Compelling Atheism?

Josh Nankivel
http://non-theist.com

The City Council has denied reports that they pressured the billboard company to take it down, but they still claimed that City Hall had received “90 complaints.” Regardless of who is responsible in this case, one point of view is free to express while another is frequently censored.

In principle, is there a difference between “paid” speech (advertising)and free speech? Does the fact that the billboard is privately owned and is a source of revenue for the owner a factor? This could have been an economic decision, although if it is true that the city pressured the billboard owner, this would most certainly constitute censorship. But doesn’t a business owner have the right to make business decisions?

That being said, even as a believer, I upheld the right of billboards to carry whatever message they pleased, even when those messages were offensive to me. Today, I am more offended by the “jesus is the answer” and “fear god” billboards than I once was by strip club billboards, but the first amendment should trump personal taste in any case.

If you think that provoking riots was seen by anyone as an important reason for free speech, I think you’re mistaken. Do you have any evidence for the American founders supporting riots?

There’s a difference between supporting riots and supporting talk leading to them. Philosophically, they were loath in general to blame any person for the action of others, so I imagine banning “seditious talk” would have had little support among most of them. Also, consider:

First off, their conduct: the battle at Lexington and Concord began as what could best be described as a riot. Also, while completely nonviolent, the Boston Tea Party was nonetheless rather destructive.

Second, their justification for revolution:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

– Declaration of Independence

The phrase “train of abuses and usurpations” comes from Locke and specifies semi-strict requirements, but overthrowing the government is identified as a protected right in certain situations (and Locke himself exercised this right unsuccessfully in 1688, so he wasn’t just spouting philosophy). Of course, under Locke’s definition, this wouldn’t apply to a government offering a democratic means of reform such as the US has. However, to determine whether the conditions are met it’s still necessary to be free to publically discuss them (which indeed is what the bulk of the Declaration is devoted to doing.)

Finally, in addition to the Jefferson quotations I posted elsewhere, I add:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith, Paris, November 13, 1787

While not directly about speech, if you have the right to resist government by force of arms in certain circumstances, you certainly have the right to talk about it. Of course, Jefferson was the most liberal of the Founders; Hamilton would certainly have disagreed with this sentiment and the others would have fallen at various places along the spectrum in between.

More vaguely,

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

– Ben Franklin, In Conference, Feb 17, 1775

Most of the founders said something along the lines of too much liberty being preferable to too little, so I imagine they tend to err on the sides of allowing the talk (if not the riot itself). Plus the phrase “make no law” in the 1st Amendment isn’t especially ambiguous.

If you’re laying bare the facts and this happens to create a riot then that should not be illegal.

The problem is that this condition is impossible to check in reality. Many “clear and present danger” cases have fallen into this niche in my opinion. And over time more general rights are taken away chip by chip. The law doesn’t matter until things get resolved after the fact (often long after), so while preventing riots sounds like a good idea in theory, the law is more often misused as a way of stifling dissent (unless you think someone willing to risk arrest as a rioter would be deterred by a law prohibiting speech). I’m willing to listen to evidence to the contrary, but seeing as rioting is already a crime and ringleaders in the rioting already receive harsher punishments, I fail to see a compelling benefit to justify creating a separate crime for the speech leading to it.

As a case in point, the Danish cartoons of Mohammad led to riots and some Muslim leaders claimed that the cartoonists incited the riots. By accepting the idea that one individual can be responsible for the actions of others solely because of something they said/wrote, you help legitimize claims such as these. Ideally, I’d like a world in which no one wanted to riot, but I’d much rather have a system in which those who riot are punished for rioting and those who don’t, aren’t.

Agreement is not important. Only understanding is.

Firstly, the last time I checked, Richard Wade is NOT a Christian, unless I missed a monumental event such as that (?) Richard? Did I miss a miracle? I demand a replay if I did!!

Argh! Did I confuse him with Mike Clawson? What a dunderhead I am. Apologies all around for my stupidity. This is why I can’t read books with more than two main characters, I just get everyone confused.

I don’t see Richard as having these sinister motives and despite a superficial reading I don’t see him calling for a national revolt because of this one issue. In fact, he’s a Christian coming out and demanding more action to protest an atheist billboard being taken down, so maybe cut him some slack. It’s worth considering that there may be some honestly mistaken interpretations.

Firstly, the last time I checked, Richard Wade is NOT a Christian, unless I missed a monumental event such as that (?) Richard? Did I miss a miracle? I demand a replay if I did!!

From my perspective, I think what Richard is trying to point out is that the two sides depicted by the two signs he refers to are severely mismatched in loudness of voice. Given the fact that the atheists are in the minority, their voice is lower in volume and fewer in number.

I am a Christian who believes in freedom of speech. For the past year, I have been reading your comments on this blog, often passionate, against the fundamental Christians and other religious beliefs. But do you actually “do” anything about those complaints other than bitch and gripe about them here or to each other? Just asking.

The only way for the minority to be heard over the majority is to have a louder voice. If you’re not heard, then you’re not heard. Sounds like simple logic to me. Laziness, complacency, and lack of passion do not make change happen. You want change? Then start from number one. If not, then shut up and pray for change. (oh wait… you don’t pray)

I do agree with some of you that there are ways to take action other than what Richard pointed out. I don’t think he meant that those were the “only” ways. Do it the way you deem appropriate. You know the difference between action and inaction. And if you choose inaction, then chances are that the issue in question is simply not important enough to you. That is perfectly fine. Just don’t speak as if you passionately believe in something when you clearly don’t. Leave that behavior to us luke warm Christians. We’re good at it.

It’s entirely possible for me to demonstrate against a billboard without being in favor of its censorship. I’d merely be exercising the very same rights used by whoever put up the billboard in the first place.

Speech should be immune from censorship, but never from criticism.

(Edit: Crud, sorry, I didn’t read the article carefully enough. The picture depicted people protesting before the billboard was taken down, but the article was actually talking about protests occurring afterwards.)