The Anchoress

Updated: Edwards is not firing them.

One of the paradoxes of free speech is that while you and I are (mostly, for the time being) free to say what we wish in this country, our words are not sacrosanct and untouchable - other free people are (mostly, for the time being) free to say what they wish in response. No one has to listen to anyone and accept their opinion as the final word. Hence, the Dixie Chicks are free to say “we hate that Bush is from Texas” and others are free to say, “okay, and I hate that opinion, so I won’t buy your records.”

It’s not censorship. It’s simply another opinion. The Chicks are no martyrs to free speech, they simply came to the uncomfortable conclusion of that free speech paradox: you can say what you want, but you have to be willing to take the consequences for it.

So now, the story is breaking at Salon.com that Sen. John Edwards has fired one or both (at this moment it is not clear) of his campaign blogmasters, because…well frankly because Edwards or his handlers did a lousy job of vetting the bloggers to determine whether their sentiments were in full alignment with the candidate’s views. Make no mistake, for all that Salon is writing this as “the right wing blogosphere collecting scalps” this firing is not the fault of “right wing nutjobs” who demanded it (I, btw, hoped they would not be fired, as I wrote here).

No, this firing - if it has occured, there is some question on that score - has occured because it was a sloppy hiring to start. John Edwards can only blame himself.

That won’t stop the left from carrying on about how these bloggers are being crucified and silenced, blah, blah, blah. They’re not, of course. They’re still perfectly free to blog - they can still say any damn thing they want to. And, they’ve just become that much more famous. They’ll go on television to talk about how oppressed they are. Maybe they’ll write books or plays about being silenced, and they’ll never catch the irony that they’re talking, talking, talking about being “silenced” in George W. Bush’s America.

Meanwhile, their leftist pals are over at ABC’s blog, demanding that Terry Moran be fired and silenced for daring to wonder - merely to WONDER - whether these bloggers had danced upon the hairy edge of hate speech in some of their remarks. (His update is here.)

Hate speech? No, it’s FREE speech. Hate speech only comes from the right! And anyone who disagrees with progressive orthodoxy.

By the way, Hater’s Creed to the contrary, the Anchoress supports free speech and a blogger’s right to say anything she/he damn well chooses to, as long as it’s not “fire” in a crowded theater, and the quotes are accurate and not expediently truncated. If what they say is stupid, offensive, childish, hateful or nuts…no one has to read them. Turning the page is always an option. I also supported William Arkin’s right to write ugly and stupid.)

And let’s not pretend that either of these bloggers were simply let go for being “anti-Catholic.” The over-the-top stuff was not limited to the issue of Catholicism, and political campaigns are supposed to have some - the barest modicum - of decency to them, still…aren’t they? As Ed Morrissey says here:

As a Catholic, I’m less offended by the likes of Marcotte and McEwan than I am surprised that no one in the Edwards campaign thought it was a problem for their candidate. Catholics have overcome bad weather that had more impact on our faith than either blogger, but Edwards wants to court the Catholic (and Evangelical) impulses for social justice and peace to bolster his populist campaign. Surely someone on his staff had the responsibility to actually read the bloggers’ previous work to see if it matched the tone Edwards wanted to set with the on-line community and voters in general. That someone should be fired right along with Marcotte and McEwan.

Well…I guess the Edwards people did not see this writing as problematic because it was close enough to their own takes on things? That would seem to be the obvious answer.

He also wonders how this will affect other bloggers who wish to transition to more tradition political roles. Good question.

Michelle Malkin runs down the story, both pre-and post-blogger-firing and provides a very funny video which brilliantly juxtaposes some angry Edwards’ blogger rhetoric with some angry game-playing. I’m sure that, in daring to read the blogger’s own over-the-top writing in over-the-top fashion, Malkin will be accused of “hate speech” or something.

Not that we don’t all occasionally write over-the-top. In the heat of a moment, I’ve surely done it. Been free to. And I’ve had to deal with the consequences.

And I’m sure that, because the left really cannot laugh at itself, the same folks who are lecturing Terry Moran about how “funny” was the anti-Catholic writing of the Edwards’ blogger’s will see no humor at all in Malkin’s video. That’s too bad. We all need to laugh a little bit more at ourselves.

UPDATE: Ace says the left is threatening to “go after” Edwards if he actually fires these bloggers. Whatever. Edwards, too, is not allowed to do what he wants, without pain. Those sure are some openminded and tolerant folks over on that side. I say don’t fire ‘em. Let ‘em write. Let them sink or swim on their own, and if your campaign sinks or swims too, well…that’s the call you made. Just once I’d like to see a politician besides Dubya say, “this is the decision I made; deal with it.”

But…I guess that would be unilateral and bad, right? Sheesh.

Martin Peretz will likely be seeing some hate mail from the left for daring to wonder if there is a madness to King George Soros. Careful, there, Martin. You’re about to be called a tool of the Nazi Bush Administration. Even though your liberal credentials are impeccable. One false step and you’re suspect, these days. (H/T Sally)

Julie at Happy Catholic - oh, no, another conservative Christianist! - writes about the debates of the last few days occuring at her site. She manages to be mature, gracious, sensible, respectful and kind. Unthinkable in this age? No. Just too, too damned rare.

Jim Geraghty wonders if the media can ever denounce a comment made by a liberal.

Oh, and the press doesn’t take kindly to being dissed. They like respect.

Neo-Neocon has some interesting thoughts on hate and where it takes us, and of forgiveness.

Speaking of where hate takes you: Chris Matthews’ hate seems to completely own him at this point.

Jules Crittenden ponders a different kind of Hardball.

And thanks to reader Dale who sent my way this lamentation from the reactionary left on our “reactionary” pope. A very interesting read.

Hot Air notes that CNN substantially softened the story in its report. So, once again, if you’re getting your news from the news industry, you are not getting the story.

Related: New and Old Media Evolving
Also writing: Instapundit
Beltway Blogroll
Jay Reding
Ann Althouse
Rand Simberg
Confederate Yankee
Political Pit Bull
Dean Barnett
CBS Public Eye
Right Wing Nuthouse
Hot Air
American Princess
The Sundries Shack
Protein Wisdom
Mary Katharine Ham
Wizbang
James Joyner
Sister Toldjah
Iowahawk gets satirical
Wuzzadem