“I am in favor of some degree of government censorship”
In his 1980 graduate thesis at the University of Texas at Austin, John Brennan denied the existence of “absolute human rights” and argued in favor of censorship on the part of the Egyptian dictatorship.
“Since the press can play such an influential role in determining the perceptions of the masses, I am in favor of some degree of government censorship,” Brennan wrote. “Inflamatory [sic] articles can provoke mass opposition and possible violence, especially in developing political systems.”…
Brennan ultimately concluded that human rights do not exist because they cannot be “classified as universal.”
“The United States should be expected to pass a more strict human rights test [than Egypt] because its environment is more conducive to the realization of those rights,” Brennan concluded. “An economic comparison between Egypt and one of its wealthy Arab neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait would be equally unfair due to the wealth of those countries.”
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
Welcome to Goebbelsland
Schadenfreude on January 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM
Eh, big deal. Most of the so-called conservatives here agree with him, even if they wouldn’t put it in those exact words.
Dante on January 23, 2013 at 2:19 PM
I feel he’s too liberal, I like the EU, believe in licensing and and overseeing journalists. Human rights/civil rights are dangerous things, and should only be used in a responsible manner, under close supervision, otherwise who knows what might happen. Some wild-eyed fanatic like Rand Paul or Sarah Palin might get too many votes!
JFKY on January 23, 2013 at 2:20 PM
To some extent you’re right….there is no universal self-evident defintion of “human right”. Your rights are a positivist concept, under the convenient fiction of “Creator-endowed”, at least in this country.
Is there some problem with that Dante? Or do you believe you can demonstrate some inherent human right? I await, eagerly, your history/sociology lesson and evidence.
JFKY on January 23, 2013 at 2:22 PM
If, according to Brennan the degree of wealth, tradition, institutions, and development are the what allows for more freedom in a country, why is he aiding and abetting an administration which is continually and constantly infringing on the rights held by the people?
Or is that the reason Obama is working so hard to trash all four, so that it more conforms to the society in which he can defend infringing them with a straight face?
Dusty on January 23, 2013 at 2:24 PM
A grad thesis from 30+ years ago? Not much to go on.
As to censorship: it’s unclear what he meant but the Courts have upheld censorship, i.e., prior restraint, when there’s a danger of imminent violence occurring as a result of that speech. That is, for example, the Klan can be stopped from marching through a neighborhood if there’s an imminent threat of violence.
There’s always a balance between liberty and order.
Still, I don’t see how a 30 year old grad thesis tells us much about a person.
SteveMG on January 23, 2013 at 2:27 PM
I swear, we are living out an Ayn rand novel.
how many of her characters (the bad guys) also claimed that there were no absolutes?
UltimateBob on January 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM
i don’t agree with him. He believes in the supremacy of the powerful and elite – and not the individual.
MoreLiberty on January 23, 2013 at 2:31 PM
Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.
chimney sweep on January 23, 2013 at 2:32 PM
I expect to forfeit my human rights if I get married.
Seth Halpern on January 23, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Leopards don’t change their spots. This was not a frosh history paper, in grad school you take on topics and address them with your own ideas to the satisfaction of your thesis committee, and you typically do it as a young adult. I don’t care if this was 30 years ago or 3 weeks ago, it tells you about his thought process and approach to managing populations through policy. Now that he is in a position of great influence over BHO it matters a great deal actually.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM
Says the hack who thinks someone like Mark Levin isn’t conservative enough.
jawkneemusic on January 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM
I don’t care. He’s full of crap. He shouldn’t have the job.
aryeung on January 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM
Er, WHAA!?
“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are pretty damned universal in my book.
Bat Chain Puller on January 23, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Europe has tougher restrictions on speech than we do, yet most leftists consider Europe’s to be a superior civilization. So it’s an odd conceit to link human rights standards to “development,” even if there’s no universally accepted ideal.
Seth Halpern on January 23, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Are they a Law of Physics? Universal would seem to imply you know UNIVERSAL, self-evident, across cultures and thru time…and no they aren’t “universal.” Rather unique, in fact.
JFKY on January 23, 2013 at 3:01 PM
They are not universally upheld, but are universally granted.
aryeung on January 23, 2013 at 3:07 PM
They are? So some dood in Egypt can claim them? Sorry, don’t see it…
JFKY on January 23, 2013 at 3:12 PM
Strange claim. How can you claim that they are universally granted when many governments in the world don’t grant them?
blink on January 23, 2013 at 3:29 PM
It’s his shtick. Any time a leftist does something like this, he marches onto this website and says “conservatives are the same or actually worse” and skillfully deflects criticism from the leftist while doing it.
Doomberg on January 23, 2013 at 3:58 PM
Oh, I would never say Levin isn’t conservative enough. I would never call him conservative to begin with.
Dante on January 23, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Because rights do not come from man and government; they are not conferred upon one by anyone else. They exist because we exist. If you believed in natural rights (and you certainly don’t), then you would understand this.
Dante on January 23, 2013 at 4:41 PM
They are universal in that they are intrinsic to all persons. But let’s look at it the other way — as being unique. They could hardly be unique, else one would be saying that there is not one human species, but several, some with universal rights and other with less or none. Basic that reduces to some humans are less or more equal in nature. I don’t think any human believes that.
As for being self-evident, I would think it is well understood that, that in isolation, each human believes, in say, their right to live. Further, upon chance meeting of another human, not only would that not change but it then be self evident for each to believe they have the right to defend their lives from the other.
As for this being true through all time, this ought to be self-evident since it follows from being intrinsic to all persons.
I don’t know what the heck Brennan is doing; I haven’t read his paper.
Dusty on January 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM
They’re all the same. That’s the fact that’s lost on you.
Dante on January 23, 2013 at 4:59 PM