Un-American and freedom of speech - explain?

Great Debates
1

Can someone explain why people in the States are quick to claim ‘un-Americanness’ or bang on about ‘freedom of speech’ and the right to ‘fill-in what you personally want to do here’ and fear of government control etc eg:

Is this purely due to having a written constitution that other western countries don’t have? Is it a byproduct of early settlers being persecuted in their own home lands?
People on both sides of the main political parties don’t call each other unpatriotic here, as far as I know. We also assume ‘freedom of speech’ (I’ve seldom heard anyone bring this up and I have mixed with university people and unions for years) and have few problems with the concept of government control. Ofcourse the government makes mistakes in some people’s eyes over some issues, and they get active to change the legislation or stop it from happening (or whinge, get angry and do nothing) and some people hate the government with a passion, but people generally seem to accept government control as a necessary - no matter what the current government is.
It can’t be because the States has more diversity in ethnicities and cultures, surely all western countries can claim this too. Is it that Canada, Britain, Australia and NZ are considered welfare states, so the government will look after you when you need it?
I don’t get it!

2

Maybe.

Definitely. It’s also a byproduct of lots of other people being persecuted in this land.

I really have no idea what the rest of your question is, though.

3

Well, it’s probably a good part cultural difference.

Yes, folks, the United States does have unique cultural attributes. I don’t know why this would shock anyone, but it seems to (not that I’m claiming the OP poster is shocked - puzzled may be closer to the state of mind).

Well, let’s see… yes, I think having a written constitution where the very first item on the “Bill of Right” is freedom of speech is of some influence in this matter.

And the fact that many of us, or our ancestors, came to these shores due to various forms of oppression in the “old country” is also a factor.

As a cultural trait, one that may indeed set us apart from many other cultures, we Americans most certainly do not like the government telling us what to do, whether we agree with the government or not. It’s not just a matter of opposing things you don’t like - we also have tendencies to oppose government mandates of things we in fact approve of. Seat belts, for instance - there is a sizable segment of our population who agree that seat belts in cars are life savers and should always be worn BUT who also oppose mandatory seat belt laws. It’s not the seat belts being objected to, but the idea of the government telling us what to do. Ditto for things like motorcycle and bicycle helmets. Then there are those of us who think tobacco is a killer drug and no one should smoke - yet who also support the idea of, say, a bar or restaurant making their own choices whether to allow smoking on the premesis or not, rather than having the government dictate to the businesses.

Why? Gosh, I don’t know exactly - surely our past has something to do with it, and because for much of our history you could either move west to escape government control, or the government really didn’t have much power over you in daily life. Heck, even these days the most interaction the average American citizen has with the Feds is taxes and, late in life, social security/medicare. It’s nothing unsual for state government to be played off against the Feds and vice versa.

Paradoxically, we have also have a long history of a minority in the US trying to impose its will on the majority - go figure.

And, of course, various groups have been opposed IN this country as well.

Another thing - we don’t necessarally see messy, loud confrontation as a bad thing. We may have more tendency to air our dirty laundry in public than other folks. Again, a cultural difference.

Despite the acid invective during our politcal campaigns, we also have a tradition of the loser making a gracious concession speech at the end of the race - failure to do so would be a definite black mark against the candidate, much more so than losing a run for office. The winner must also be gracious and courteous to the loser, and gloating is considered extremely bad form. Even the worst of the mudslingers traditionally have a shake-hands-and-make-up ritual. For that matter, our primary races for things like president can result in some truly vicious inter-party battles, after which the losers pledge to support the winner in the final race against the other parties candidate. Some of the screaming is just for show. Remember that US elections do not devolve into violence, nor is violence at the polls tolerated. Sure, when you go to vote there’s a gauntlet you have to run of signs and campaign workers trying to convince they’re guy is the one to vote for, but there’s also a sharp line they can’t pass. Trust me, when we do get to the polling place it’s generally a remarkably quiet and civilized place where campaigning of any sort is strictly forbidden so one can make one’s choice in peace.

4

Things are worse now in the US with regard to the “quality” of political speech than it has been since the 19th century. (When calling your opponent the son of a whore was considered wimpy.)

It basically really started taking off in the 1980s. Several things contributed. The Reaganites of course. The greatly increased power of corporations in the US government. (They always had significant control, but tried not to be too overt about it. Now, they just do what they want and Congress immediately obeys.) And the key part of the horror story: major regulatory changes to key US media laws. The “equal time” rule was revoked. (Sorry liberals, these airwaves aren’t for you anymore.) Limits on media ownership were revoked. (So a small number of extreme right-wing people control most of the US media. I mean extreme right-wing.)

During the 1980s and 1990s they worked out the basics of what works in political campaigns. E.g., negative ads, no matter how filled with lies, always work. Always promise a tax cut, less government, more spending and a balanced budget, regardless of how nonsensical that is. And (getting back to the OP), paint your opponent as:

An unpatriotic, lying swine who’s in bed with The Terrorists, and should be shot for treason.

A classic recent example is Saxby’s campaign against Sen. Max Cleland. Cleland is a triple amputee Vietnam Vet. Saxby therefore called him a coward, anti-GI, and actually had a TV ad that showed Osama and Cleland side-by-side. Cleland lost. Saxby is now cosponsoring the “fair taxes” bill. A complete overturning of the US tax system. Which amazingly increases the taxes of the poor and middle class by huge amounts while letting the rich off almost completely. And the media loves it. They can’t promote the idea enough. It’s just great!

There’s another whole class of recent disturbing trends: call a bill the opposite of what it’s doing. The “fair tax” bill is an example. Also: “defense of marriage”, “the patriot act” and on and on. They’ve discovered that the public only cares about the title of the bill. The actual contents don’t matter. So a boondoggle medicare prescription bill was passed that’s going to cost trillions and give little in return to the seniors. The name mattered, not the contents.

The “label it backwards” take is everywhere.
Can’t force others to adopt your religion? Claim it’s an attack on your religion.
Someone points out that you’re denying others their right to speak? Claim it’s an attack on your free speech.
Trying to undermine the Constitution? Claim everyone that disagrees with you is UnAmerican. (How Michael Moore can possibly be viewed as UnAmerican in beyond me.)

Note that the scariest people are the ones determined to die to protect “their freedoms”. The type of gun nuts that make the NRA nervous. They define “their freedoms” as being rid of anyone they don’t like. Uh-oh.

A number of people are seeing a very disturbing trend where the whole “logic” layout of “disagrees with me = treason = death penalty” has been nearly complete in the eyes of the more gullible Americans. There are more than a few people who see a Civil War coming to the US. “You think birth control should be legal? Sorry, but we’ll have to kill you now.”

As long as politicians hire the likes of Karl Rove, we keep getting closer and closer to that brink.

5

Very interesting responses, thank you

6

It was very frustrating reading that other thread.

The Founding Fathers thought freedom of speech - or political discourse, or whatever you want to call it - was important enough that they specifically prohibited the government from interfering with it. I think that at the time, having a written Constitution with such a restriction on the government was unique. I think we’re very proud of that, and that most of us take freedom of speech seriously and consider it a basic American value.

Now, when any group tries to halt distribution of a movie (or halt publication of a book/article/web-site, or prevent the delivery of a speech, etc.) that espouses a particular point of view, that group is trying to keep that point of view out of the marketplace of ideas - in other words, interfering with political discourse/freedom of speech. Though it may be legal for anyone except the government to do this, I think it’s clearly contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment, and as such, “un-American.” I believe that the American way to deal with ideas you don’t like is not to suppress them, but to face them head-on by putting your opposing point of view out there.

Though I think people who try to suppress a point of view instead of arguing about it are acting in an un-American way, I don’t think that makes them unpatriotic. I assume that most of my fellow citizens love the USA and want what’s best for it just like I do. I think that to label someone unpatriotic because you disagree with him/her about what’s best for the country is just plain wrong.

7

One reason for our love of freedom of speech is that we were taught it. I grew up near where John Peter Zenger lived - he was involved in one of the first cases where government tried to suppress a newspaper, in New York, long before the constitution. He got a lot of play in my history classes, even in elementary school.

I’m with PaperBlob - there is a difference between having opposing opinions and believing that your opinion is so correct that no one else should get to speak. This is not a right wing only sin - a while back politically correct left wingers (in the true sense of that term) felt it was their perogative to shout down speakers they did not agree with. That is just as wrong.

8

People on both sides of the political aisle in America also don’t call each other unpatriotic; So far, it has been a one-way street with the leftists doing the name calling.

9

I certainly haven’t noticed that particular polarity. The ‘unpatriotic’ accusation seems to come from all ends of the political spectrum in the US and, most vociferously, but not exclusively from the far right (which, from my POV, includes nearly 95% of Yanks).

In my opinion the cry to free speech and unamerican claims stems from a belief that the first is an exclusive right for citizens of the US (insularity, y’know) and the second is the worst insult one can toss at another citizen of the US. Overt jingoism and nationalistic posturing being the domain of the insecure, this typifies what constitutes an insult. Lame, huh?

10

Um “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason”…

I’d consider that name calling (though it is true that “traitor” is not the same word as “unpatriotic”).

Both sides do plenty of mudslinging around who is more patriotic than whom.

11

Nah. You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself; That you have some bug up your ass about America is obvious, but with time and patience, your smoldering hatred can be toned down to a mere Gallic-style disdain.

Fair enough, though I was referring to around here at SDMB, where accusations of 'bigotry/homophobe/and now ‘un-American’ are thrown around by some people rather quickly, and almost always undeservedly.

12

Are you talking about this at all?

In any case, I would love to hear from an international Doper in that thread.

13

[QUOTE=Brutus]
Nah. You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself; That you have some bug up your ass about America is obvious, but with time and patience, your smoldering hatred can be toned down to a mere Gallic-style disdain.

I would guess that you see something more noble and enabling in disdain than in vitriolic hatred? Freedom fries indeed. Pathos beats bathos, I guess.

14

Australia (and New Zealand and Canada) do have written constitutions. However, Australia (at least) doesn’t have a written enunciation of rights, relying on the common law and certain freedoms implied into the written constitution. One such freedom is named the freedom of communication on political matters: i.e. the federal government may not pass laws which inhibit speech on political topics, a subject which is construed widely.

So I agree that it’s somewhat frustrating when freedom of speech is banged upon as some uniquely American drum when it’s common–although perhaps not as clearly stated–to other western nations. To be fair, however, it’s a subject that is taught in classrooms in the US and is always subject to US media attention, so most Americans have a strong idea about the freedoms they hold–whereas us overseas are more or less unaware of the source of our freedoms and the extent of our rights.

15

By American standards I’m left of centre, but I don’t see how “most of the US media” is controlled by “the extreme right wing.” I just don’t see an extremely right wing view being presented by ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, or any number of American media outlets.

16

A “belief” that free speech is unique to the US? Where in hell did you get that idea? The free speech argument is always used in the context of American affairs only, and is completely silent about what goes on in other places. We’re talking to each other, not you. Your political intercourse is your business, and we don’t have anything to say about it. Please return the favor.

In the alternative, we just do it to annoy you.

17

I really don’t see how saying “censorship is un-American” equates to saying that freedom of speech is uniquely American. All it’s saying is that the ideals of this country necessarily entail freedom of speech. There’s nothing in that idea to suggest that the ideals of other countries can’t also necessarily entail freedom of speech.

Thus, one might say “censorship is un-French”. An Englishman might say that freedom of speech is fundamental to the rights of Englishmen. And so forth.

18

You are logically correct in stating that when people stay stuff like " this is un-American", “this is a free country” they are talking primarily of America but oftentimes there is the implicit “if you don’t like it, you can move outside” as if to insinuate that it is 1984 outside America. I also think some Americans genuinely believe that it is a hellhole out there and that they are blessed with free speech.

19

Back in the 1950’s, when I was a little boy, oblivious to the whole thing, there was Joe McCarthy. He was a US senator, and he made a lot of political noise by accusing ordinary citizens of being traitorous communists in public hearings. Many of his attacks were totally fictitious, but he got away with it and rode his crest of popularity for quite a while.

Many polititians have used the technique of calling the other guy unpatriotic. The current Republican party has honed it to a martial art, and they are very good at it. Here’s how it usually works. A lie is started, and right away, it’s repeated in the Wall Street Journal, on the Fox (faux) News Network, and by a fistful of rabid right-wing talk-show hosts. Long after the lie has been disproved, the attack dogs keep repeating it. Sean Hannity, for example, is still saying that John Kerry voted 350 times to raise taxes. Rush Limbaugh, Mr. torture-as-a-fun-prank, routinely says that liberals hate America. In addition, Michael Savage accused Soros of “trying to encourage another terrorist attack [on the United States]”; he ranted, “[Y]ou [Soros] are a deceitful, backstabbing, unpatriotic traitorous bastard in my opinion”; and he called MoveOn.org (to which Soros has contributed financially) “an organization of rat-bastard Communists.” Bill O’Reilly compared the following people to Fidel Castro: writer Molly Ivins, PBS’s Bill Moyers, humorist Bill Maher, and Seinfeld producer Larry David.

And, of course, after former vice president Al Gore made an impassioned speech in late May, all these guys, almost in unison, questioned Gore’s sanity.

20

I’m pretty sure that we don’t have a written constitution - politicians are currently argueing over establishing one and incorporating the constitution act, the bill of rights and the treaty of Waitangi.
Your explanation of the freedom of speech notion coming from school and media attention makes sense. We assume our rights, we aren’t taught them in school and the media doesn’t pay particular attention to them.