Fenster writes:
DUCK 1:
Over at Salon, Matthew Bruenig takes on “free speech hypocrites” of all stripes. He argues, with some truth, that the Duck Dynasty dust-up is more or less the Dixie Chicks dust-up in reverse, with the same offenses and complaints. Concerning Robertson’s “offenses”:
. . . we have here a perfect analogue to the Dixie Chicks spectacle: a popular entertainer said something offensive and outrageous to many, and an economic actor punished him for doing so.
Concerning the complaints, a kind of symmetry as well. Liberals cried foul when the Dixie Chicks got whacked, and now it is fowl the other way round. His conclusion: no one really cares about content neutral rules and each side is only out to win.
Everyone else has a substantive agenda and merely stakes out the short-term positions on content-neutral procedural justice that further that agenda. Filibusters are good when they block what I dislike, but bad when they block what I like. States rights are good when states do what I like, but bad when they do what I dislike. Private economic coercion of expression is good when it shuts down comments I dislike, but bad when it shuts down comments I like. And so on.
Given this reality, why do we even play the game where we pretend to believe in some sort of content-neutral procedural justice rules? Who are we trying to fool? What’s the use of having shell arguments about process that everyone knows are driven by core disagreements on substantive agendas? I don’t get it.
Maybe this is tongue in cheek and he doesn’t really get it. But I don’t think it is hard to get. Of course people are hypocrites. They are not required to be other than that, to play fair or to support the other side when it scores a point. What is required is free speech. That’s all.
It is OK to make hypocritical and incorrect statements that one’s free speech rights have been abridged. That’s free speech too. What is not OK is the abridgment of free speech. And that hasn’t happened in either of the above cases. I hardly feel as though all as well in the Republic. It would be nice to have less toxicity and hypocrisy. But as to free speech, both the Dixie Chicks and Phil Robertson can say what they want. They are not entitled to a megaphone, or a platform or a column in the New York Times.
Free speech is hard enough. It shouldn’t have to carry the burden of things it is not.
DUCK 2:
And as long as we are talking about ducks at Christmas, a quick shout-out to Kalle Anke is in order. God Jul!





