theme was "free speech" and the mods spent most of their time "correcting" the posters. I should've known from the get-go that didn't make sense. The entire premise was ridiculous.

[madfloridian]

52. It is important to keep speaking on what we think.

The minute Obama chose Rahm, many of us felt it sent a message to the netroots and grassroots.

It made me more determined to speak out, since I also believe that Dean's efforts as chair have not even been mentioned.

I don't criticize Obama, I think we are fortunate and blessed to have a Democrat as president. I just don't trust some with whom he is surrounding himself.

[Two Americas]

53. that blew me away

I wasn't particularly surprised that Obama picked Rahm, nor that Rahm immediately said to the press "we are putting together the administration and we welcome the ideas and concepts of the Republicans." Nor was I surprised that many of us had a big, big problem with that. What surprised me was the people objecting to us criticizing that - "now is not the time to be tearing down Obama" and "he is doing what he said he would do" and "we elected him, now we need to trust him and let him execute his vision." WTF?