Hey Simon, Mind Your Own Business!

The guardian.co.uk published an article yesterday calling for US free speech to be more tightly regulated. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/13/free-speech-us-politics-obama) In this article Simon Jenkins calls for more European style restrictions to free speech in the US. I gather that he would like to see the “hate speech” we’ve been hearing so much about outlawed. He calls for the reinstatement of the “fairness doctrine” over public airwaves.

Well, I guess my first response is, “Hey Simon, shut the F up and mind your own business. You don’t see us telling the Bits how to run their country so don’t tell us how to run ours!” 

Secondly, America has more than enough regulations on our speech as is. We don’t need more. If anything, we need less. We need for people to know they can express themselves and be heard. We don’t need them gaged. 

Laws and regulations like the Fairness Doctrine wind up giving equal weight to unequal opinions. Without such laws, positions are entered into the public forum and they are either accepted by the public or rejected. To force equal volumes of unequal ideas is ludicrous. That would be the equivalent to saying that for every room in your house that you have painted white you must have a room of equal size painted black. In a free society, you should be able to choose what you want, not be forced to endure something you disagree with. In a free market of ideas, the availability of a position will be determined by the publics call for it. Laws regulating it are merely one groups attempt to manipulate the public and try to push one position over another. 

This is equally bad for conservatives and liberals. As public opinion ebbs and flows, the minority position inevitably becomes the majority and vice versa. A position that you push for now to force the acceptance of your ideas today will bite you in the butt tomorrow when the roles have reversed, 

At the end of the day, if your idea isn’t gaining public acceptance you need to consider one of two things: a) you aren’t making your argument in a convincing enough manner. If this is the case, you will need to sharpen your thinking and make a better case for your position. You will need to explain just why it is that your position is superior to the other one you are arguing against.

Or b) your idea sucks. People have considered your position and have determined it to be unworthy, and thus have discarded your position. 

In the final analysis, people generally make the call on a “What’s In It For Me” basis. If you are advocating a position that is going to make someone’s life less desirable, they are probably not going to be inclined to choose that option. If you are telling somebody who has worked hard and made good decisions that you are going to take from them and give to someone who has done just the opposite, they are most likely going to tell you to go fly a kite. If on the other hand you ask them to help someone who, through no fault of their own, is experiencing hard times, they are quite likely to lend a helping hand. Most of us believe in, as Dennis Miller puts it, “Help the helpless and Forget the clueless.” 

Oops, I kind of rambled on that last paragraph. 

We don’t need rules and regulations on our free speech. We have slander and liable laws to keep people from telling lies and defaming our character. If someone tells an untruth about you, you have legal recourse. And just like them, you have access to the public forum. You can rebut them.

So, Simon, go suck an egg and mind your own country’s business. I think you’ve got enough issues to worry about without offering unsolicited advice to us.