Andrew – I think I basically agree with you. But this does raise a point not directly relevant to the David Irving discussion, but one which has been bugging me quite a bit.

I keep hearing, particularly from conservative emailers in the context of the Danish cartoon controversy, that there is no such thing as “inappropriate speech.” This is a popular view among opponents of political correctness, especially among college kids. It is a very opportunistic position to take. In Madison two weeks ago, I sat with a right-leaning libertarian student who insisted the state shouldn’t be able to ban obsecenities — including simulated kiddie porn — from billboards and saturday morning television. This is self-evident nonsense if you ask me.

Of course some speech is inappropriate. Even some political speech is innapropriate (you would think more conservatives who rightly despise Michael Moore would understand this). But inappropriate shouldn’t mean illegal. And yet liberals — and no shortage of conservatives — consider criticism of inappropriate speech to be somehow an infringement of free speech rights. When Cindy Sheehan or Cynthia McKinney say something idiotic the knee-jerkers respond “they have a right to say it.” Okay, but so what?

I’d have no problem with the Muslims protesting the Danish cartoons if all they were doing was protesting. But they are threatening violence and practicing it in some cases.

As one of the few defenders of censorship under the age of forty, I think free speech discussions in this country are bass-ackwards. As a culture we defend the most depraved displays as “free speech” but we treat political speech as something to be banned and regulated. The founders considered political speech to be sacrosanct, but they certainly would have had no problem with a local government banning public displays of sexual deviance and they would not have been fooled by arguments that strippers are exercizing their first amendment rights when contorting themselves around a pole. Today, we treat such cultural expression as holy but we see nothing wrong with using campaign finance “reform” and the FCC to curtail political speech in myriad ways. We see nothing wrong with forcing tobacco companies to say things they do not wish to say and do not believe. We see nothing wrong with state institutions forcing individuals to assemble against their wishes to be re-educated under the banner of diversity.

All of this strikes me as absurd.