Saturday, August 18, 2012
Mencken on Pussy Riot
Listening lately at bedtime to the NBC series 'Biographies in Sound', from '56 and '57. Lots of good stuff.
Last night heard the episode on Mencken. It concludes with a rare recording of Mencken toward the end of his life, musing on religious matters. Perhaps those who are defending Pussy Riot based on "libertarian" views should pay attention to one of their "libertarian" mentors.
Here's the segment, about one minute.
Transcribed for non-listeners:
In other words, Mencken agreed with Putin.
For what it's worth, I'm not endorsing this set of views ... I don't go along with the whole nonsensical doctrine of "rights" ... but Mencken (and Putin) are voicing plain common sense.
Under the Satanic guidance of the Soviet Front Anti-Civilization Lawyers Union, we've come to believe that "Petitioning For Redress" was meant to justify every sort of demonstration, disturbance and annoyance, as long as the demonstration, disturbance or annoyance is sponsored by the Communist Party. Needless to say, speech that differs in the slightest from this week's Communist Doctrine is not covered by "Petitioning For Redress." Speech that is not a verbatim quotation of this week's Communist Doctrine shall be silenced with maximum force. That's what the Constitution says, according to all Experts and Black-Robed Saboteurs.
Nope. Entirely wrong. "Petitioning For Redress" literally means literally presenting a literal petition to the literal government. That's literally all. ¶ 2:10 AM
Listening lately at bedtime to the NBC series 'Biographies in Sound', from '56 and '57. Lots of good stuff.
Last night heard the episode on Mencken. It concludes with a rare recording of Mencken toward the end of his life, musing on religious matters. Perhaps those who are defending Pussy Riot based on "libertarian" views should pay attention to one of their "libertarian" mentors.
Here's the segment, about one minute.
Transcribed for non-listeners:
I think there is a limit beyond which free speech cannot go; but it's a limit that's very seldom mentioned. It's the point where free speech begins to collide with the right to privacy. I don't think there are any other conditions of free speech. I've got a right to say and believe anything I please, but I haven't got a right to press it on anybody else. For example. Take for instance the Catholic Church, which I'm on good terms with personally, but have no belief in whatsoever. I've got a right to print my dissent from its doctrines. I have exercised that right for many years. But I have no right to go on the cathedral steps on Sunday morning, when the Catholics are coming out of High Mass, and make a speech denouncing them. I don't think there is any such right. Nobody's got a right to be a nuisance to his neighbors.
In other words, Mencken agreed with Putin.
For what it's worth, I'm not endorsing this set of views ... I don't go along with the whole nonsensical doctrine of "rights" ... but Mencken (and Putin) are voicing plain common sense.
Under the Satanic guidance of the Soviet Front Anti-Civilization Lawyers Union, we've come to believe that "Petitioning For Redress" was meant to justify every sort of demonstration, disturbance and annoyance, as long as the demonstration, disturbance or annoyance is sponsored by the Communist Party. Needless to say, speech that differs in the slightest from this week's Communist Doctrine is not covered by "Petitioning For Redress." Speech that is not a verbatim quotation of this week's Communist Doctrine shall be silenced with maximum force. That's what the Constitution says, according to all Experts and Black-Robed Saboteurs.
Nope. Entirely wrong. "Petitioning For Redress" literally means literally presenting a literal petition to the literal government. That's literally all. ¶ 2:10 AM
