My SDP colleague and former student, Quentin Riggins, appears to have irritated my friend at CCK, Chad Shuldt. Though I am not sure that Chad's intemperate language strengthens his case, he has every right to deploy profanity when he sees fit. I recall the wonderful words from one of my favorite movies, A Christmas Story, based on the story "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash": "my father worked in profanity the way other men work in clay or oils."
Moreover, I can sympathize with Chad here. Having been subject to countless attacks by anonymous individuals in the comments attached to his blogs, I know that every now and then it is possible to one's dander up.
I have never had much interest in the political connections or stratagems of the local Democratic blogosphere. I assume that many Democratic bloggers have political connections. Surely that's altogether appropriate. Nor am I much concerned with questions of disclosure. One of the virtues of the blogosphere is that it allows one to freely comment and to reveal whatever one wishes to reveal. For these reasons, and because Chad has always been fair to me, I have taken no part in the blogs that Chad objects to.
On the other hand, it surely allows anyone to raise any questions they may wish to raise. Critics of SDP have celebrated past and present connections between some of our bloggers and certain Republican organizations. I don't see why they should complain when Masters Riggins and Heppler return the favor. One of the major virtues of the blogosphere is the light it shines into hitherto dark corners at both ends of the street.
Jon and I, like Chad, choose to blog in our own names rather than hide behind some nom de guerre. So I will bother to address some matters raised in the comments at CCK. So far as I can recall, I have never been paid a penny by any party organization. I have certainly never been paid for blogging. Nor have I been told what to post or what not to post. I do not coordinate my blogging with any other person or persons. I post only such opinions as I wish to express.
As such, my blogging activity is free speech, protected from any interference by any government body, including the one that employs me. Such protection flows not only from the First Amendment, but from my contract.
Some of my critics find free speech inconvenient. Consider this bit of innuendo:
The fact that some of these bloggers contribute often multiple times daily to their highly partisan blog while on the state of South Dakota's payroll is a fact that is not being overlooked either. What does the president of NSU think of this? Does he condone it? Has anyone asked him lately?
This is nod and wink calumny. An anonymous accuser implies that I have been doing something unethical, without quite specifying the charge or providing any credible evidence. It reveals only that the writer is a person without honor, and a bully I should add. My activities are "not being overlooked" he says. Translation: we are watching you. We will report you to the authorities. This is a sneaky little tattletale.
And there is this:
Professors have freedom of speech, but they are cautioned that what they say reflects on their institution and their profession. And freedom of speech does not prohibit other members of their profession and the public, who in effect hires them, from examining what they say to determine if they are fit to represent their institution and profession [commas added for clarity, free of charge].
In other words, professors like myself have freedom of speech so long as their speech does not offend "other members of their profession and the public." And who is to judge what speech is acceptable and what not? In the unlikely event of a referendum, the public's view will not be known. Perhaps a star chamber composed of the right sort of folk? This of course is no freedom of speech at all. We've heard all this before. All of us are equal, but some are more equal than others. Free speech is fine, so long as you say the right things. If offensive speech is evidence of incompetence, the monitors of offense will control the voices of all professors.
Fortunately, such bullies as this are without power in a republic. In my blogs I have defended the right even of a Ward Churchill to say what he wants about the victims of 9/11 without fear for his job. Surely I enjoy at least as much protection. No one believes in free speech if he or she is not willing to extend it to the persons that seem most offensive. I believe in it. My critic does not.*
-----------------
*I wish to note here that Chad is in no way responsible for the opinions of those who comment on his blog.
Recent Comments