Much has been said and written about Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He was a Harvard law scholar (hey-just like Obama) and was even a soldier in the war of 1861. In 1899, he was appointed chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
But Holmes is also probably best known for his declarations on free speech and his statement that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”. Liberals always trot out this quote to prove that there are good reasons for limiting free speech, and that the state must surely be employed to make sure crazy people don’t go yelling fire or ‘jihad’ in theatres or something like that.
Anyway, the great Mark Steyn addressed this issue yet again at the Ontario legislature earlier this month. At the post-testimony Steynette scrum, Mark reminded us about how his lawyer, Julian Porter, pointed out in his summation during the Maclean’s case that the operating word is ‘falsely’. If there is a fire burning and there is an imminent threat, one is actually obligated to yell fire and warn others. Accurate quotations from Holmes can be found in both The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes, ed Max Lerner (Garden City, NY: Halcyon House, 1943) and several of Holmes’ Supreme Court decisions.
So, to make a long story longer, I started reading a fantastic book-the War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, by Edwin Black. It’s really chilling stuff. I’m turning the pages at a furious rate, aghast at the history of the eugenics movement in America, when guess who pops up in the chapter called “The United States of Sterilization”? Right! Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
It seems like our friend Oliver was quite a nasty bastard and quite the proponent of eugenics. Under his watch, the “feebleminded” Carrie Buck was eugenically sterilized by the state after being raped. Here are the words that concluded his opinion on the eugenic sterilization of an American citizen (see Buck v. Bell 274 U.S 200, 1927 for verbatim transcription):
“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate off-spring, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continueing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
All this is to say that liberals should be more aware of who they are quoting in defense of restrictions on freedom of any sort-from freedom of speech and thought to reproductive freedom. They should consider the source of their fantasies on restriction any of our human freedoms. They should take a look in the mirror and make damn sure that they aren’t diabetic, epileptic, asthmatic, folicularly challenged (that's BALD in politically correct-speak) or 'feebleminded' (liberalism is after all a mental illness), because they would be on Dear Oliver’s hit list, too.
Anyone who uses the ever so tired ‘fire in a theatre’ quote better damn well know who it came from, and what he stood for because it ain’t pretty. Not only is the quote misused, but there is needs to be far more discussion on the totalitarian beast behind the quote that liberals try to use to scare free-speechers. Your thoughts and freedom of speech are clearly, only the beginning.
12 comments:
Jihad! Jihad! Jihad! - Just kiddin;)
I'm an extreme conservative and I agree with sterelising mentally unfit people, it is just common sense.
Anonymous said...
I'm an extreme conservative and I agree with sterelising mentally unfit people, it is just common sense.
... like people who cannot spell properly?...
At the risk of being provocative and even perhaps motivating someone to actually research something, I highly recommend Michael H. Hart's book entitled UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY: An analysis including the effects of geography and differential evolution.
Differential evolution is a somewhat new but irrefutable discovery. Yup, the entire human race is NOT evolving at the same rate, and while we may all be created equal, we sure as hell aren't all the same (or of equivalent intelligence).
It is an uncomfortable reality that some world population groups are eating the proverbial evolutionary dust of other worl population groups. So it DOESN'T come down to who has the biggest guns or the biggest dick. It comes down to who can THINK better.
This doesn't bode well for the mohammedan populations of the Middle East. It never has. Arguably, if the indigenous populations of the ME were as intelligent as more northerly populations, the ruminations of a 7th Century psychotic sand savage aka Mohammad (piss upon his shadow) would not hold these populations in thrall the way they do.
Cockroaches have big brains. Say what? Evolution is the theory that the animal that best adapts to its environment will survive. intelligence is not always going to win. You should have put at the risk of sounding stupid but of course you wouldn't want us to sterilize you.
Oh and extreme conservative most people that would consider themselves extreme conservatives would probably be close to libertarians. especially conservatives before the neocons. you just sound like a facist such an extreme form of conservatism it is almost identical to communism.
Common sense to sterilize mentally unfit people? What a load of hooey.
Differential evolution is a somewhat new but irrefutable discovery.
Evolution is a theory, unproven, hence refutable. Variations on the theme are no less theoretical.
Holmes was a man of the Left - his enthusiasm for eugenics and authoritarianism (I refer to the details of the 'fire in a theatre' case, an exercise in government censorship) does not differ materially from the enthusiasms of the modern Left.
What would Holmes have to say about Ezra levant shouting FIRE! THEM! ALL! in a crowded blog?
My question is, if it is ok to steralize "mentally unfit people", then who would you consider mentally unfit? What standards would you use to make this dinstinction and who would create these standards in the first place?
This is a very slippery slope, my friend.
As for the comment about evolution, I suggest you do some more reading. It has been proven and the scientific meaning of the word "theory" is much different than the meaning in everyday usage.
Will somebody please stop these idiots from the "fire crowded theatre" gambit. The judgement was overturned!!!!!!
The new measure became speech which presented "clear and imminent danger" to result in violence.
Tell these liberal wimps to stfu and read their history.
BTW Holmes is criticized for this and other judgments of his career. He is not regarded as one of the wisest people to rely on for good law.
In the UK a mongol ( PC Downs Syndrome) Woman in a home was impregnated by a mongol( You know what I mean)man they had mongol twins, what a waste of non mongol ( Downs) resources to look after them.
Slander, perjury, inciting people to riot-- all illegal. Profanity can be considered disturbing the peace. Con artists are considered criminals. All these limits on speech-- without fires or theaters. Makes sense to me.
Holmes in the Schenck case was ruling against WWI draft resisters-- not exactly extolling "liberal" values. And, it was overturned, limiting the scope to speech "likely to incite imminent violence." Sounds reasonable.
Of course, it still comes down to the cop's word against yours.
Post a Comment