Criticism is also free speech
posted at 2:15 pm on June 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
After Playboy retracted its vile misogynistic fantasy about “hate-f***ing” conservative women, I wondered how long it would take before a clueless pundit bemoaned the criticism as an attack on free speech. It didn’t take long. Susannah Breslin at DoubleX laments:
Apparently, free speech is so over when the masses rule the media: “It’s only OK if I think it’s funny. It’s only OK if it fits my politics. It’s only OK if I say it is.” I wish Playboy hadn’t pulled it. Censoring the piece doesn’t make it any less real, any less politically incorrect, any less true. Attempting to police human nature is the real joke here.
No one infringed on anyone’s right to free speech. In fact, the entire process was an exercise in free speech. Playboy had every right to publish its vile fantasy, and everyone else had the right to (a) criticize it, and (b) suggest a boycott of the private enterprises that published it and sponsored it. No one “made” Playboy take down the article, except the execs who rightly got embarrassed by it.
Breslin apparently believes that “free speech” is limited to publications and institutions, and not to individuals. If so, she’s living in the wrong decade, but it’s not as if she’s alone, either. Whenever people feel the need to retract a poorly-written or poorly-conceived article, someone wails about “mob mentality” and how it spells the end to free speech. You can set your watch to this predictable reaction.
Well, believe it or not, but “freedom of speech” does not mean freedom from criticism. In a free society, everyone has the right to speak. Playboy retracted the piece not because of some unconstitutional governmental intervention, but because the article damaged their brand and their business. Had their editors been better at their jobs, it never would have appeared in the first place.
When the government tells people they can’t speak or write on a topic, that’s the end of free speech. When people criticize what others write, that’s actual free speech. And when publishers remove a vile piece of effluvium in response to overwhelming criticism, that’s the free market at work. It would be helpful if people who make their living on free speech actually understood those distinctions.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Is Old Susannah any relation to Jimmy?
Del Dolemonte on June 2, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Old Susannah has an update in her blog
http://reversecowgirlblog.blogspot.com/
Del Dolemonte on June 2, 2009 at 6:22 PM
from the people who brought you “don’t criticize Ogabe or Senora Soto” comes…you not liking a rape list is a “chilling wind”….
sven10077 on June 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM
I guess when all you have in your life is hate, you don’t know any type of sex but hate f*cks.
coyoterex on June 2, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Sounds likes she wants to hate **** someone.
Daemonocracy on June 2, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Free speech this sweet cheeks… who cares what you think?
Branch Rickey on June 2, 2009 at 7:11 PM
And can’t find any takers.
infidel4life on June 2, 2009 at 7:18 PM
How can I possibly take seriously the political opinion of a female that names her blog “Reverse Cowgirl.” Not that I have anything against that particular position. It just doesn’t seen to promise much in the way of intelligent political commentary. Hot, sweaty, sex, yes, great political commentary, no.
Buford on June 2, 2009 at 7:19 PM
I still haven’t gotten my retraction on Michelle’s hotness. Playboy offended me when they insinuated that she is attractive.
Terry Silver on June 2, 2009 at 7:58 PM
All correct. However you said this:
You put the responsibility for the terrorists’ actions on us. That is wrong.
baldilocks on June 2, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Print a story about hate **cking liberal women then watch the fur fly.
CWforFreedom on June 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Holy crap. You mean like even if somebody criticizes somebody else’s support of Prop 8?
radiofreevillage on June 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Criticism is one thing… persecution is another.
Persecution because of criticism is strictly prohibited under the first amendment.
Though some types of protest are allowed (and today necessary).
Chaz706 on June 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Conservatives don’t deal in hate and wouldn’t touch a liberal minger (see definition #3) in the first place.
csdeven on June 2, 2009 at 9:46 PM
You still don’t get it you ignorant turd.
csdeven on June 2, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Well I wouldn’t have thought someone could turn writing about sex into something really boring but this woman managed….hollow in the center, automated, robotic. I am sure after reading not very original writing, that she knows where to place all the batteries. Wonkette has covered this territory and better. If by better – means tasteless:)
Dr Evil on June 2, 2009 at 10:17 PM
The left has NEVER been able to understand the difference between criticism and censorship, just like they can NEVER understand the difference between any other different things.
The only thing they “understand” is that THEY are “right” and everyone else is wrong.
It’s narcissism as a political philosophy.
That’s why Breslin can be so upset about criticism of ideas she supports and so vociferous in criticizing that criticism without even noticing what a crass hypocrite she is. Even if you point it out to her, there’s only the barest chance she will understand the words, and zero chance that the idea will follow her to the next day.
Leftists are peculiarly stupid that way. Too bad the little whackos have so much energy – probably comes from spending less oxygen and nutrition on your brain.
Merovign on June 2, 2009 at 10:46 PM
When the government tells people they can’t speak or write on a topic, that’s the end of free speech. When people criticize what others write, that’s actual free speech. And when publishers remove a vile piece of effluvium in response to overwhelming criticism, that’s the free market at work. It would be helpful if people who make their living on free speech actually understood those distinctions.
Coolest smackdown evah! Susannah Breslin failed to research ‘Free Speech’ before spouting off. Her anger should be directed at PlayBoy, not ‘the masses’. Wow. Epic Stupidity.
TN Mom on June 2, 2009 at 11:21 PM
An extremely well reasoned post, Mr. Morrisey. Exactly on the money in every way.
JDPerren on June 3, 2009 at 12:44 AM
When a publisher withdraws a well-written article, laden with gold nuggets of truth, in response to overwhelming criticism, it seems that must also be the operation of what you’re here calling “the free market.” But what is “overwhelming criticism,” and what does overwhelmingness add to criticism? If overwhelmingness has something to do with crowds, as the reference to a free market seems to imply, then what do the howls of the many add to the good or bad reasoning of one man?
Kralizec on June 3, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Overwhelming criticism has less to do with people criticizing as with the overwhelming merit to the complaint. it is inarguably repulsive, and (to quote the supreme court) “without redeeming social importance.”
Playboy could have left it up and taken their lumps. They didn’t; they flushed it down the memory hole. Given the stands Playboy has taken in the past, their rapid action here speaks volumes.
sulla on June 3, 2009 at 1:42 AM
The media is doing its best to destroy free speech.
But whatever. Attack Americans.
amkun on June 3, 2009 at 3:21 AM
Well said Ed. It’s typcial that leftists, who always claim to be standing up for civil rights and free speech, don’t even know what it means.
Dollayo on June 3, 2009 at 6:05 AM
Isn’t that what they do to each other all the time anyway?
Kowboy on June 3, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Apparently, this liberal idiot doesn’t know the difference between censoring and business judgment. The government didn’t require Playboy to pull the piece. They made the decision themselves when it probably dawned upon them that conservatives buy their magazines.
If liberals want to protect free speech, maybe they can begin by speaking out against the fairness doctrine or McCain-Feingold. That would be a good start provided they had a clue what free speech was all about.
orlandocajun on June 3, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Good one, Ed!
That a hypocrite will act exactly like a hypocrite, you can predict with laser beam accuracy…..
Hypocrisy..is the lazy person’s sin, precisely because it is so easy to do, since all you have to do is claim to stand for something, but never really stand for anything.
Case in point, is, the so called liberal lefty that claims to
a) support free speech, but when it goes against them, they don’t support free speech,
b) support constitutional amendments, but when Prop 8 wins they are against it!!
So the question is, Ed, why do we even try to be “nice” to these people?
If I was as STUPID as the modern day hypocritical, liberal, lefty, I would want someone to do whatever it takes to set me straight, even if that means “beating the crap” OUT OF ME!
THEY ARE DESTROYING THE COUNTRY WITH THEIR LIES!!
WHY THE HELL ARE WE NICE TO THEM?!
WAR… IS STRIDENT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!
WE HAVE TO GET MAD AND FIGHT LIKE IT’S WAR, BECAUSE IT IS!!
BEING NICE, IS NOT A VIRTUE IN WAR, so get over it already!!
Mcguyver on June 3, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Check out:
Rules for Conservatives – a Conservative response to Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Tools’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2256403/posts
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
Given that Statists seemingly have no moral code, this would appear to be a good tactic for them. But in reality, they do have ‘rules’ – rules they want everyone else to live by, but not themselves – Statist’s are nothing if not hypocrites.
Therefore, we Conservatives should insist that the Statists ‘lead by example’ – live by their own set of stupid rules and admonitions.
If they favor disarming the law-abiding [gun control], they should first give up their guns and security personnel and proudly announce that they are ‘disarmed’.
They want to screw the achievers with high taxes, they should eagerly pay extra.
They want the rest of us to “go green”, fine let them give up their mansions and live in an Environmentally friendly cardboard shack somewhere first
If they want to suppress what they term “hate speech” they should be first to shut their collective pie holes.
Speaking of ‘Hate Speech’, take a look at their 5th tactic:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”.
Aren’t Statists supposed to be fair minded and only have good intentions, always whining about Social justice and other types of PC crapola? This one readily illustrates that they are just duplicitous liars.
Given what we all know about them, maybe it’s not such a work of genius to propose this as a tactic, seeing that Conservatives can easily turn this against the Statist – and have lots of fun doing it.
Lies, Double standards and deceptions are not only easy to ridicule but enjoyable to demolish. Conservatives are confident in their beliefs and in the truth. Unfortunately, we have to keep on doing this because the Statists constantly repackage their lies and ideas with different terminology – same excrement in a different bag.
Chainsaw56 on June 3, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Criticism is NOT free speech in a fascist society.
Daggett on June 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM
You gotta love Breslin’s followup … a playground snipe at Ed’s use of the term “effluvium” … wow, that was witty! I’m surprised she didn’t resort to that sophisticated rhetorical technique: “Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!”
furytrader on June 3, 2009 at 12:16 PM
By the way, you saw the same response from liberals when it came to the Dixie Chicks being criticized earlier this decade as well as Bill Maher getting his network television show cancelled.
Just because you say something doesn’t mean everyone else has to agree with you …
This was a great post Ed.
furytrader on June 3, 2009 at 12:17 PM
G-d, there really are some effed up people out there…
/Oy.
bluelightbrigade on June 3, 2009 at 12:58 PM
What a dumb f**k.
I hate dumb f**ks.
Saltysam on June 3, 2009 at 10:31 PM
reminds me of the celebrity who complains about being censored. . . . into a microphone for Entertainment Tonight.
Censorship. You’re doin it wrong.
dts-01 on June 4, 2009 at 8:26 AM
Aren’t these the people who believe that whites are “by nature” racists? Now, they tend to ignore any bigoted comments by non-whites as paling in comparison to white racism, but if they could be brought to the idea that everybody makes some bigoted comments, what are hate crimes legislation for?
To police human nature?
Idiocy. I can write three sentences and demonstrate either idiocy or–failing that, outright–if she wasn’t as vehement about the actual STATE trying to police human behavior, based on moral outrage.
Axeman on June 4, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Why oh why call attention to an idiot blogger whose hobby is apparently pornography, as though what she says about rape fantasy is worth the carpal tunnel risk I took to follow the link?
evergreen on June 5, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2