This wasn’t something I meant to write about, but it’s Greg’s fault for sending me this great article from Peggy Noonan. The topic is a growing inability by some — I might almost say “by the usual suspects” to live with the idea of free speech:

On Oct. 2, on Katie Couric’s “CBS Evening News,” in the segment called “Free Speech,” the father of a boy killed at Columbine shared his views on the deeper causes of the recent shootings in Amish country. Brian Rohrbough said violence entered our schools when we threw God out of them. “This country is in a moral freefall. For over two generations the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum. . . . We teach there are no moral absolutes, no right or wrong, and I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children.” This was not exactly the usual mush.

Mr. Rohrbough was quickly informed he was not part of the legitimate debate, either. Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post: “The decision . . . to air his views prompted a storm of criticism, some of it within the ranks of CBS News.” A blog critic: Grief makes people say “stupid” things, but “what made them put this man on television?” Good question. How did they neglect to silence him?

When did it become impossible for these folks to consider that other points of view besides their own might have merit? In the last 20 years, we’ve had the free speech mantra drilled into us: It doesn’t matter if Larry Flynt is a pornographer and creep, he’s entitled to free speech. It doesn’t matter if the KKK are bigots, they’re entitled to free speech. It doesn’t matter if protesters are obscene, disruptive, disrepectful and ill-informed, they’re entitled to free speech.

And if that is correct in its theory, why is it so hard to consider opinions like Mr. Rohrbough’s as worthy of the same consideration, especially on a program segment called Free Speech.

This could all just be more bloggy cavilling, but I hope not. I’m not griping because it’s unfair, though it is. One point of view is being poorly represented on the mainstream venues of news and entertainment. (The alternative media — talk radio, Fox News, the right blogosphere — certainly give less platform space to liberal views, but those who aren’t listeners or viewers might be surprised how much less censorship occurs. And in spite of the huge popularity of those venues, in the public debate, alt-media are always regarded as posers and renegades beneath contempt.)

But more than whether or not it’s unfair, I’m concerned about the direction this has taken in the last few years. It’s alarming to look at where we are. Outlets of conservative opinion sprung up in the 80’s in response to the somewhat monolithic liberal epistomology that was in force. The response to that natural venting has been a slow increase of blood pressure, volume and the ambient level of self-righteousness from the left. There has been a steady increase in the number of people on the left who seem not only intolerant, but proud of their intolerance and more willing to embrace intolerance. More tellingly, they’re less willing to accept the strictures of democracy when liberalism is on the line.

Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don’t. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn’t come quickly, they’ll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate.

And they don’t always recognize themselves to be bullying. So full of their righteousness are they that they have lost the ability to judge themselves and their manner.

And all this continues to come more from the left than the right in America.

Which is, at least in terms of timing, strange. The left in America — Democrats, liberals, Bush haters, skeptics of many sorts — seems to be poised for a significant electoral victory. Do they understand that if it comes it will be not because of Columbia, Streisand, O’Donnell, et al., but in spite of them?

The liberal excesses of the 70’s got pushback from conservatives in the 80’s, and the advent of new technologies has opened up a wonderful era for hearing both sides of a story. I can still remember the expression “Silent Majority” — a way to describe the many, many centrist and right-leaning people who used to go unheard. It may seem to those who simply want everyone to shut up that with Rush Limbaugh on the air and Fox News capturing a lion’s share of the viewership, conservatives today are anything but silent. But I suppose that’s my point. In response to the explosion of opportunity for conservatives to actually be heard, Screechy Liberals* seem more than ever to simply regard free speech as a luxury we can no longer afford. It used to be fashionable to “dialogue”; now it’s more fashionable to silence the opposition.
*****

* Footnote: “Screechy Liberals” (SL) is a term I’m using to try to get at the heart of the issue without offending others needlessly. Not all liberals are SLs. They only represent a fraction of the liberal spectrum that can’t speak in a normal tone. If you are just someone who likes to consider all points of view, or is sympathetic to classic liberalism, please don’t think that I mean you. If you have even read this far, I can assure you you’re not an SL. Their pancreas would have exploded and they’d have the dictionary out to see if there’s an adjective that combines the f-word with ‘unfit to live.’

Other disclaimers: Yes, I know that conservatives can be intolerant as well, but I don’t see the pattern forming amongst leading conservative voices to let debate give way to censorship. There are a few boneheads like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, but for all the strokes they induce on the left, they don’t actually have a large or growing conservative fanbase. And their paltry number doesn’t stack up to those on the left like Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Howard Dean, Ward Churchill, Charlie Rangel, Jimmy Carter (sorry to include an ex-prez in the stack, but he’s lost his mind recently), Alec Baldwin, Cindy Sheehan, etc. etc. etc.

So no, I don’t think that right and left are the same thing. Not trying to silence dissent myself … just saying that we can pick up the conversation from there. ;-)