Remembering the Paris 12 Part I
       Two columnists (among many others, I am sure) had perceptive things to say about free speech v. terrorism. I am referring to Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and David Brooks of the New York Times, published in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat on Fri. Jan 9th and Sat Jan 10th respectively. Both essayists were eloquent.
       Eugene Robinson's column, was a great essay warning against self censorship by journalists, reminding us all that we cannot let terrorism and extortion stifle our free speech, no matter the quality of our writing.
       The next day, David Brooks (nominally a conservative, but I call him a "closet liberal")also stepped up with an essay in favor of free speech and against censorship.
       Usually social conservatives, especially religious ones, would agree, speaking out against govt. censorship in principle, but warn against "offensive" writing and call for self-censorship. Brooks did not do that; he also warned against self-censorship. He went even further, using his conservative persona as a front, pointing out that the kind of satire that the Charlie Hedbo journalists and cartoonists were doing would have been been censored as "hate speech" if a high school or college newspaper had tried publish it.
       I am in total agreement with Brooks on his criticism of "liberal cultural sensitivity", but I see it as a Progressive political point of view, one that makes Progressives different from liberals who are still living in the 1960s and 70s. Progressives are not conservatives, we are more to the left of liberals, but we seem to (almost)share a common view with (some) conservatives about free speech and censorship. But as I pointed out in a previous paragraph, religious social conservatives are easily offended by our secular, ant-religious rhetoric and are kind of conflicted about where to draw the line between censorship and self-censorship. This is why some Progressives think that culturally sensitive liberals are just caving in to the social conservatives.
       Brooks went on to say that there are different levels of quality and civility in political essays that range from "adult" to "kids" but still, none of them should be censored. (I think it was cool that Brooks put both Bill Maher and Ann Coulter in the same category with the "jesters and holy fools". I disagree with hum about Bill Maher; he had to say that to preserve his Con Cred, but the closet liberal in him appropriately trashed Ann Coulter.)
Tomorrow, Part II of "Remembering the Paris 12"        Today's blog post will, (I hope), have raised more questions than it has answered. There are two ways to deal with this. 1. Send me an email with your questions and criticisms. 2. Keep reading this blog because tomorrow I will explain how I define my terms such as "freedom of speech", "self-censorship", "cultural sensitivity", "boycott", "race", "Government", and "corporation", with brief essays on these topics.
       In another future blog I will be discussing my own spiritual and moral beliefs. After that I will begin my series of academic research on Education and World Peace. Stay tuned. Remember The Paris 12!!!        They cannot kill us all!!!
       If every journalist and cartoonist in the world just spent one week publishing diatribes against stupid religious beliefs, offensive or not, maybe a clear message will be sent that those Paris 12 were real martyrs, not just for freedom of speech but for cultural and intellectual progress through mutual dialogue and non-violent action.