Seipp on Fallaci

If there are no problems, no solution is necessary. When it comes to the payday loan industry and the valuable assistance that they provide, there aren't very many problems, if any at all. Many customers have nothing but good things to say, due to the fact that, if used properly, these loans provide a valuable service, and help a person out when they are in trouble. However, many of the people in high places don't see the value behind short-term loans, and want to fix what isn't broken. Some bipartisan fronts have outlawed the industry outright in several states, and even candidate Barack Obama wants to take a shot as well. We aren't going to tell you how to vote, but remember that you have to make the right choice for the people right to financial independence.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

I remember Fallaci grilling Khomeini over the treatment of women under his rule. She never was one to mince words.

What little I've heard of her since 9/11 has been just a little Coulteresque, but she's right to attack Islamofascism, and it's pretty cowardly to refuse to carry her books.

Come to think of it, WHY have we heard so little of her since 1980? It can't just be the airhead left.

I am not familiar with her but why is forbidden to comment negatively on religion? I can't imagine anyone successfully banning a book that was critical of sociology or physics but as soon as you attack irrationalism in the guise of relgion you are condemned by all the godbotherers.

"The lack of protection for free speech on the part of our European allies has reached the point where it can no longer be dismissed as anamolous."

When have restrictions on free speech in Europe been anomalous? They have always been pervasive.

On the question of radical Islam and its critics. I have adopted a new mantra: All that I ask of the religious is that they consider the depths to which religion can sink man.

More on this theme at my blog.

What little I've heard of her since 9/11 has been just a little Coulteresque...

Good point. Does City Books carry the works of Ms. Coulter??

Probably not, but that's a side-issue, since Fallaci's work is far more substantial and less unhinged than Coulter's.

"We don't carry books by fascists." The why-didn't-I-think-of-that snarky comeback, of course, would have been, "Oh, good, so you've tossed out all of Ezra Pound's poetry?" (Pound was a big influence on City Lights founder Lawrence Ferlinghetti. The Beats had a kind of poets-will-be-poets attitude toward Pound's active support of Mussolini during WWII.)

Over the last few years, she has been continually hounded in Europe for daring to write against Islamic radicalism.

No, not for it. She was criticized by brainlessly attacking Muslim immigrants, truly depicting them as subhumans, and lumping all Islam -- peaceful or not -- into one mass, then villifying it. She is not a fascist. She is a plain idiot.

The lack of protection for free speech on the part of our European allies has reached the point where it can no longer be dismissed as anamolous.

And the European allies consider the use of death penalty in the USA as anomolous. So what?

And the fact that this sort of censorship would be excused away and even supported by those on the left in America is profoundly disturbing to me

Just curious, who on the left in America is supporting this?

Psst - It's City Lights, not City Books.

The lack of protection for free speech on the part of our European allies has reached the point where it can no longer be dismissed as anamolous.

Just to point out, Switzerland is not an American ally. It is officially neutral.

Ed,

you can't expect every country in the world to follow your Consititution. We have different cultures and different approaches to thing. Before you accuse me of moral relativism, let me stress that the differences between America and its European allies are pretty minor: we differ w/r to the degree of acceptabe limitations on freedom of speech, w/r to the death penalty, w/r to acceptable level of welfare (it's not like Europe has a common position on this), and so on. Mostly, we differ w/r to degree but agree w/r to principles. I don't like your "holier than thou" attitude, lecturing Europe[1]. We all know freedom of speech is an important human right, okay?

[1] Europeans like to lecture Americans, too.

I'm afraid there is a pretty significant difference of principle between European and American speech laws. Most European countries allow non-violent speech to be banned based purely on the ideas it expresses; America never does. That is about as important a difference as you can get, and I don't think it's minor at all.

Roman wrote:

And the European allies consider the use of death penalty in the USA as anomolous. So what?

And they may well be right. Unlike so many others, including many who comment on this site, I will not take the "how dare you criticize us, we are a different culture with different histories" position. I care only about whether an argument is true, not whether it came from someone who lives across a line on a map. If the death penalty is wrong, then it is wrong no matter where it takes place. And if imprisoning someone for free speech is wrong, then it is also wrong no matter where it takes place.

you can't expect every country in the world to follow your Consititution. We have different cultures and different approaches to thing. Before you accuse me of moral relativism, let me stress that the differences between America and its European allies are pretty minor: we differ w/r to the degree of acceptabe limitations on freedom of speech, w/r to the death penalty, w/r to acceptable level of welfare (it's not like Europe has a common position on this), and so on. Mostly, we differ w/r to degree but agree w/r to principles. I don't like your "holier than thou" attitude, lecturing Europe[1]. We all know freedom of speech is an important human right, okay?

I love how you try and preempt the charge of cultural relativism and then duck right into the punch by engaging in such relativism so clearly. As Ebonmuse points out, the difference between thinking that government has the power to imprison people for "defaming" a religion and thinking that government does not have such power is enormous. This isn't simply a matter of degree, it is absolutely a matter of principle. That doesn't mean that those European nations that have such laws are totalitarian systems. They may well be strongly supportive of free speech in other ways, but on this one they are completely wrong. I can't "expect" other nations to follow that principle, but I can certainly criticize them if they don't just as I criticize my own government when it doesn't uphold those principles (and sadly, it often doesn't).

Here's what I find so ridiculous about the "how dare you lecture someone else" argument - the vast majority of those who use it find it laughable when their political opposition uses it. For instance, from the right in America we get the very same argument whenever any European nation criticizes us for something (the death penalty, foreign policy, anti-gay policies, etc). They puff themselves up, pull out a flag and manufacture a tear in their eye and they say, "How dare those Europeans lecture us! We are the land of the free!" When a Supreme Court justice dares to even mention that our European allies have treated gays better than we have, the right goes ballistic, apparently on the premise that all wisdom resides solely within our borders. Quite frankly, they act like total idiots.

But then when criticism goes the other way, it's suddenly many (certainly not all) on the left who want to make the same argument in reverse - "How dare you Americans criticize Europe! How arrogant of you!" Well, I call bullshit on both sides. Truth is truth, regardless of where it comes from. If a European wants to make an argument against the death penalty or against American foreign policy, I treat it no differently than I would if an American made the same argument. The only thing that matters is whether the criticism is warranted, not where the person making the criticism was born.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being "holier than thou", it has to do with applying principles consistently and coherently regardless of who it might offend. When I applaud European nations for being way ahead of the curve on full civil rights for gays, which I have done dozens of times, or for offering truly comprehensive sex education that allows them to have rates of teen pregnancy far lower than ours, are you going to accuse me of having a "holier than me" attitude? Stop worrying about the national identity of the person making the argument and worry instead about the validity of the argument. Truth does not suddenly become falsehood when it crosses a line on a map.

Roman wrote:

...you can't expect every country in the world to follow your Consititution.

With all due respect Roman, it isn't about expecting others to obey the American Constitution, it's about expecting others to respect a fundamental human right.

Which is also why no one invokes the Civil Rights Act when we criticize the systematic abuse of or discrimmination against a group of people. No one expects them to follow American Law. We do, however, expect them to maintain a certain level respect for human rights that is independant of the particular human in question.

Eric Wallace wrote:

Just curious, who on the left in America is supporting this?

There are lots of people on the left who favor the same sort of policies, particularly hate speech codes. There are also, to be sure, many on the right who have supported them when it comes to religion; Pat Buchanan comes to mind. The reason I singled out those on the left was because, frankly, I sort of expect that sort of thing from the right and I expect more from the left. I want consistency. For example, I think that those who, like me, argue strongly for gay rights should be the first people to stand up for the right of others to speak out against being gay. When I've written in the past about the Boissoin case in Canada, the Ake Green case in Sweden (both of which involve ministers being charged with a crime for speaking out against gay rights), or the instances where the British government has been sending out Scotland Yard investigators to question anyone who writes or says anything publicly that opposes gay rights, many have said the same thing that Roman says above, that I'm just being "holier than thou" and that I have no right to criticize other cultures who have their own traditions, history and political philosophy. But that's just nonsense, and again I believe that gay rights activists like me should be the first ones to defend the right of such people to speak their minds no matter how offensive we find their words to be (and to be fair, there are many who understand this and agree with me; that's one of the reasons why I have such enormous respect for Jason Kuznicki and Jon Rowe, because they will defend the right of people to criticize them as consistently as they will defend their right to criticize others). Why? Two reasons.

First, because in a world that still has far too much homophobia in it, if we grant to government the power to punish offensive speech we may well find that it is our own speech that is deemed illegal somewhere else. That's the practical argument; here's the principled one: because we cannot make a coherent case for gay rights without also making a coherent case for the unalienability of human rights on the whole. If we are going to accept the "different cultures, different traditions" argument then we can no longer coherently argue for gay rights as a universal principle and whether a particular culture respects those rights is just a matter of political clout rather than principle. It is wrong to punish or discriminate against people who are gay. It's wrong in America, it's wrong in Sweden, it's wrong in Iran and it's wrong in China. It's wrong because it violates the core principle of human freedom and self-ownership. But that is the same argument for why it is wrong to punish people for speaking their minds, whether that speech is offensive to me or to someone else. We cannot dismiss that argument in one case and then use it in another case. It is either true and valid in all places at all times, or it's not.

Truth does not suddenly become falsehood when it crosses a line on a map.

TRUTH? Truth is "Earth is round" or "pi equals approximately 3.14". Human rights are not truths, they are principles.

Roman wrote:

TRUTH? Truth is "Earth is round" or "pi equals approximately 3.14". Human rights are not truths, they are principles.

And principles can be either true or false. If you don't like that word, use "valid" and "invalid" if you'd like. You truly have a gift for focusing on the irrelevant semantics and completely ignoring the substance of an argument.

To sell Fallici's books and protect her right to write and be read is extremely important. Selective protection is no protection at all.
And yes, I think the west must stand up and show its integrity to the culture of revenge and cruelty that prevails everywhere militant Islam is a force.
The west need not walk the same road.

And principles can be either true or false.
Says who? God? You? US Supreme Court? Why should *I* care?

I have my own principles and believe in them, so don't call me a moral relativist. Furthermore, I am all for us (let's say it clearly, differences in princples between you and me are minor when compared to what we agree on) spreading our principles throughout the world. The difference is that I don't fall for the illusion of drawing some superior rationalization for the principles, and thus I am more capable of accepting some minor differences in how people realize these principles.

I think that free speech and personal freedom in general are good, because:
a) people like to speak their minds and feel good because of it; what makes people happy is ususally a good thing (note: USUALLY),
b) those civilizations which protect personal freedom enjoy unprecedent success, those which don't -- fail into oblivion.

I, too, think that those countries who censor ideas are not OK and do not hesitate to call them so. But Europe is not like that, except for a few relatively unimportant exceptions.

Roman wrote:

I, too, think that those countries who censor ideas are not OK and do not hesitate to call them so. But Europe is not like that, except for a few relatively unimportant exceptions.

Nonsense. If you really believed that the censorship of ideas was not okay, then you would be opposed to that every time it happens, everywhere it happens. You have made it very clear that, at least when it comes to criticism of European practices in this regard, to insist that this principle be applied consistently is being "holier than thou". You believe in this principle except when you don't, which is to say that you really don't believe in it as a principle at all, it's merely a point of convenience to be jettisoned when you feel like it. For me, this principle is unchanging and binding in all circumstances, even when it protects ideas that I consider vile and loathsome (and it often does). If you don't believe in it in those circumstances, then frankly you don't believe in it at all. This is not a minor distinction or relatively unimportant; it is the core of the principle itself. The fact that you don't realize that is proof, by itself, that you do not view it as a principle but merely as a rule of convenience. It is absolutely not a "minor difference" for you to believe that it's excusable that a nation would imprison someone for "insulting" another person's religion and for me to believe that no nation may ever justly do so.

Ed,

you sound like a fanatic.

So, Roman, there's no principle for which you would stand equally firm? I mean, it's not as if the Fallaci case, or the Irving case for that matter, are particularly extreme -- there's no imminent danger from this sort of speech of some catastrophe happening. There's no historical example, even, of a democratic, liberal democracy with reasonably broad support for human rights being swayed by books like Fallaci's or Irving's to commit atrocities. You simply cannot argue that there's a positive case to be made for locking people up for expressing vile opinions in a democracy. So why throw principle to the wind? It can only come back to haunt you, to undermine other freedoms, to be used as an excuse to suppress other ideas.

Is somebody who believes the death penalty is, in all cases, unjustified; that no state should ever use its legal apparatus to justify taking a life, a fanatic? I think, even if I were to disagree with that position, that it simply doesn't warrant the label of fanatacism: it is a clearly workable principle. Society simply will not come unhinged by adhering to it.

Neither will society ever be undermined by allowing unfettered free speech, and the moral case for it is at least as powerful. Imprisoned just for saying something? For writing something? Who but a fanatic would support such a thing? Who but the amoral would excuse such a thing?

Roman wrote:

you sound like a fanatic.

I will not compromise on the subject of liberty. I won't pretend that violations of liberty are okay just because those violations are perpetrated by an ally, or for that matter by my own government. That's not fanaticism, it's consistency. It's understanding that if one really believes in liberty, then he must believe in it for those whose ideas infuriate him or he doesn't really believe in liberty at all. A great many people have died in this world to win and preserve our freedom; someone who lives in Poland should hardly need to be reminded of their sacrifice or of the importance of making sure that the principles they fought for are applied equally and not jettisoned at the first sign of inconvenience.

It's inaccurate to say that City Books refuses to carry the Fallaci book because it is an attack on Islamic radicalism, because the Fallaci book (or at least her previous one) is not an attack on Islamic radicalism. It's a xenophobic rant, not an intellectual breakdown. She called Europe "Eurabia", a new colony of Islam. And said that the idea of moderation in Islam was absurd. Surely you wouldn't call City Books relativist for refusing to carry a David Duke book, and though she might not go that far, she's only a couple of steps from that. Personally I would carry her book if customers wanted it, but I don't think you can call a book store relativist if it chooses to carry books based on personal moral beliefs and not just sales.

I agree that she should be allowed to say such things. But if you're going to criticize a book store for not carrying her book, you should be criticizing the real reasons why they aren't carrying the book. Saying they refused to carry the book because it is critical of Islamic radicalism is, at bare minimum, inaccurate by omission.

Matthew-

I didn't call City Lights "relativist" for not carrying the book; I called Roman a cultural relativist because he thinks that criticizing an oppressive law in Europe means one is being "holier than thou". I merely noted, along with Seipp, the irony that a woman who helped defeat real fascism in her native Italy as a young woman is so casually dismissed as a fascist by a clerk in San Francisco. And as I noted, there is plenty of criticism of Fallaci that I think is warranted. I think she does go too far in her rhetoric at times, at least in some of what I've read, and often paints with too broad a brush. But she is certainly correct to view Islamic radicalism as an enormous threat to Europe and the United States, and regardless of whether her rhetoric is sometimes too extreme, the fact that the Italian government thinks it has the legitimate authority to put her in jail for it is dangerous and absurd. She doesn't have to be pure of heart in order to make that case.

JY,

I *do* think locking up Irving and Fallacci is wrong. I only object to Ed in broader context, because he criticizes vehemently Europe each time it limits speech an inch more than the USA. I was, in fact, mostly thinking about libel laws. And I also think that even though laws against "holocaust denial" are wrong, pretending that they somehow make Europe a anti-freedom area is a gross overexaggeration.

Now it's Ed's turn:

A great many people have died in this world to win and preserve our freedom; someone who lives in Poland should hardly need to be reminded of their sacrifice or of the importance of making sure that the principles they fought for are applied equally and not jettisoned at the first sign of inconvenience.

They are not, and they won't be. Do not worry.

I called Roman a cultural relativist because he thinks that criticizing an oppressive law in Europe means one is being "holier than thou".

That's because of your rhetoric.

I merely noted, along with Seipp, the irony that a woman who helped defeat real fascism in her native Italy as a young woman is so casually dismissed as a fascist by a clerk in San Francisco.

Heh. A lot of people do something right in one age and then do something wrong later.

oric at times, at least in some of what I've read, and often paints with too broad a brush. But she is certainly correct to view Islamic radicalism as an enormous threat to Europe and the United States,

I don't think it is so.

A lot of people do something right in one age and then do something wrong later.

But calling her a "fascist" is stupid. A lot of people use adjectives "fascist" and "nazi" without apparently knowing what they mean. Godwin's law for bookstore clerks?

Roman wrote:

I *do* think locking up Irving and Fallacci is wrong. I only object to Ed in broader context, because he criticizes vehemently Europe each time it limits speech an inch more than the USA. I was, in fact, mostly thinking about libel laws. And I also think that even though laws against "holocaust denial" are wrong, pretending that they somehow make Europe a anti-freedom area is a gross overexaggeration.

I never said that Europe is an "anti-freedom area". I said that in the area of free speech protections, they often enforce tyrannical laws. And they do. And though you say you agree that those laws are wrong, you also say that when I criticize them I'm being "holier than thou". If those laws are wrong, then what is wrong with criticizing and calling them what they are? You are reading into it that I think Europe is, on balance, worse than the US; I do not take that position at all. In fact, when it comes to other issues you would read in the opposite inference. When it comes to gay rights and sex education, I think Europe is far ahead of the US and far, far better than us. I don't think the US is generally oppressive because because of its largely anti-gay stance and I dont' think that Europe is generally oppressive because of their weaker protections for free speech. But I don't mince words when I criticize either of those things. In both cases, such laws are oppressive and should be condemned unequivocally, not with a mealy-mouthed "well I don't really like this, but I guess it's not so bad".

I didn't originally read all of the comments, but now that I have I should say that i disagree that a person can not both believe in liberty and then also occasionally permit it be violated. I do not believe an all-or-none stance accurately takes into account all factors.

I think it's accurate to say that Ed is heavily influenced by early American political philosophy. It's important to realize that American philosophy pretty much ended at the enlightenment. European philosophy went much further. One of the major mottos of the French revolution was "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" and this is now part of the French constitution today. As Americans we fully embrace liberty. Equality we have a history of resistance and relunctant concession. As for fraternity, frankly it isn't even part of our lexicon.

We all have our own moral hierarchy. I think for Ed liberty sits at the very top. But I don't think it's fair to say that others care not about liberty just because they value fraternity more, just as it wouldn't be fair to say that Ed cares not about racial harmony just because he permits speech which interferes with that aim.

Matthew wrote:

I think it's accurate to say that Ed is heavily influenced by early American political philosophy. It's important to realize that American philosophy pretty much ended at the enlightenment. European philosophy went much further. One of the major mottos of the French revolution was "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" and this is now part of the French constitution today. As Americans we fully embrace liberty. Equality we have a history of resistance and relunctant concession.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the nature of genuine equality. Equality has always been a part of the American political philosophy (though, like liberty, it has taken a lot of change to make sure it is applied consistently). The Declaration speaks boldly of the fact that all mean are created equal. But equal in this context means what it really ought to mean, equality before the law. All men (and women, of course) should have the same legal rights, the same protection from arbitrary authority, and so forth. I don't think it's reasonable or accurate to argue that European laws that punish free speech are justified by a concern for equality. Prohibiting criticism of religions or ethnic groups has nothing to do with equality; a minority religion may be as justifiably criticized as a majority one. Equality would mean that any and every idea may be criticized at any time by anyone without fear of punishment. That is equality.

The European penchant for such laws is not a result of Europe having continued to "advance" while America "stopped advancing"; it is a retrenchment, a violation of the principles of liberty, and that is all it is. And yes, I say the exact same thing about American violations of liberty, of which there are many. I am as bothered when we violate those principles as when another nation does; more so, in fact.

Ed said:

Prohibiting criticism of religions or ethnic groups has nothing to do with equality; a minority religion may be as justifiably criticized as a majority one. Equality would mean that any and every idea may be criticized at any time by anyone without fear of punishment. That is equality.

I believe the thrust of the post you're responding to was not concering the "Equality" prong but the "Fraternity" prong.

While I agree with your points about free speech in Europe, I will never ever carry that particular book of Fallaci, which is not simply a crticism of fundamentalism, but a diatribe against Islam that has clear racists undertones. Fallaci must be free to publish her books, as hideous they may be, but I am also free to say they are crap, when crap she writes.