Civil Liberties

Caught in the Attrition Mill

by

In 2006, I visited an old industrial facility which had been restored to operating condition. One of the machines there was an attrition mill. It consists of two steel discs, rotating at high speed in opposite direction and crushing the substance to be milled between them.

I immediately saw this machine as a political metaphor. Western civilization is caught in a gigantic attrition mill, with one disc being the Islamofascist enemy and the other being certain tendencies within our own societies. The combination of these factors is much more dangerous than either by itself would be. Events of the last 2 weeks have sadly confirmed this view.

Significant numbers of people in influential positions have demonstrated their willingness, even eagerness, to throw the American values of free speech overboard in the name of appeasement. They serve as the lower disc of the attrition mill, providing a surface for the upper disc–the Islamofascists–to act against.

We have discussed the Federal Government’s acts of intimidation against a filmmaker–I was about to say “an idiot filmmaker,” but really, this individual’s intelligence, taste, and artistic capabilities are utterly irrelevant to the issues here. The actions of the government, in conjunction with the media, may very well result in this man being killed for “blasphemy”–in the United States, in 2012 AD.

Actress Bette Midler tweeted that the filmmaker should be charged with murder. Other entertainers (see link) have expressed similar views. I haven’t seen any outpouring of free-speech defense from academia, although some individuals–like Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse–have stepped up to the plate. The media in general seems far more outraged about a filmmaker who offended Muslims–and about the danger of “Islamophobia” (see this CNN headline) than they are about the treatment of Jews and Christians and Hindus and others in many Muslim countries.

Read more

On the Defense of Free Speech

by

OK, so call me retrograde, old fashioned, a bigot or the ever-popular ‘raaaaacist’ but I actually believe in free speech and free thought; for everybody, not just the ones that I agree with.
There is the caveat to this, of course. If you depend upon the larger public finding your persona, your manufactured or intellectual output appealing enough to purchase it … well, there might be potential customers disenchanted and disinclined to do so, should they find your exercise of free speech insulting or offensive. They are perfectly free to refrain from partaking in your product or purchasing it … it is, so I have been assured, still mostly a free country. Buy Chick-fil-A, or not. Listen to the Dixie Chicks … or not. Read the New York Times … or not. Watch Game of Thrones… on not, depending on how much you feel strongly about personal opinions. The right to speak is, has been, and ought to still be paramount.

Read more

What Should the Title of This Post Be?

by

Should this be a “Just Unbelievable,” or a “Sad and Disturbing, but not Surprising?”

A student at the University of Southampton discovered that her photograph had been digitally modified by university officials, in deference to the “cultural sensitivities” of certain students and prospective students.

(via Margaret Soltan)

And, in related news, here’s a Canadian man who was arrested for walking his dog in the vicinity of Muslim demonstrators.

(via Five Feet of Fury)

RERUN–No Steak for You!

by

Originally posted at Photon Courier 5/29/2003

(This doesn’t seem nearly as far-fetched today, with Nanny Bloomberg running rampant, as it did in 2003)

Several months ago, a Federal court threw out a lawsuit in which McDonald’s was charged with contributing to obesity. But don’t think this is the end of the story. Lawyers are salivating about the potential damages which could be extracted from the restaurant industry. Approaches are being fine-tuned, and new lawsuits are being filed.

Most of these lawyers claim that what they want is for restaurants to do a better job of disclosing ingredients and associated risks. But does anyone really think it would end there? Suppose some of these suits prevail, and the McDonald’s menu board is loaded up with nutritional information. The next wave of suits will allege that the type size is too small…or, if the type size is large, that the data is too summarized and not detailed enough. And if a restaurant puts data in their menu that is both detailed and in a large type font, they will be sued for overloading their customers with more information than they can possibly comprehend.

In such a litigious environment, of course, restaurant companies will move to protect themselves as best they can. What form might this self-protection take? Let’s skip ahead a few years…you’ve gone to a favorite restaurant to enjoy a steak.

WAITPERSON: Welcome to Snarfer’s Steakhouse. I’m Stacy, and I’ll be taking care of you today. Could I scan your smartcard now? (Swipes the card). Now, what would you like to have?

YOU: I’ll have the sirloin steak and a baked potato..and a salad to start, please.

STACY: Well, let’s see (types on her handheld)…Gee, I’m sorry, sir, but your cholesterol intake over the last month has been kind of high…how about the roast chicken instead?

YOU: I really was in the mood for steak…say, I’ve lost about ten pounds lately. Doesn’t that count for anything?

STACY: It might…if you could just step over to the scale. (You walk over to the scale and insert your smartcard. Stacy checks her handheld again.)

STACY: I’m really sorry, sir…maybe if you’re really good for another week…but for tonight, you need to think about the chicken or one of our vegetarian entrees.

Seem improbable? Yes. But many of the outcomes of today’s litigation boom seemed highly improbable before they happened.

One point that’s often missed is that harm done by tort law excesses isn’t limited to economic damage. The fear of lawsuits erodes personal freedom in dozens of ways. It’s an erosion for which many civil libertarians fail to show much concern…due in part, probably, to their own preference for lawsuits as a vehicle for social change.

I don’t mean to suggest that there are never cases in which a restaurant should be held liable for health effects of menu items. For example: if a restaurant used a cooking process which it knew to be highly carcinogenic, and withheld the relevant information from customers, liability would be justified. But that’s something very different from attempting to collect damages for every overweight person in America.

Musings on L’Affaire du Poulet Filet

by

Taking it into my head to go to the local Chick-fil-A last Wednesday was another one of those odd things, like getting involved in the Tea party which happened because of a friend. In this case, a purely on-line friend; the friend who inveigled me into attending an early San Antonio Tea Party planning committee meeting was a blog-friend whom I had actually met on a couple of social occasions, so when he said, ‘Hey, we need someone to write press releases and stuff, and you’re a writer and you were a broadcaster, so can ya?’ And being a stubborn independent libertarian-conservative sort, it seemed like a good idea. That the planned event very shortly turned into an all-Texas blow-out with 15,000 to maybe as many as 20,000 in attendance … well, I didn’t have anything much to do with that … I just kept my head down and sent out the press releases and made myself available for local media interviews.

Read more