Let's all be thankful the United States isn't Iran anymore

An American spy has been captured by the Iranian authorities, after being apprehended, at face value, for illegally purchasing alcohol. And by "spy" I actually mean "journalist"- and she's being held without charges right now, which I know must be terrifying to her family, because Iran has sporadically refused to acknowledge even having her in custody, but particularly because of the fate of another reporter who fell into the hands of the authorities, and never lived to see freedom again. We must bear in mind that the death IS being treated as a homicide... even if nobody has actually been punished yet. Roxana Seberi, the captured journalist, reportedly had been gathering information in Iran even after her press card was revoked according to Iranian officials.

Now is the time to shake our heads and tell ourselves how wonderful we are to have a free, unthreatened media in the United States. Undoubtedly, we assure each other, Iran is a barbaric land ruled by a despot who is attempting to squash potential political uprising by first squashing reporters from Western nations, which may spread dangerous ideas of freedom amongst the people. I give you the example of an article by Steve Watson and Paul Watson, who cite their sources so well that I felt compelled to give them credit for doing some of the footwork for me, rather than take their sources without my thanks. If they were not protected (1) from persecution for seditious libel, they may have thought twice before speaking up about the various ways our government has been conducting espionage in Iraq for years now. According to journalist Seymour Hersh, American special forces have been crossing the border and conducting secret operations with groups that could reasonably be considered terrorist organizations against Iran's government, in attempts to undermine the government. Beautiful! Making accusations like that using anonymous sources that he cannot be forced to name! The very existance of Hersh's writings at once demonstrates the freedoms Americans enjoy as well as the need to use those freedoms to keep watch on the deceptions of own government (theoretically fiercely protective of those freedoms).

Iran does not have our First Amendment, nor our Fifth Amendment, so we must not view any of their actions or restrictions as though their government is violating something that WE agreed upon and hold sacred. (Ignoring international law for the time being) It makes sense- GOOD sense, to want to lock up "reporters" gathering information in your nation when you are on the brink of war. It does not make sense to give guarantees of anonymity to anyone who speaks to a reporter, or to grant Iranian citizens protection against charges of seditious libel. The United States has openly said that it wanted to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Well... if we're so close to going to war with Iran, then it's quite reasonable to suspect that the United States may be planning on beginning a propaganda campaign in Iran even before the first shots have been fired. It wouldn't even have to be effective propaganda- the presence itself of an organization within Iran speaking out against Iran's government and making accusations of illegal activity would signal that the leadership is not able to effectively suppress dissent in times of national distress. We already play with acts of war by sending unmanned drones over Iranian airspace, but shooting down their drones when they enter Iraqi territory and leaving them the belittling choice of admitting to wrongdoing or explaining that their technology is so woefully inferior to ours that they cannot properly control their aircraft.

Hersh, in an interview with CNN, compares the situation in Iran now to the U.S. interference in Afghanistan depicted in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War." And this, at last, takes me exactly to the comparison I want to make. Charlie Wilson's War depicts government deception in an extremely positive light, showing how political figures operated outside the rules for a cause that was just, and perfectly in line with what was for the good of America. The government does not feel threatened by the movie, and its makers have not been persecuted. Shall I now point to an Iranian political film that was persecuted recently? Nay. I point instead to "The Spirit of '76",(2) a film which was banned in the United States during World War I because it had the potential

Therefore, as I say, this is no time or place for the exploitation of that which, at another time or place, or under different circumstances, might be harmless and innocuous in its every aspect. It is like the "right of free speech," upon which such great stress is now being laid. That which in ordinary times might be clearly permissible, or even commendable, in this hour of national emergency, effort, and peril, may be as clearly treasonable, and therefore properly subject to review and repression. The constitutional guaranty of "free speech" carries with it no right to subvert the [**7] purposes and destiny of the nation.

In addition, this may, by his own admission, knew that these things -- the bayoneting of the babe and the like -- had been severely criticized [*949] and were inhibited. He knew that objection had been made to them. He knew, just as well as he knows we are sitting here now, that the private presentation of this film on last Tuesday morning was for the purpose of seeing if there was anything objectionable in it. To fit it for such private presentation it was gone over by him with a fine tooth comb, no doubt; but immediately thereafter a sedulous effort was indulged in by him to insert those things which would tend to "excite" and to create a prejudice against Great Britain. This demands an inquiry into the ultimate motives and purposes of this man, and no doubt justifies other and different action against him. But in any event, referring to the special problem now before us, and considering only the harm not to come to us, I feel that I can do no less than to say that, so far as it is within the power of this court, this thing has got to stop.

Goldstein, responsible for creating this film, was sentenced to ten years in prison. The judgement was later affirmed by a higher court.

In times of tension and suspicion, governments take action that those in positions made safer by time or by distance may look upon with contempt. Let us not dwell on constructing an image of a foreign government as vile, nor should we grow too cynnical of the government of our own people without purpose. If you seek a conclusion from me, you may have it, but my point is ambiguity itself. All actions have their contexts. In the coming months, when some rally against action in Iran and others for it, consider that the more often a man stands on the fence, the more often he gets the best view of both sides.

--------------------

Note: Some of my links were to LexisNexis, which may not work for all. I have added notation for reference.

1.NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN
2. UNITED STATES v. MOTION PICTURE FILM "THE SPIRIT OF '76"

Let them twist in the wind... or you know... flourish.

In America, we've more or less staked our future on the "marketplace of ideas," where free and open debate flows and sometimes offends. Those who can back up their words with well-thought out, reasonable arguments have a better chance of making an impact on the market than those with weak, unsupported claims. Once in a while a bad idea will endure much longer than it ought, but it is my judgment that such ideas are "bad ideas," and clearly the opinion is not shared by those who perpetuate them. Eventually, we have faith, the unworthy will be weeded out through natural selection.

A recent post by "Zoevenly" railed against Joel Stein's back-page essay in Time Magazine. Joel also believed that if left alone, things will work out for the best, but his essay was directed toward government interference in the housing market. Zoevenly interpreted his essay as nasty, calling people who bought homes during the housing market idiots and comparing them to small children. She uses several emotional appeals, which I intend to elaborate upon in future posts, so will skim over now. The point is that she (either deliberately or unintentionally) misinterprets some of the subtleties of his argument, focusing on the harshness of his criticism and apparent lack of empathy for those hurt by the collapse of the housing market. She takes a neo-Liberal stance, viewing government as the caring father who should rush its wounded daughter to the hospital when involved in a catastrophic accident, even if the accident resulted from the daughter's foolish actions. Stein does not see government as a father, but as a meddler, but Zoevenly sees Stein as a know-nothing, exclaiming in the final portions of her blog that he had not been reading such-and-such articles, and that anyone who knows anything agrees with her, yadda, yadda...

Although Stein's arguments were ungentle, they've found a receptive audience in me, one member of the larger audience, and even though another member of the larger audience, Zovenly, finds his remarks offensive, the rightful punishment for his remarks are only the loss of readers and the criticism of other individuals. The government is not going to step in and punish him for his point of view.

A recent political cartoon in the New York Post depicted two police officers moments after shooting a crazed chimpanzee to death. The caption read "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." The reference is to the recent attack of a chimpanzee which tore part of a woman's face off and had to be gunned down, a crazed chimpanzee which arguably could have written a stimulus package whose level of coherency would match that of the package put together in Washington. It was a political cartoon, meant to be a little bit bawdy, but strike its point candidly. Unfortunately, it missed its mark. Monkey or an ape imagery has been used throughout American history to demean whomever we hope to demean, such as the enemy during a war, or even the President when he's unpopular. Many have interpreted the comic as making a direct reference to President Obama, and as monkey imagery has been particularly popular with anti-black racists, the New York Post set itself up to be hammered by anyone who wanted to take a swing at them.

I was surprised and a bit impressed at the way the editors chose to handle the situation. Yes, they wished to address the cries of racism, but their response was not purely backpedaling. Instead, they explained the original meaning of the comic and apologized to those who were truly offended, yet at the same time took the opportunity to re-emphasize their viewpoint:

"It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.

Period."

The New York Post also refused to offer any apology to those who had "had differences with The Post in the past - and [saw] the incident as an opportunity for payback."

Refusing to make a complete apology is risky, and could have negative repurcussions. The New York Post could lose even more public support, and thus lose readers, and thus lose revenue. In the same way Stein put his ideas up to compete in the marketplace of ideas, they choose to let their viewpoint battle against the views of those who want them to fall flat on their face. If I were to mention now that it is the federal government's sacred responsibility to step in now and make SURE that the New York Post suffers even further for its controversial cartoon, you probably would tell me that I am off my rocker and should go write an economic stimulus plan.

Al Sharpton has demanded that the FCC "re-examine" waivers to its media ownership rules that allow Rupert Murdoch to own two newspapers (the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal) and two television stations (WNYW and WWOR) in the New York areas. This neo-liberal plan of changing the rules because you want to punish specific content was ruled to be unjust in Texas vs. Johnson.

Sending in the government to stifle offensive speech is NOT the best way to run a democracy. In this case, the speech wasn't even intended to offend the group of people it offended. True, it would offend Democrats, but it was meant to be a political attack, not a racist attack against blacks or any other ethinic group. If the New York Post begins to become a racist newspaper that depicts the death of a popular President, then the New York Post will suffer the consequence of losing its customers in the marketplace of ideas. However, let the economics of ideas decide the fate of the paper. If the FCC is called in to destroy anyone who says something that MIGHT be considered racist and/or offensive, then speech will become stifled. Even hate speech must be tolerated if we are to have free and full discussion, but in this case this is free and full discussion that is being falsely branded as hate speech so that it can be suppressed!

Rupert Murdoch has issued an apology, accepting responsibility for the printing of the cartoon and attempting to mend the hurt feelings. He says that after speaking to others about this, he has gained a better understanding of the hurt caused.

A controversial piece of speech, presented in a privately-owned newspaper has led to discussion and, for at least one man, a better understanding and increased awareness of sensitivites. Perhaps Senator Gillibrand (D) was mistaken when he said that this type of speech, "serves no productive role in the public discourse.” It obviously got people talking about issues that are important to them. That's an important enough role.