“The trouble with fighting for human freedom,” wrote H. L. Mencken, “is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels.”
Henry Louis Mencken (1880 — 1956), master prose stylist and social critic, knew whereof he wrote. But he also penned things to which few would give their hearty assent.
Today, we find several controversialists who, like Mencken, side with individualism against collectivism. They are raising a ruckus.
But are they “scoundrels”?
Does it matter?
The big news, last week, was the anti-Milo Yiannopoulis riot in Berkeley. But also last week, Robby Soave explains, “Black bloc ‘anti-fascists’ attacked right-wing media figure Gavin McInnes outside a New York University building,” where things got so crazy that one protester, a professor, screamed at the police for protecting Mr. McInnes when they “should” have — get this — been beating him up!
She called McInnes a Nazi. And insinuated he was a rape threat, etc.
So what did Reason writer Soave do? “McInnes,” he noted, “routinely says obnoxious things that deserve criticism. He’s something of a Diet Milo.”
What Soave did not do was ever address the Nazi charge, the rape charge, or any of the calumnies hurled at McInnes. Were Mencken the one being attacked, would he have written that the Sage of Baltimore “routinely writes obnoxious things that deserve criticism”?
Sure, true. But is that the stance you want to take?
Soave finds Milo and Gavin icky.
I feel his pain. But … when “Nazi” is the charge, calling the accused “obnoxious” and “deserv[ing] criticism”?
Gavin McInnes isn’t a Nazi. Or a rapist. And he retains free speech rights, regardless of what one thinks about his anti-feminism, or other controversial opinions.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
5 replies on “God Knows You’re Good”
Who says Leftists can’t be Nazis, too?
Or in this case, THE NAZIs.
The issue here is not the attack on “unpopular” speak, as unpopular speech always has its consequences. It is rather the intention to silence it, as opposed to ridicule it in the public square, and to do so with governmental force. Thought crime and its prosecution are the next step in the progression.
The foolish have a right to speak, and be recognized got what they are..
“Thought crime and its prosecution are the next step in the progression.”
Haven’t we already reached that point? After all, what is a ‘hate crime’?
It’s not enough to respect the rights of [fill in any ‘protected’ group].
Unless I agree with their agenda and goals, I might be subject to someone’s idea of a ‘hate crime’.
So far “hate crime” has to be coupled with an overt and criminal act. Thought crime is just the thought, and having and/or advocating it is the crime, no overt action required. We are not yet there, although the protestors reported on would like to change that.