Savage with the truth (2/19)

Michael Savage's right-wing bestseller is an ignorant, error-filled, Coulter-like screech of hatred against left-wing "traitors" and uppity women like Sandra Day O'Connor. Here's the funny part: This guy has a Ph.D.!
[Available exclusively on Salon.com. To access it, readers must either have a Salon Premium subscription or view an advertisement.]
By Ben Fritz

Conservative radio hosts have come to dominate the airwaves with ferocious rhetoric that's often filled with ad hominem attacks and blatant untruths, but Michael Savage is easily the worst of the bunch. Savage, who makes Rush Limbaugh look reasonable, isn't just a radio personality anymore. His book "The Savage Nation: Saving America From the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture" has reached the top of the New York Times bestseller list, and Savage has been rewarded with his own weekly MSNBC show as part of that struggling cable network's efforts to improve its ratings. [Read the rest of this article on Salon.com.]

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

2/18/2003 11:59:44 PM EST |

Taranto's defense of the indefensible (2/18)

By Brendan Nyhan

Writing in Opinion Journal's "Best of the Web Today" column Thursday, James Taranto criticized our stand against a New York Sun editorial suggesting the prosecution of anti-war protestors for treason, as well as articles by Salon's Joe Conason, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and Slate's Tim Noah expressing similar views. His argument mischaracterizes the Sun editorial and distorts the issues at stake.

Taranto claims that what the Sun wrote is being misconstrued:

The Sun here doesn't actually urge any course of action. It merely observes that the cops "could do worse" than to maintain an "eye toward" the "possibility" of an "eventual" prosecution. Isn't it obvious that this suggestion is meant to be ironic? The paper is throwing an outlandish idea into the debate, carefully hedging its statement so as to avoid actually endorsing it. In short, the Sun is guilty of nothing more than being provocative--hardly the worst thing you can say about an editorial page.

But let's review what the editorial actually said. Not only does Taranto ignore the fact that the editorial actively encourages New York City to obstruct anti-war protests on the basis of the views held by the protestors (which itself would be a violation of the First Amendment), but he softpedals the Sun's advocacy of treason prosecutions on the basis of those views. The editorial quotes Article III of the Constitution on the definition of treason, states that "There can be no question at this point that Saddam Hussein is an enemy of America" and therefore argues that the protestors "are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein." There is not a hint of irony in any of these statements (nor anywhere else in the editorial).

That brings us to the key paragraph:

So the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution. Thus fully respecting not just some, but all of the constitutional principles at stake.

Contrary to Taranto's tenuous parsing, the Sun argues for preserving "at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution" (emphasis added), which clearly implies that such an outcome is desirable. The hedged phrasing provides no obvious clues of irony in context; it is more likely a result of the Sun's awareness that its statement is outrageous and that treason prosecutions are improbable in the short term (hence "eventual treason prosecution").

And even if the statement was intended to be ironic, it is still unacceptable. Many pundits use faux humor, sarcasm or irony when making their most inflammatory statements, in part to protect themselves from criticism. But such tactics do not make what one says acceptable. It would also be "provocative," for instance, to ironically call for repealing the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Finally, if the statement was intended to be ironic, why didn't the Sun argue as such in its followup editorial? Instead, as Noah pointed out, the newspaper's second editorial on the subject completely misrepesents the Sun's previous stance, falsely painting its prior position as genial concern for public safety.

Taranto also offers a bizarre attack on the Sun's critics, including us:

There's an element of irony, and hypocrisy, in these three self-styled advocates of vigorous public debate working themselves into a lather over a newspaper editorial. Volokh is right to distinguish between speech and actions on behalf of America's enemies; our constitution protects the former, while the latter may constitute the crime of treason. But no less salient is the distinction between advocating censorship and practicing it. If John Ashcroft or Mike Bloomberg were making noises about prosecuting protesters for treason, that would be cause for outrage. But if someone outside government makes the argument, why is that any less worthsy of respect than the "dissent" of those who make such "arguments" as that America is an "imperialist" power that wants "blood for oil"? If it's a calumny to liken the latter to treason, it is equally so to call the former fascist.

This is absolutely nonsensical. Taranto implies that "advocates of vigorous public debate" should not be offended by an editorial calling for the prosecution of members of the public for expressing their views - simply because the Sun can't carry out the treason prosecutions that it suggests! Of course, however, a newspaper is still responsible for the public positions it takes whether or not it has the authority to carry them out. If one followed Taranto's logic, there would be no grounds for criticizing almost any position taken by a member of the media.

Nor is he correct to equate the advocacy of treason prosecutions with dissent against the government. Arguing against the right of free speech for those who oppose the government is not true dissent, and certainly not worthy of respect. As for those who call America "imperialist," no one necessarily owes their views respect either, but we should insist on a fair and vigorous public debate that is conducted with respect for their right to express dissenting views without accusations of treason and the like. This distinction between attacks on US foreign policy and attacks on the right to criticize US foreign policy is clearly lost on Taranto.

Update 2/24 11:54 PM EST: On Wednesday, Taranto responded to this post, attacking me as somehow opposed to free speech:

Is the hypocrisy here not obvious? Nyhan is defending the right to dissent, the urgency of vigorous public debate. So where does he get off declaring certain ideas "unacceptable"?

His odd additional example doesn't really help his case. Just imagine the scene: A newspaper publishes an editorial that humorously calls for repealing the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. A red-faced Brendan Nyhan mounts his soapbox and delivers a fiery oration about how "unacceptable" it is even to think about tampering with the Bill of Rights. Maybe there really are people who are that uptight about the Fourth Amendment, but we have a hard time imagining anyone actually reacting this way. Most of us would just laugh it off as either an amusing joke or a harebrained idea.

Taranto is misinterpreting what I wrote. The point of this article, of course, is to defend free speech; there is no similarity between the Sun's call for prosecuting those who disagree with its position on the war and my description of these tactics as "unacceptable." Open debate is easily poisoned by attacks on the right to dissent (in this case one that was quite literal); we believe these should not be considered acceptable in a healthy democracy. It is not dissent to advocate the prosecution of those who disagree with your political views (and those of the President).

Taranto also miscontrues my statement that "[i]t would also be 'provocative,' for instance, to ironically call for repealing the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure," trying to construe it as a claim that the Fourth Amendment should not be subject to political debate - not true. In context, I was referring to a hypothetical, highly charged statement advocating government tactics that would amount to an effective repeal of the Fourth Amendment (in the same way that treason prosecutions for protestors would effectively nullify First Amendment protections), such as a call for searching the home of every Muslim as a suspected terrorist.

Taranto concludes with this final defense of the Sun:

Anyway, it seems to us that Nyhan's real objection to the Sun's editorial is not that its constitutional law is screwy, but that it violates his sense of civility to call the antiwar types traitors. He writes that "we should insist on a fair and vigorous public debate that is conducted with respect for their right to express dissenting views without accusations of treason and the like."

But why are they entitled to such sensitivity? They themselves do not practice it. Check out Evan Coyne Maloney 's hilarious video of Saturday's "antiwar" rally in New York, in which demonstrators call the president of the United States a "baby killer," a "nuclear terrorist," an "unelected tyrant" and an "idiot" who heads a "junta" and resembles Hitler. This is part of public debate in a free society--sometimes it gets ugly; sometimes people call each other names. The Sun's jocular reference to protesters as traitors merely gives them a taste of their own medicine--and an exceedingly mild dose at that.

It is true that democratic debate does get "ugly"; people do "call each other names." But what kind of argument is it to say that one's tactics are justified by the excesses of the worst on the other side? By that standard, there are no standards for acceptable public debate -- it's always possible to point to some extreme statement from one's opponents and respond that the other side is worse. More importantly, Taranto is changing the issue by referring to "[t]he Sun's jocular reference to protestors as traitors" -- it did not merely call them traitors, but actually suggested their prosecution for holding different political views. This is a step few on either side have taken, and one that we can and should criticize without restricting anyone's right to free speech.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-New York Sun suggests treason prosecution for free speech (Brendan Nyhan, 2/7/03)

2/18/2003 07:04:15 AM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS