{"id":4403,"date":"2006-02-25T22:29:02","date_gmt":"2006-02-26T02:29:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2006\/02\/25\/wallace-rushdie-stevenson-hal"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:08","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:08","slug":"wallace-rushdie-stevenson-hall","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/02\/25\/wallace-rushdie-stevenson-hall\/","title":{"rendered":"wallace & rushdie, stevenson & hall"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

My friend George Wallace at Fool in the Forest<\/EM><\/A> tries to keep <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
his “personal and cultural” weblog apolitical.  However, he is <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
willing to head out on the choppy seas of political punditry in <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
pursuit of a bad pun.  Thus, a few days ago he opined on the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Dubai Ports World controversy, in order to use the headline:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Scubai-Dubai To-do<\/A> (Feb. 22, 2006).  Having stuck his neck <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
out that far, George decided to rally on the side of freedom <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of speech regarding publishing the Danish cartoons of the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Prophet.  George says: <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"HideGoTree\"  “<\/FONT>I am inclined to be an absolutist when it <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
comes to <\/FONT><\/FONT>matters of free speech and free expression, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
let it gore <\/FONT><\/FONT>whose ox it may.  On that score, I quote <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
approvingly <\/FONT><\/FONT>this weekend commentary from <\/FONT>Colby Cosh<\/FONT><\/A>:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“What I want to know is, how come our other <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
constitutional freedoms are never hogtied and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
thrown onto the psychoanalyst’s couch like this?  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
. . . <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“But let anyone exercise freedom of the press, or <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
freedom of speech, and suddenly his motives are i<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
nterrogated — suddenly the ‘right’ is only available <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to the well-meaning, which is to be defined none <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
too broadly.” <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
I left a lengthy <\/FONT>Comment disagreeing<\/FONT><\/A> with George (and Colby), <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
George replied thoughtfully, and I responded (not persuaded <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
by George’s quoting from <\/FONT>William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
in the Washington Post<\/EM>). <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                             \"watch<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
       Now that we’ve had a little more time for reflection and the <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
(totally unjustified) violent riots have died down, it would be <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
great if others joined the discussion.  It seems to me that no rea-<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
son<\/FONT><\/SPAN>able person <\/FONT><\/SPAN>in the Western World is questioning the right<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
of Flemming Rose, editor of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, to <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
publish those cartoons.  We have been questioning the wisdom <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
or appropriateness of the decision to publish. <\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/FONT> As I noted at <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Fool in the Forest, having the right<\/EM> is not the end of the decision- <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
process for responsible citizens, publishers, speakers:  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
When exercising the free speech right is likely to lead <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to violence or great offense to others, I would hope that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
there would at least be a balancing of interests — what <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is the benefit from exercising the right, and what are the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
probable ill effects? Saying the benefit is proving the ex-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
istence of the right is not particularly useful.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"newspaperS\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Since the cartoons say nothing that could not have been <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
said (much better) with words, and they would predictably <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
offend even moderate Muslims (who would not dream of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
reacting with violence), their original publication makes little <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
sense to me. Re-publishing makes even less sense. No <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
matter how shocking or tame, republishing in the USA adds <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
little to the discussion — Muslims will still be offended; all but <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
extremists will condemn the violent reactions; and, more people <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
are very likely to be victims of violence at the hands of extremists.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
What do you think?<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny  Although I think Colby Cash has greatly exaggerated the<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
threat to free speech (especially since that right exists vis-a-<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
vis<\/EM> the government, not as protection from the opinion of private <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
persons), I heartily agree with him that the <\/FONT>United Church of <\/FONT><\/A><\/DIV>
\n
Canada<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT>was completely off-base concluding — with nothing <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
but speculation to support their claim — that the only <\/FONT>reason <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the cartoons <\/FONT>were published is “simply racial hatred.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
empty bottle<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a few words<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I would like to take back<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
   John Stevenson<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny With George Wallace on my mind, I should point you <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to his Declarations and Exclusions<\/A><\/EM>, an insurance-oriented <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
legal weblog, where he <\/FONT><\/FONT>has started a new feature called <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Beyond the Bar<\/FONT><\/A> — which will have George’s gleanings from <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
non-law-oriented weblogs that seem to be worth a look by <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
lawyers. The first selection for BtB<\/EM> is a post from <\/FONT>3quarksdaily<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
by Michael Blim, who teaches anthropology at the Graduate <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Center of the City University of New York. Blim examines the <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“<\/FONT>Brief, Now Lost Legacy of Constitutional Liberalism<\/FONT><\/A>” of <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the U.S. Supreme Court.  <\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (Feb. 26, 2006): Speaking about free speech in a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“free country”, please check out this tale of police station <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
intimidation when an undercover reporter tries to get a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
complaint form<\/A> in Miami. cbs4.com<\/FONT><\/A>, “Police State Intimidat-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
ion,” Feb. 4, 2006 (via Mike Cernovich<\/FONT><\/A>).  I don’t think this <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
could have happened in Schenectady.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
“rushdieNYT”  salman rushdie<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
from nyt<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny  In thinking about the free speech issues raised by the Danish <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
cartoons, and wondering when it is wise to speak up against bullies <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
who are prone to react with violence, I naturally thought about author <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Salman Rushdie<\/A><\/FONT>, who was placed under a death fatwa<\/A><\/FONT>, over the sup-<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
posed <\/FONT><\/FONT>insults to the Prophet in his novel Satanic Verses.<\/EM>  <\/EM>In so doing, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I remembered my own connection with Mr. Rushdie.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Two weekends <\/FONT>ago, I finally got around to trying the Facial Recognition <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
software demonstration at MyHeritage<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A> (which I learned about through <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Bob Ambrogi<\/FONT><\/A>).  You can upload a photo and the <\/FONT><\/FONT>MyHeritage folks will <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
compare it with a data base of 2500 past and present <\/FONT>“celebrities<\/A>.”  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
You are then told which celebrity you most resemble.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                \"DAGMay05\" <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
Well, I submitted <\/FONT>this 2005 photo<\/FONT><\/A>, and was told that I most looked like Salman <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Rushdie<\/A> — based on a photo of Rushdie where he, unlike me, has a beard. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I then tried a 1980 photo of myself and was told I most resembled Harry <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Houdini<\/A>.    A week later, my same 2005 photo was matched with Colin <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Powell<\/A>.   Interesting.  (Back around 1980, one of my best friends remarked <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that I looked like whichever ethnic group you most disliked that week. In <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
1970, I was told I looked like “<\/FONT>Omar Sharif<\/FONT><\/A> on acid.”  Omar and I were both <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a lot younger then.<\/FONT>)  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
I had a lot of fun with MyHeritage.  Three female friends of mine were very <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
pleased to hear that they looked like Julia Roberts, Katherine Hepburn, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and Isabella Rossellini.  I was a little surprised that a male friend, despite <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
his mustache, most resembled  “<\/FONT>The Little Flower of Jesus<\/FONT><\/A>,” St. Therese <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
de Lisieux.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
 
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
under the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
blackest doodle <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
something unerasable<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
<\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"erasingS\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n

\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/FONT>
\n

\n

\n

\n
their laughter<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is not about me<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
but would sound<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
just like that<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
if it was<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
John Stevenson<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
“empty bottle”& “their laughter” – <\/SPAN><\/SPAN>Quiet Enough<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> (2004)<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“empty bottle” – Upstate Dim Sum<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>  (2002\/I<\/FONT><\/A>)<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"sunglassesG\"  Now, it’s time for something non-controversial. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
The excellent haiku of Carolyn Hall<\/A>:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
sudden gust?<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the book opens to a poem<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I like even better  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
icicles drip on the sill<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
   a pile of bills waiting<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
        to be paid <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
            winter sunset<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
        in the shrimp boat’s wake<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
pink pelicans   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                      \"sunglassesR\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
over the top<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of my sunglasses<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
blue sky    <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
spilt milk<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
spreading along the grout lines<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
morning chill<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Carolyn Hall<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 “spilt milk” – Heron’s Nest<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> (11:5, May 2000); <\/FONT>A New Resonance 2<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A><\/DIV>
\n
 “icicles drip” – Acorn<\/EM> 3; <\/FONT>A New Resonance 2:<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A><\/DIV>
\n
“winter sunset” – <\/FONT>The Heron’s Nest<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> (II:5, May 2000)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“sudden gust” – <\/FONT>The Heron’s Nest<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> (II:10, Oct. 2000)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“over the top” – <\/FONT>The Heron’s Nest<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> (II:1, Jan. 2000) <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                                                          \"newspaperS\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

My friend George Wallace at Fool in the Forest tries to keep his “personal and cultural” weblog apolitical.  However, he is willing to head out on the choppy seas of political punditry in pursuit of a bad pun.  Thus, a few days ago he opined on the Dubai Ports World controversy, in order to use […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-191","jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4403"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4403\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12760,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4403\/revisions\/12760"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}