Culture Media News

Free speech shouldn’t need defending

Spread the love

Spread the news.

From News’ compatriot Mark Steyn:

Free speech shouldn’t need “defending”. It’s the shut-uppers who should be on the defensive, who should be made to explain why only their side of the argument can be heard. Before Mann launched his suit, I was broadly familiar with the corruption of the scientific process that Climategate et al had revealed. But I was still shocked to discover just how deep it goes. Over the last three years, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with scientists who occupy different positions on the climate spectrum: Some are out-and-out “skeptics”; some broadly agree with the so-called “consensus” but dislike its intolerance; others define themselves as “lukewarmers” or have only relatively modest disagreements with Mann & Co – yet even that cannot be tolerated by the Big Climate enforcers. The fear of retribution and the ever present threat of intimidation in what’s supposed to be a branch of scientific inquiry is amazing – and something of which all reputable scientists should be ashamed.

As I say, free speech doesn’t require “defending”. If your religion – whether Allah or the Climate Gods – is so insecure it can’t tolerate any objections, you’re the one with the problem – and you’re the one who needs to figure out a “defense”. The Big Climate enforcers are more or less open about their willingness to get you fired, blacklisted by scholarly journals, banned from the airwaves, and if necessary investigated by hack congressmen like Raul Grijalva, ranking member of the House UnEnvironmental Activities Committee. In such a climate, the best way to push back is to disseminate the dissent – and ensure that people get a chance to hear alternative views. More.

Why, we too are here.

Irrelevant, especially if you are one of Darwin’s followers.
Follow UD News at Twitter!

7 Replies to “Free speech shouldn’t need defending

  1. 1
    johnnyb says:

    Here’s what I don’t understand, Denyse. Since you and Steyn are both from Canada, shouldn’t you both be in favor of hockey sticks? It just seems logical.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Sure. On the ice.–iEOftLZ4


    By the way everything you see is slo mo.

  3. 3
    Mark Frank says:

    So no one should be banned or have their comments deleted? .

  4. 4
    Learned Hand says:

    Mann probably will and probably should lose his lawsuit. Steyn makes it so very hard to be sympathetic to him, though, whether by sloppily confusing whether free speech should need to be defended with whether it does need defending or by his “grand mal seizure of self-indulgence.” I suspect Steyn knows as little about climate as he does about the law, and is primarily interested in making some money and getting some attention on the martyr circuit.

  5. 5
    Learned Hand says:

    The “more” link the block quote doesn’t work, by the way.

  6. 6
    Joe says:

    Tolerating valid objections is one thing. Having to tolerate lies, misrepresentations, strawmen, false accusations, innuendoes and bluffing madness, is another.

    ID can tolerate the former, however it has yet to see anything but the latter.

    Just sayin’…

  7. 7
    Robert Byers says:

    Amen. Free speech doesn’t need defending unless there is no free speech. Do we or not have free speech?
    No. We have free speech in the face of organized power. not our parents.
    Free speech was invented for important matters of nation and society.
    Its a contract in law and culture.
    its not a contract for lesser things.
    A poster here mentioned about any control.
    UD has a contract with posters here for speech rules. Its legal. its culturally legal.
    We enter into the contract upon agreement to participate.
    UD argues for free speech wjile controling it. Thats right.
    Free speech is freedom from powers affecting a free people in important matters.
    everyone knows when you see free speech and when you do not.
    mom and dad are not breaking the law in anyway controling our speech as kids right or wrong.
    slander laws prove free speech is not about free speech but about obvious discussions of important things.
    The old ones didn’t competently explain free speech even though everyone knew what they meant.

Leave a Reply