Perhaps it's been said already in some other way by someone else here, but these right-wingers' protestations over the definition of "censorship" are quite a nice attempt at sleight-of-hand. Attempt.

Their tactic, interestingly, is to avoid Glenn's point about the behavior of conservatives over the Muhammad cartoon controversy, instead emphasizing the behavior of the Muslims in that controversy (non-violent threats vs. violent threats). After all, this is the only way to avoid the undeniable truth that conservatives' strident objections to newspapers and artists withholding depictions of Muhammad had absolutely nothing to do with the methods Muslims were employing in protest against them.

Glenn's very basic point is and has always been - no matter how one wants to define "censorship" or compare tactics used to suppress speech - that neoconservatives and religious conservatives do not actually believe in the tenets of freedom of expression that they hide behind, but are instead driven by a raw, rank, team mentality against Muslim (or liberal) topics and in favor of Christian (or conservative) topics.

Everything else is the most dishonest misdirection.

Commenting about this topic got me thinking about another topic that is related in an abstract sense.

In the current era of ubiquitous mendacity, we see people constantly using a benign or agreeable "principle" or premise to conceal a truer, less attractive motivation. The example on this topic, obviously, is hiding religious bigotry behind a claimed defense of freedom of speech, but we see it in every other issue of the day as well.

In this way, as highlighted on last night's Daily Show, General Petraeus expounds at length about the supposed dire consequences of withdrawing from Iraq, but then claims he cannot postulate what might happen in that country a year from now if we remain there. The alleged defense of refusing to pontificate about staying in the country is that the year ahead is "unknowable," and making such predictions would be reckless for a commander to do - you know, he's just a boots-on-the-ground-salt-of-the-earth-commander-guy, not some fancy geopolitical strategist or forecaster in an ivory tower.

But, of course, this is a disguise. The real motivation is that predicting what might happen if we withdraw is politically/rhetorically beneficial to the general's cause, while predicting what the country could look like a year from now if we stay is not. It's plain as day, its nakedness concealed only by the thin veneer of the supposed principle of a commander's refusal to guess distant outcomes.

It is this seldom-recognized duplicity that makes revelations of hypocrisy important. There was a lot discussion a while ago here about the propriety of "ad hominem" accusations of hypocrisy - whether they are valid. The literally constant use by our leaders of false principles to conceal less palatable motivations makes pointing out hypocrisy an essential instrument to draw truth from the discourse and expose peoples' true intentions.

Hope I haven't put too fine a point on it.

That's refreshing, but not entirely surprising, given that we're talking about law professors. Law professors (and professors in general) tend to unite around the principle that academics should be shielded from societal coercion and censorship.

One of the good things about academia is that the level of discourse is usually abstract and "high" enough for most participants not to get viscerally offended by a point of view they strongly disagree with. Strongly opposing views in that realm tend to sharpen the mind and the intellectual dynamic, and are often seen as a boon, not something to suppress. Of course, this comity usually carries with it the prerequisite that the participants are intellectually fair and logical.

Bill Donohue is certainly anxious to assume the spittle-stained mantle of "complete militant catholic".

First I want to say that this is a wonderfully constructed and funny remark.

If I were Catholic, I would absolutely despise the fact that this blowhard was trying to speak for me and my religious community. He is an utter embarrassment.

Really, I'm sure he'd love to send a secret "Thank You" letter to Kathy Griffin - he's built an entire livelihood around getting apoplectic over remarks like hers.

For the umpteenth time, ignore "Shooter." He contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion other than dishonesty and distraction.

Wabanatta:

Who raised these people to be such thoughtless ghouls anyway?

This reminded me of a story a friend of mine told me just last night. He also lives in the DC area, and he was in a 7-11 one recent night when some drunk women in their mid-to-late 20s came in. They started relentlessly making fun of the (black) cashier - I don't know what they said, but my friend said it was vicious.

Then, one of them bragged that she was a "political appointee" in the Justice Department. My friend asked her if she was Republican and she said yes. (He then quipped, "You're admitting that?")

This is, of course, just an anecdote and not really "proof" of anything. But it is yet another example of the way so many of these bullies and braggarts behave.

from the antiwar march in downtown DC. This article is a fair enough description of what I saw: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/15/AR2007091500826_pf.html

I particularly love the quote from one of the pro-war counter-protesters: "We just want a chance to show America we don't agree with the vocal minority."

Deluded doesn't even begin to describe this mentality.

Gee, DCLaw1, why didn't you post this article from the Washington Post?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/09/live_from_the_mall_why_huge_cr.html?hpid=topnews

Probably because it shows the anti-war protesters to be the disorganized, unrepresentative loons that they are.

Actually, perhaps I should have posted that article - would have shown how the pro-war minority in this country keeps losing support even despite a disorganized antiwar movement. Thanks for helping make the point!