Try explaining the difference between the Klan and Kissinger to the victims of capital's assaults in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, Mexico, Indonesia, Timor, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Bolivia, South Africa, Angola-
let me know how you make out. The point being free speech is, like all freedoms, rights, etc., a commercial relationship, a trade, a function of power. There are no neutrals staring down, refereeing from on high. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raghu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] on Israel lobby in the US and foreign policy > On 9/15/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bill Lear and Michael Perelman had good answers. I just want to add > > one point (or rather, restate my original point): in US during the > > present era, i.e., what I was talking about, the attacks on Walt, etc. > > as being "anti-Semitic," "like Nazis," and so forth is currently part > > of the _dominant political culture_. Invite Walt (or whomever) to > > speak and there's a vast political infrastructure already there to > > launch the shit-storm against him. The organized Likudnik knee is > > ready to jerk. > > > > On the other hand, if a war criminal like Kissinger, a silly-but-scary > > publicity hound like Coulter, or a racist like Murray is invited, the > > infrastructure isn't there. In most places around the US, there will > > be no response at all (except liberals and lefties muttering > > "how can it get worse?") In a few places (Austin, Madison, Berkeley, > > and a handful of others, the sum of which right-wing types hypostatize > > into some sort of cabal), the local lefties will try to mobilize to > > pass out leaflets and paint up some signs, but it will take energy > > away from their more long-term political work. (Besides, they're too > > scattered and fighting amongst themselves.) > > > Jim, > But this is purely a matter of opinion. You believe that the > establishment is against you and will act in force to silence Walt or > Sheehan or whoever but not Kissinger or Murray. To a more neutral > observer both groups seem like polarizing figures. Both groups attract > a bunch of flag waving protestors, equally disorganized, and > ultimately equally ineffective. You see the hand of the establishment > behind one group and not the other but that's purely a matter of > opinion. Someone on the other side would have a very different > interpretation. > > Generally I think everyone would agree that free speech cannot exist > without some boundaries for civilized conduct. The argument merely > seems to be about where to draw the line. Murray, Coulter and > Kissinger are in. The klan is out. An anti-Israel book should not be > automatically out, but holocaust denial propaganda probably should be. > > As far as the press is concerned, it seems to me they have neither a > consistent liberal bias not a conservative bias (except for Fox of > course). They merely have a commercial bias pandering to whatever is > fashionable at a given time. They supported Bush when he had 90% > approval. Ditched him when he became unpopular. True fair weather > friends. Or so it seems to me. > > -raghu. >
