Disappointing

I'd expect this from Whatzisname. He has no love for freedom of speech. But it was very sad to see this sort of thing someone like BigCityLib, an otherwise good blogger making a good point about how a lot of times those idiot conservatives who delight in exercising their free speech against, say, Muslims tend to be none to fond of freedom of speech for those Muslims themselves.

So what did he say? Well, this:

But, someone might argue, you are attacking the man for his hypocrisy rather than his arguments for soundness. Perhaps, but it is part of MY argument that, since when you scratch a free-speech absolutist like Ezra you invariably find a secret censor, there is simply no point in pretending that free speech absolutism is a viable position. Once you realize that, it becomes possible to move on to a real debate about where the limits of speech should be located.

Helpful hint for readers at home: when you hear somebody use the word "invariably" in this sort of context, he (or she) is almost invariably pulling this wholly out of their asses. Just as, sadly, BCL is here.

Yes, Virginia, there are freedom of speech believers out there. Hell, this is the INTERNET, you can barely move for 'em. Sure, I could see Kinsella say this. Warren is still so dreadfully uncomfortable with the idea of people without a National Post bully pulpit and deep pockets being able to speak their minds, that I can easily understand how he can't come to terms with the fact that freedom of speech advocates who mean what they say could even exist.

BCL, though?

THAT is disappointing.

(Edit: Perhaps what's truly disappointing is that the arguments in favor of this sort of thing are always so weak. The best Warren can come up with is "I dislike pornography", and the best out of BCL and his commentators is "ALL FREEDOM OF SPEECH ADVOCATES ARE NAZIS".

Really?

Are they?

Good GOD, no wonder those tendentious little Tories are slapping you around.)