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
Taiwan heads to the polls next month for local elections. Beneath the campaign ads lies a deeper question: What do we call this place and who gets to decide? In the pages of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), that question has been playing out across three centuries. The entries for “Formosa” and “Taiwan” chart an island’s journey from colonial fantasy to self-named reality. Names are rarely neutral; they are the first act of possession. Nowhere is this more evident than in the OED, where the two entries serve as a linguistic seismograph for one of the world’s most enduring geopolitical fault lines.
There are two space races that the democracies must win: one to deter military campaigns near Earth, and the other to secure positional deterrence on the Moon and beyond. The good news is that the US is engaged in both races, which will also benefit US allies and partners in Asia, including Taiwan. On Sept. 14, US Air Force Secretary Troy Meink disclosed, “...the US now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary action.” No details about these “space control weapons” have yet been disclosed. However, a graphic apparently issued by French Space Command and posted
Taipei’s school lunch program has run into trouble yet again. This time, Shilin District’s (士林) Shihtung Elementary School (士東國小) was exposed by parents on social media for serving rotten, blackened pears. The incident once again sparked criticism about food safety in Taipei schools and the quality of the city’s free lunch policy. Free school lunches for all elementary and junior-high schools is a flagship policy announced by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) in January, but at the time it attracted criticism from other administrative regions. Since the policy’s official implementation last month, the city — which has the largest budget
Upon entering Taipei Railway Station, what greets us at the interchange of Taiwan’s three major rail systems are not testimonies to the city’s technological development or cultural heritage, but an inescapable barrage of cosmetic surgery and aesthetic medicine advertisements. Advertising itself has always been more than commercial activity; it is a manifestation of the collective unconscious. When the entranceway of the nation is lined with legions of cookie-cutter perfect faces and plastic surgery adverts, it both reveals and provokes society’s collective body-image anxiety. From a psychological perspective, these advertisements are an exercise in social conditioning of the public. They do
RSS