Me Vs The “Pro Selective Use of The First Amendment” Bruce - Granite Grok

Me Vs The “Pro Selective Use of The First Amendment” Bruce

I’ve had an exchange with a commenter on the Steyn post I updated last week. I’d like to cite a few bits because I think it’s illustrative of the issue at hand and why Steyn needs to be defended and must win. If you’re not familiar with the Mark Steyn battle against Silence Enforcer Mann see my Steyn post and www.steynonline.com for details.

Below are snippets of the exchange (all emphasis mine), you can read them all in their entirety in the comments section of said post. It was an odd back and forth. Some points Bruce made (I’ll just call him/her Bruce) didn’t seem to be relevant to anything that I was stating but there were some gems in here that betray a “Free Speech for me not thee” mindset and the very real consequences if the Steyn trial goes wrong, and the First Amendment is selectively enforced.

He eventually appears to support free speech or at least his version of it for him, but he starts out of the gate with a bang and tries to lecture on how “science works” – it’s a styrofoam stone thrown by people looking to intimidate on an issue, just let it hit you it doesn’t hurt.

Are there no limits to free speech? The courts long ago decided otherwise. …Mann’s “hockey stick” research have been confirmed by a number of other studies since his first came out–that’s how science works…Comparing Mann to Jerry Sandusky, as Steyn apparently did may be red meat to true believers, but you’d better be damn sure you can back up such claims. And in Steyn’s case, he can’t.

Here we go. I start off by tossing back the styrofoam with my own followed by my response to his misfire on the Sandusky/Mann thing:

There’s also a noticeably absent bit about how “science works” that tugs at my gut when discussing Climatist Theology: falsification. Where’s that supplied? Answer: Nowhere near the zealots.

Oh and one more thing, if you weigh in on something it helps to know a little about it. Steyn’s reference to Sandusky referred to the fact that the corrupt institution that investigated itself looking for Sandusky wrong doing was the same that investigated itself when it came Mann’s wrong doing

He replies with another misfire and more:

Scott, you made a claim that Steyn’s Sandusky reference was to the court, when it’s clear Steyn was referring to Mann’s work.

Can you really say anything, no matter how odious (not to mention stupid)? I hope Mann wins, and that a win for Mann has a chilling effect on denialist nonsense in the media. A costly decision for the NR and for Steyn would send a strong message to the deniers, and permit the public to get a full and fair discussion of the scope of the issue, minus the outrageous invective.

Did you get that? No free speech for you, if Bruce has his way and doesn’t like what that speech is. And, even more interesting is the seemingly obvious contradiction with “permit…a full and fair discussion”. How can that happen if one side is silenced? Simple, it can’t. He doesn’t want it to. He can’t handle contradiction.

I replied to his mistake that I was referring to the “court” then mentioned his view of selective use of the First Amendment:

My mistake in presuming you were aware of the details of the case, I should have included “Penn State” instead of the “institution” that investigated Mann and Sandusky

….

To put it bluntly, you’re absolutely false in stating: “Scott, you made a claim that Steyn’s Sandusky reference was to the court…”. I did no such thing. Better be careful wishing for selective 1st Amendment usage because I might be able to sue you…for saying something “stupid”.

This is where desultory logorrhea sets in and he brings the exchange in odd directions, he starts on point, then goes…well you’ll see:

 What you see as a free speech issue, I see as an assault on academic freedom. …Mann’s original work producing the “hockey stick” has since been replicated and validated by a number of other studies. That’s how science works.

Attempting to sow doubt and confusion was the m.o. of the tobacco lobby a generation ago on tobacco and second-hand smoke. With climate science and global warming, many of the same cast of characters … are involved today

Yeah, “tobacco lobby”… must admit, I didn’t see that coming. He goes on to claim a conspiracy of sorts and ends with:

That you accept at face value the claims emanating from the deniosphere–including their twisted notions of “freedom”, while rejecting the overwhelming evidence from science that the planet is warming inexorably, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause, shows just how far down the rabbit hole of ideology you and the other Groksters have plunged.

I smacked him a bit in the response, didn’t include that here, and then went ju-jitzu using his tobacco lobby injection and closed with a very real consequence if his “selective use of the First Amendment” side wins—which probably escapes him:

Tobacco? Interesting you brought that up, that indeed is our point. That is why free speech needs to flourish so that ideas held as truth can be challenged and shown to be false and have a chance to be accepted as so… until again more is learned and may again prove to be correct with additional information. Smoking is harmful. At one time that wasn’t the thought, until the unpopular raised the issue and were not silenced by the State. This is precisely our point. Ideas need to be exchanged without the threat of the State—which is your side, you realize. Gaveling science settled, does not make it so

Btw: you have no idea what I “accept at face value”, you better stop your libelous accusations to smear me and us here at the Grok. Who knows, after the Steyn v Mann trial, you might find yourself being sued.

 

Oddly, next  he took issue my with my take on tobacco. Weird, even more weird is that his conspiracy surfaces, but he does show a slight realization. He posts:

Your historical take on smoking and the tobacco industry does not match reality any more than does your account in the present case.The CEI has long had ties to the tobacco lobby, and their activities promoting climate science denial in service to the fossil fuels lobby …No matter what you and they call it, the CEI and Steyn have repeatedly demonstrated a reckless regard for the truth. Their assault … was intended to have a chilling effect on academic freedom

I’ll leave with my last reply. Please visit www.steynonline.com:

Very masturbatory of you Bruce, you’re addressing points you made. Nowhere have I stated anything that relates to a CEI, tobacco, climate denial conspiracy pro or against. It’s a strawman stuffed by you. So, my advice is head to the john, take a good look at yourself in the mirror, then have at it and leave me out of it, but be sure to close the door first.

My historical take on smoking, as far as I stated it in my comments is simple: it was once, popular, then became a health controversy and became unpopular. That seems pretty accurate to me. And the reason I cited, I think is worth to recall again. It was free speech that enabled one side to make their claims that smoking was indeed harmful. They weren’t silenced by the state—something you’re on record to be for. The First Amendment is indeed for everyone. That’s what’s so dangerous about your enthusiasm for selective use of the First Amendment, because at some point ideas that you have may be the target of the state to silence. Then where do you go? Your ideas may be unpopular and controversial and those in charge would rather silence them. If you have your way, that would be the end of it. Stay silent or face the consequences of the state.

The First Amendment is not for one side or another, it’s for all.

But reading more of your comments, I think we’re making progress.

Given your risible claim that Steyn was trying to effect the “chilling…academic freedom”, though I disagree with the substance your claim, I think I’m winning you over. You’re seeing the light. That’s good. Good. I think I’m correct in stating that you don’t agree with anything that provides a “chilling effect on academic freedom”. And I agree. Where you’re misguided is that the First Amendment is essential in fighting against that “chilling effect on academic freedom”. By favoring selective use of the First Amendment you are favoring truncheon that will be used to “chill” “academic freedom”.

Oh and by the way, if Mann does win, you may want to redress or qualify your statement on Mr. Steyn’s intent. That may be libelous.

>