Today I saw this news story regarding reactions to a Malaysian court ruling that non-Muslims could use the word Allah. Behold how much violence a small matter kindles!

I am an advocate for courtesy in discourse as long as it comports with honesty. But I want to use this story to clarify that while I am in favor of courtesy, I oppose laws that demand it, and I do not believe laws should require it, nor do I believe that its lack can justify violence.

Right now, a great deal of the discussion regarding offending religious people relates to Islam, though the situation in Ireland indicates it’s much broader. So just to be clear, I also oppose laws against blasphemy as defined by Christians, nor do I think there is a justification for violent anger over insults.

If I went further, speaking as a Christian, I believe that we should handle such things graciously and honestly, rejecting any violent response, and remaining courteous even when others are not. But that courtesy should be our choice, not something imposed.

I belive the fairness doctrine is an obvious infringement of free speech and liberals should be embarrassed to support such an idea while claiming to be in favor of civil liberties.

(Personal note: Blame two book deadlines and a few days of flu for the low level of posting here for the last week or so.)

Now I think that a free press is very important in a democracy. I believe that one of the few things on which I can be said to take an extreme position is freedom of speech and of the press. But if the press that is free is also lazy and stupid, that freedom will do little good.

In this case, the majority of the questions were stupid. While they may have put the briefer (Robert Gibbs) on the spot because they were unexpected, they also were unlikely to elicit any valuable information or pressure any substantive change. The questions on the retaking of the oath of office and the concerns over how it was covered by the press were particularly inane and childish. (I was going to write a short post on the oath thing, but Allan Bevere wrote a better one.)

The frequent complaint about bloggers, however valid, is also often valid about the mainstream media. In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, there’s a scene in which a young reporter, carried away by the joy of reporting an important accomplishment says that he had always wanted to be someone who reports news. Our press should consider sharing that fictional young man’s ambition.

This is illustrated by this story on CQPolitics, informing us that the FEC has deadlocked on whether the National Right to Life Committee can use particular phrasing in some issue ads they want to display. The sentence is: “Barack Obama : a candidate whose word you can’t believe in.”

Now understand that I don’t like the ads. I’ve received print versions and I didn’t like those. This is not speech of which I approve. I’m pro-choice, despite my own dislike of abortion. But on the other hand, I fail to see how it is not speech that can be permitted.

Having dealt with non-profits myself, I do, in fact, understand that particular tax categories are confined to particular activities. Thus it’s generally OK with me from a constitutional point of view that churches are not permitted to explicitly endorse candidates, or that non-profits of particular types be restricted in their political activity in order to have a particular tax status.

I say generally OK, because I think it falls within constitutional boundaries, but I question whether the lines are correctly drawn. In order to grant tax exempt status, the IRS has to define what is a church, what is a charitable non-profit, and so forth. But it is nonetheless troubling to me that a pastor can say “I think you should vote for a pro-life candidate (wink, wink)” without having his tax status threatened, but cannot say “I think you should vote for X who is a pro-life candidate” without risking it. Apparently if he says, “You can’t believe in X as a candidate” that would also be problematic. This is a whole subject in itself, but I can’t really discuss the rest without at least brushing against it.

In this case, we’re talking about what various political action committees can do during an election, and bluntly it sounds to me like a frontal assault on free speech. I despise the ads. I think they should be legal. I think these election laws are not about making elections fairer; they’re about silencing people we don’t like. I don’t approve of silencing people. (Very narrow exceptions, such as incitement, are alright, though I draw the line as far out as possible consistent with some order.)

This is one of the reasons I refuse to register as one of the major parties, besides the biggest reason, which is simply that I think it’s wrong to have political parties enshrined in law. Neither of our parties actually stands, even in a general way, for freedom. They stand in a general way for the freedoms of their constituent groups, and against those of others.

I would like to see our politicians actually support free speech, whether it is spoken for them or against them. “Fair speech,” speech that is distributed according to someone’s idea of fairness, is ephemeral, indefinable, and ultimately results in censorship.

That’s what we have in this case–the FEC deadlocked on whether to censor the speech of the NRLC. In a country that prides itself on constitutional freedoms, it shouldn’t even be an issue.

These are:

• Fundamentalists Come in All Kinds, which is one that I consider a quite balanced reaction.
• From the same blog Reactions to PZ Myers and the Catholic League, which I include for the many links it provides.
• Finally Crackergate from Jason Rosenhouse at EvolutionBlog, which strikes me as a very balanced response from the atheist side of the spectrum.

Those posts and the related links should give you a chance to discover what you want to know.

There is one particular point I want to comment on myself, however, and that is the confusion of arguments appropriate for free speech as opposed to appropriate speech. What I mean by that distinction is the difference between actions that should be legally sanctioned, and that one might restrain oneself from taking.

I’m a pretty extreme advocate of free speech. I’m opposed to campaign finance laws because I see them as infringing on free speech. I think pornography should be legal with the exception of child pornography involving exploitation of children. I think it should be quite legal to insult, vilify, and ridicule. I’m opposed to speech codes in most circumstances. (Private property and gatherings are an obvious exception, where people choose to come together under particular rules.)

At the same time I restrain myself from much of that speech, and there is a good deal that I believe to be legal that I will not listen to or watch, nor will I facilitate its appearance in any way. That includes the majority of what’s classified as pornography. (I restrict this to “majority” because some people have some incredibly wide definitions of pornography. I will watch an ‘R’ rated movie, for example.) I don’t like excessive use of profanity, and make it my aim not to use such language myself.

But I believe that there must be a difference between what I think is a good idea, and what is legal. That is a difference that is essential to a free, and thereby diverse, society. I like to restrain myself from certain types of insults to whole groups of people. In some cases I do so because I believe that such insults are simply not true. Most general insults (“all Muslims are violent”, “all Christians are bigots”, “all gays and lesbians are promiscuous”) are not true in the first place, and thus truthfulness alone is enough reason not to use them. Others involve simple courtesy.

Now let me relate this to the issue of the communion wafers and the reaction to them. I feel this one personally because though I’m not Catholic, I am a fairly high church Methodist who holds to a “real presence” view of the Eucharist. In other words I am one of those people who thinks that something happens when the minister blesses the elements of the Eucharist, and I hold those elements sacred. I don’t believe in transubstantiation (though I should note that many comments have indicated an incorrect understanding of that doctrine) but rather that Jesus is especially present through the Holy Spirit. I believe they should be treated with respect, just as other sacred symbols.

I’m not particularly offended by people who disagree with me on this, but I am offended at the idea of desecration. Let me distinguish a few gradations here. Speech indicating that my view of the Eucharist is stupid is inoffensive. If you don’t believe what I believe, you’ll find my belief silly at best, and my desire to protect some bread and juice as a bit ridiculous. I’m OK with that. A college student grabbing a wafer is a college prank. It’s a little nasty, but the reaction has been way over the top. College students will do silly things. I know I did. (Note here that a Catholic will almost certainly see this act as a more serious thing than I do based on our respective theologies and traditions.)

Trying to get some communion wafers so as to especially desecrate them is something I find offensive. It diminishes the stature of the person proposing it in my eyes. Presumably that person will not care about that, but it’s important to understand my position. I have no problem associating with and cooperating in many areas with someone who despises my religion. There is a level of action regarding that contempt that will make such friendly relations difficult.

I want to add one note. At least in my tradition, the fact that bread was made for communion is not the critical issue, so if you “score” the bread before it’s blessed, it would be a simple property crime, and one on an item of very small value. So in order to commit the desired blasphemy and insult, one would need to get bread that had already been blessed, which could get into some interesting legal issues. Just how much can you disrupt a church service without meriting a “disturbing the peace” charge or some such thing. I really don’t know and hope I don’t have to figure it out.

Now my point here is that I have found some behavior that is insulting to me, something I find very inappropriate and even reprehensible. I can argue why I feel that way, but many other people will not agree with me. Should I be protected from such an insult?

In a word, No! Barring some action stepping across legal lines in some other area (theft, actually disturbing the peace as opposed to existing where someone would prefer you don’t, violence done to an actual person) I believe the law should permit me to be insulted in this way. The wafer may be the body of Christ to me, but it’s a cracker to the law. The result is much worse if the law starts to recognize something spiritual.

So what is my own actual reaction? “PZ, I think that was quite rude.” That pretty much covers it. And I don’t want that opinion of mine to have the backing of law.

[And just to be clear these e-mails to PZ are both rude and illegal, and those who make such threats should face the full weight of the law.]

The four freedoms Roosevelt mentioned are:

1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of worship
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear

This ambiguity comes up in plenty of discussions of rights. What precisely does “freedom from want’ require, who gets to decide just how much want is permissible, and who gets to decide who has to produce all of that? I, for example, would like a much better computer. It would help me in my creative activities. Perhaps someone should give me one in order to improve my mental health.

Of course I’m not serious about that. Nobody has any duty to give me a computer. I will have to earn the money and buy one. People often assume that we will all have a reasonable definition of “want” in place, but the fact is that we don’t agree on such things.

That, however, is not my main point. I would like to focus on the distinction between these two types of rights. The first, freedom of speech, is provided by the government failing to take certain actions–not suppressing speech. There is, of course, the positive action of maintaining a lawful framework, but that is a requirement for the existence of any right. Freedom from want requires some positive action on someone else’s part, namely to produce the particular goods.

While I believe I have an obligation as a Christian, individually and in community, to care for those who are less advantaged, I have a distinct problem with many of the government programs that do what I believe I must do privately, because they tend to make one person have an inherent, legal right (I think those are oxymoronic, but they are commonly used together) to that which someone else must go out and produce. I advocate certain safety net welfare programs in any case, not as a right of those who receive them, but as part of maintaining a workable society.

But I want to apply this now to speech and to the controversy about intelligent design. There’s a regular chorus going on right now about suppression. I think that chorus is based on a confusion of their rights with someone else’s production.

I have a right to free speech. I do not have a right to any particular medium. If I can find no publisher for my writing, then my writing will not get printed. Since I am a publisher, I have the right to refuse to print someone else’s drivel, or even their masterpiece, and I am not suppressing free speech, even if they find no other way to publish.

Besides forcing someone else to produce what they believe is a right, people who make such claim try to take away the rights of others. Again, illustrating with myself. As a publisher, were I required to print the works of someone even though I chose not to, then my right of free speech is abridged. My right of free speech does not require a carpenter to build a stage, an electrician to wire the sound system, a newspaper to print an ad for my event, nor any person to come an listen to me.

My belief that I have important things to say does not require a college or university to gather students to hear it. There are things that are of value under those circumstances, and other things that are not. If I were the chair of a religion department, for example, I would consider it quite appropriate to refuse a place on the faculty to a KJV-Only advocate, even if he could produce the appropriate accredited degrees.

In High School curricula, we have the need to cover a great deal of material, and some things are in while others are out. We have groups whose job it is to decide which is which. Subject matter needs to meet a threshold of validity and usefulness in order to merit a place in such a curriculum, otherwise you are forcing students to spend time learning that which will not work to their benefit.

Now there is a little glitch in the educational plan. What about state sponsored institutions of higher learning? Shouldn’t they have to provide a platform for anyone in the name of free speech? They are the government, after all. I would say rather than if we allow a government to operate an academic institution, that is precisely what we should expect them to run, and that will mean making choices, discriminating against bad ideas (it isn’t prejudice if you studied it ahead of time!), and allowing some in and not allowing others.

I say to the intelligent design advocates: You don’t have a right to access to scientific journals and faculties. Your presence in such places must be earned. Your ideas should not appear in curricula by right, but rather because they have proven themselves in the appropriate arena.

ID is trying to create a welfare state for ideas. It’s a bad idea economically, and it’s no better of an idea in the realm of ideas.