Debating free speech
Contrary to the claim made by Bruno Walther published on your editorial page on Thursday (Letter, Jan. 13, page 8), the appalling shooting of US Representative Gabriel Giffords and innocent bystanders was not “the result of political hate-mongering,” it was the result of the actions of a lunatic who had apparently taken a dislike to Giffords back in 2007, long before former Alaska governor Sarah Palin had become a national figure in the US and the “Tea Party” had been formed.
The implications of this for the veracity of Walther’s claims I shall leave for others to draw for themselves.
The “central question” of “how far should the fundamental right to freedom of expression go?” is transparently oxymoronic to anyone not suffering from the confusion of what Isaiah Berlin politely termed “positive liberty” (ie, freedom to) with “negative liberty” (ie, freedom from).
The freedom to achieve a particular social outcome (ie, capacity or power), as distinct from the condition of being free from coercion, is what lies behind Walther’s fixation upon “the freedom to express wrong and stupid opinions.”
He does not see that in questioning the limits of the right to free speech, he corrupts the meaning of those words by equating them to a privilege granted by the state which, though it may be desirable, is ultimately frivolous relative to the momentous importance of broadcasting the correct opinions of luminaries such as Walther himself.
I protest. If a right is -“fundamental,” then our attempts to uphold that right can accept no compromise whatsoever, since it is the basis of other, derivative political rights — to compromise the integrity of the right to free speech is to open the door to further state encroachment upon this right and, moreover, an encroachment which can no longer be limited and held in check by any rational principle, but only the uncertain sufferance of political parties.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
Michael Fagan writes that the claim that Palin was to blame for the shooting of Giffords is “little different from the claim that violence on TV causes violence in real life” (Letters, Jan. 15, page 8). I disagree. There is very strong evidence that media violence causes violence in real life (ie, www.psi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/81.abstract) and no such strong evidence in the Giffords case.
On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that violent rhetoric such as that which routinely comes from Palin’s mouth could inspire real life violence, even though it has not been shown to have done so in this case.
Martin Luther King, Jr was able to lead an effective movement that produced fundamental change in society, while cautioning his followers against hate and violence. Palin might consider this model of leadership.
JIM WALSH
Taipei
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS