30 ms·

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1994/03/273-3/132677371.pdf https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1994/03/273-3/132... "Salman Rushdie’s rights

by ejb999 4y ago

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1994/03/273-3/132677371.pdf https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1994/03/273-3/132... "Salman Rushdie’s rights as an author are absolute and ought to be inalienable. A free society does not ban books. . . . But it is preposterous to pretend that the first principle governing the publication of Satanic Verses is the last word on the subject. . . . Mr Rushdie is entitled to abuse the religion in which he was reared and must be protected against those who want to intimidate him into silence. [Guess the conjunction] But the idea that we all have a duty to applaud his calculated assault is a novel interpretation of the liberal obligation."

XorNot 4y ago
Yanking a couple of outlier authors and commentators out as representatives of common opinion is disingenuous as hell. Society-wide we've also got a huge problem with victim-blaming when it comes to crime, and we are only just starting to make in-roads on it. We've just done another round on this with "somehow NATO is causing Russia to invade Ukraine in a campaign of murder, rape and destruction".
notahacker 4y ago
So an unequivocal assertion of his absolute right to make those statements and obligation of a free society to defend him, coupled with the idea that liberals shouldn't feel obliged to form a consensus opinion on the actual book... I'm sure other commentators came up with much more heavily caveated and reluctant defences of the Satanic Verses than that one, but that one seems fully in agreement with most ideals of free speech tbh, actually more so than the "Speech is violence? Not..." article author's insinuation that criticising the book or acknowledging it was offensive was incompatible with liberalism...
s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think that is a pretty balanced take and falls short of "he shouldn't be so provactive". It simply says he shouldn't be applauded for being provacative. Being a victim of injustice is not itself a virtue.

by ejb999 4y ago

XorNot 4y ago

Yanking a couple of outlier authors and commentators out as representatives of common opinion is disingenuous as hell. Society-wide we've also got a huge problem with victim-blaming when it comes to crime, and we are only just starting to make in-roads on it. We've just done another round on this with "somehow NATO is causing Russia to invade Ukraine in a campaign of murder, rape and destruction".

notahacker 4y ago

So an unequivocal assertion of his absolute right to make those statements and obligation of a free society to defend him, coupled with the idea that liberals shouldn't feel obliged to form a consensus opinion on the actual book... I'm sure other commentators came up with much more heavily caveated and reluctant defences of the Satanic Verses than that one, but that one seems fully in agreement with most ideals of free speech tbh, actually more so than the "Speech is violence? Not..." article author's insinuation that criticising the book or acknowledging it was offensive was incompatible with liberalism...

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I think that is a pretty balanced take and falls short of "he shouldn't be so provactive". It simply says he shouldn't be applauded for being provacative. Being a victim of injustice is not itself a virtue.