Good old Stanley. Here’s an excerpt from a a bit on the Columbia mayhem, quoted by Jonah Goldberg at NRO’s The Corner:
Fish On Free Speech [Jonah Goldberg]
I can’t read it myself because I don’t have Time$elect. But a reader sends me this excerpt from Stanley Fish’s new blog regardling the Columbia thugfest:
Once one understands the true nature of the event, one understands too the scope (and limits) of the university’s responsibility. In the context of what is essentially a piece of entertainment, Columbia, or any other university, does not have the responsibility to protect free speech or encourage democratic debate or stand up for academic freedom. These resonant phrases, invoked at the drop of a hat by parties on every side, are simply too large for what is going on. The university’s responsibility is, rather, to safety and (relatively) good order. Just as you don’t want your rock concert to end in the destruction of property or the injury of spectators (although you do want a little unruliness; it belongs to the genre), so you don’t want the provoked energies of those present at a campus spectacle to break up either the program or the furniture. After all, tomorrow is another day and a new act will be coming to town (on October 10th it was I), and it won’t come if the university gets the reputation of assembling crowds which it cannot then control.
I wonder whether Stanley will concede that what he provides is entertainment? Dude, I’ve got an extra ticket to the Fish show . . .
What do you mean you don’t know Stanley Fish? Check this out:
Q : Professor Fish, what do you mean when you say that there is no such thing as free speech?
A : Many discussions of free speech, especially by those whom I would call free speech ideologues, begin by assuming as normative the situation in which speech is offered for its own sake, just for the sake of expression. The idea is that free expression, the ability to open up your mouth and deliver an opinion in a seminar-like atmosphere, is the typical situation and any constraint on free expression is therefore a deviation from that typical or normative situation. I begin by saying that this is empirically false, that the prototypical academic situation in which you utter sentences only to solicit sentences in return with no thought of actions being taken, is in fact anomalous. It is something that occurs only in the academy and for a very small number of people.
Therefore, a theory of free speech which takes such weightless situations as being the centre of the subject seems to me to go wrong from the first. I begin from the opposite direction. I believe the situation of constraint is the normative one and that the distinctions which are to be made are between differing situations of constraint; rather than a distinction between constraint on the one hand and a condition of no constraint on the other. Another way to put this is to say that, except in a seminar-like situation, when one speaks to another person, it is usually for an instrumental purpose: you are trying to get someone to do something, you are trying to urge an idea and, down the road, a course of action. These are the reasons for which speech exists and it is in that sense that I say that there is no such thing as “free speech”, that is, speech that has as its rationale nothing more than its own production.
Check out the riffs! But as far as instrumentality goes, I guess he’s never read a blog, or listened to women having a long lunch.
I guess we can start calling Stanley’s acolytes “Fishheads” now.
ROLY-POLY!!!
Roly-poly fishheads were never seen in Italian restaurants drinking cappucino with oriental women…. yeeeeeahhhh….
Dude! You got an extra ticket to the Phish show? I am SO there! What? What’s that you say? It’s Stanley Fish? Man, you suck.
Dr. Fish, the famed discoverer of the corrosive substance known as antiprinciple.
He concludes, after producing at least two paragraphs of just that.
– Noam Chomsky to Fish: I’ll call your antiposit, and raise you one reductionism…. More tea anyone?
What a fucking dipshit.
– BTW, I await with breathless anticipation to reading a thesis, that gives a clear and unimpeachable reason for the tire slashing “event” during the Pres. elections past. It will turn on the discovery of a here-to-for unknown scientific phenomena, wherein steel, in certain small area’s of the Northern states, has an irresistable attraction to a select type of synthetic rubber, found only in Van tires on conservative conveyances. This unvieling will be hailed as the fifth force in nature, and be named “Shaft”, leading to a new concordent phrase, when ever certain party members get too close to conservative vehicals, known as “getting the shaft”. Apologetics will be in thrawl.
It’s the dialectic, DO YOU HEAR ME???? It is the dialectic that must be fed unceasingly with conflict and contradiction. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT IS CRAP!
– Yes, yes….It was all due to the “shaft effect” all along…
BECAUSE OF THE NUANCE STUPID!
I am sure Mr. Fish’s interpretation is what the Founding Fathers meant when they said this: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Stanley Fish is a human taint, and we all know what a taint is, do we not?
And so here we have Fish redefining what free speech means. The conventional definition is “I have the right to say whatever I want, without fear of consequences.” This is totally orthogonal to Fish’s definition. In defence of this definition, I cite the First Amendment:
What does the first amendment even mean if free speech means what he says it does? “Congress shall make no law abridging speech that has as its rationale nothing more than its own production.” That doesn’t even make sense.
If I define “free speech” to mean “unicorns”, then the argument Fish makes still holds.
Purposefully redefining a word so that it looks like you are saying something you are not, is not an intellectually honest way to win an argument or persuade someone. It’s just a way to generate controversy, and thereby publicity. And in that sense I am falling for it right now.
TW: He added42 nothing to the debate.
Speech shouldn’t be free; it should cost 10 cents a word. That should take care of Fish and most academics.
I’m sorry this is so late, but, as you would imagine, I’m rarely here. I noticed this in a recent post:
I read your links. They are dishonest attempts to whip up a scandal out of nothing. This indicates one of two scenarios:
1. You have not consulted a CPA or Tax Attorney and continue to indulge in wishful thinking, or
2. You have consulted one, but have chosen to mislead your audience, and abuse their trust, by perpetuating a pleasing story line you know to be false.
I’m curious, which is it?
Do you need a Biologist to tell you when a dead fish stinks, David?
I’m curious, do you interrupt current posts with old, out-dated, completely off-topic non-arguments because you don’t realize it is rude, or because you are an obnoxious jack-ass?
The question remains, has even one of you bothered to call a CPA or a lawyer to ask about this?
And the hits just keep on comin’…
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/16/D8KPV9KG0.html
Yes, but only because the question of whether david is an obnoxious jack-ass has been definitively answered. Not to mention the fact that had he posted in the original thread, those who requested notification of new comments would have been notified.
Do i have to chose or can I just take both? somebody call PETA becuase not only is the dead horse being beaten, it’sa guts are spilling all ovre the blogosphere.
As for Dr. Fish, who gets to choose what constitutes free speech? A wrinkled little cabal of pipe smoking, Pinot sipping degree heads who pontificate on entertainment and dialectics and normative whoopty do’s while the rest of us ill-educated baboons groom each other and fling our poo?
What an elitist maroon.
Ed Morrissey at the NY Post:
Eh. Whatever.
Fish is full of it. We spent 2000 years coming up with the idea of free speech and he dismisses it in 20 seconds.
His memes are poisonous, and should be shouted down and rejected at every opportunity. He’s free to say whatever nonsense he wants about Free Speech using his Free Speech, and we’re free to cut him to pieces (intellectually) for it.
Fish, stop wasting energy creating vibrations that are meaningless. Using English words does not make nonsense have any meaning. Undefining something so you can define it as you wish as look correct is dishonest, dishonorable and deceitful. Go suck an egg, Fishie.
TW: Even the Turing Word cannot stand Fish.
This previous iteration of RiverCocytus made an error: it should read:
“so you can define it as you wish to look correct…”
This iteration has fixed the error. Thank you for reading RiverCocytus.
Golly gee, dave, that sounds kind of shady to me!
I think maybe you ought to talk to your CPA!
Is it really possible that in the entire readership of this blog there is no one with even passing experience with real estate development? The reason I ask is that you all continue to embarrass yourselves with the obvious level of ignorance behind your flailing attempts to sound confident. Referring to Ed Morrissey for finance expertise? Really? Have you all sunk that low? Pathetic.
A friend of mine is fond of saying there is nothing as funny as an idiot with an over-abundance of confidence and bravado.
I guess you are the exception, dave, because you just really aren’t that funny. Should I consult a professional comedian and get his opinion you think?
david–
I think you fail to understand that everytime you open your mouth about this subject, you give me (and others) another opportunity do post more information demonstrating what a self-serving, grasping, mendacious douchebag Harry Reid is. So, knock yourself out.
david, one need not have any familiarity with real estate development to understand that Mr. Reid’s failure, in relevant part, was to note the ownership stake he’d received in the charming and talented Mr. Brown’s company.
But do continue to obfuscate from behind a series of fake e-mails.
Twerp.
k, david, i did consult my CPA (my mom, but she passed the exam just like all the others) you orginally said [url=”https://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/21298/#207710″ target=”_blank”](and i quote)
[/url]
according to my CPA yes, yes they do. it’s quite common. She works for an individual that does this frequently. There are all kinds of detailed bits about LLCs or LPCs we didn’t get into, such as how much of a share he might have in said LLC that could make it all really entertaining, but I don’t have that kind of time.
david: If you don’t mind that Reid is stealing your money, then neither do I. Go hijack another thread on another blog, you arrogant blowhard. But get the fuck off of this one.
Something smells fishy.
Probably not the same thing. The founding fathers were talking about state action, not private action by columbia.
Looks like Fish is saying that the only speech which is free is that speech which has no consequences. The founding fathers took care to make sure that there wouldn’t be legal consequences to speech. But there are others.
Either you are lying or your mother is incompetent.
I can only imagine how hard it must be for you.
Good luck in November with that whole being apologists for the corrupt, incompetent party thing.
I can only imagine how hard it must be for you.
– No…I checked david…. watching yiou get your idiot balls twisted off didn’t give me a woodie… but reading this piece of hallarious projection:
Good luck in November with that whole being apologists for the corrupt, incompetent party thing.
– Made me almost spill my coffee with laughter.
– Did the mean ole NeoCons pick on your widdle con artists in Congress again… Aawwwwww….
Give actus the prize. Regardless of whether he wants it or not.
Fish is simply following the current of present-day Lefty thought—defining “positive rights” (as they call them) as trumping “negative” ones. A “negative” right, in their parlance, does not require any action to enforce it, instead requiring the absence of action to restrain it. A person walking in the forest, with no one else around, is clearly free to say whatever he pleases. A second party is required to prevent the exercise of free speech.
“Positive” rights, on the other hand, require a second party (at minimum). In order for a person to access the “right” to good medical care, another person must become a doctor and provide that care. In order to allow someone to exercise the “right” to good nutrition, someone else must become a farmer and labor in the fields to provide the wherewithal. And, of course, if the second party declines to provide the wherewithal for the first to enjoy his or her “positive right”, a third party is necessary to crack the whip—and, wonder of wonders, there just happen to be volunteers for the third-party role…
Free speech as conservatives understand it is a negative right; it requires no actors but the speaker. The Founding Fathers wanted to set up a system where there were no legal consequences—Government-imposed punishments—for speech qua speech. This does not mean “no consequences” of speech; indeed, there would be no point to speech whatever if there were no consequences to it. Many generations of legal scholars have wrestled with that. There are Governmentally based consequences to false speech, that is, to lying, there’s the “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” exception, and others, all drawn (up to now) as narrowly as possible.
Fish, and others, want something quite different. You might call it “sponsored speech”—that is, those who possess the “right” to “free speech” are thus privileged because Stan&Co. will enforce it for them, will act as the third party to compel others to hear the speech, and, of course, suppress speech on the part of those not entitled to it. They’re recruiting for the Thought Police, having already staffed the Bureau of Information with skilled doublethinkers. Robert, e.g.
Regards,
Ric
Not quite. You can have all the negative right to free speech you want. Thats what the constitution provides. But there are other constraints on speech—which makes it not free. I don’t think he’s saying that we should make it free in this second sense.
Thats what Fish says too. That only the most academic of all discussions is free of consequences.
Uh. he doesn’t want that at all. he said:
david: This is me laughing at you. Even if the Dems win in November, it will only assure a Repub Presidential win in ‘08. You’ll have 2 years to demonstrate your absolute clueless incompetence to the American public before you become a footnote in the history books.
Nothing is hard for me but you’re evidently blowing some kind a gasket. Crawl off and die somewhere else. The carpeting is new.
– That comment doesn’t speak to what you’re trying to say actus. It moves th goal posts again, defining, or rather trying to redefine, out of control, fascist attacks on people you want to silence by equating the mob actions to “harmless enetertainment”, “antics” if you want”. The “get out of jail free card” using the boys will be boys meme, while dumping any responsibility of the College to provide the neccessary security required at any heated gathering of two counter-issued groups. Particularly when you know the Liberal side has made it a baseline theme that their “cause” is above and mere man-made laws, particularly the pesky constraints of the outmoded Constitution.
– In other words: “Bullshit”
– Try to stay on focus here.
No, actus, you’re still not getting it. That’s because you’ve been hearing this crap all your life, so it sounds reasonable.
You have free speech so long as the second party doesn’t exist—so long as nobody comes along and suppresses or prevents your speech. In the case where that second party does exist, those who believe in free speech have an obligation to support your speech by preventing the second party from suppressing it.
A University depends on free speech as a fundamental element of its functioning. For a University to abdicate its obligation to support free speech is a declaration that it is no longer a University, but an indoctrination center, a madrassah for the orthodoxy it spreads.
Fish: Columbia, or any other university, does not have the responsibility to protect free speech or encourage democratic debate or stand up for academic freedom. Fine. Shall I go to Fish’s next speech and slap him with a mackerel?
Regards,
Ric
Ric – Only if it’s Kosher….Otherwise the Lefties in the audience will brand you as “racist”….
No he talks about safety issues later.
Sounds like a positive right from this third party’s “obligation” then.
I wonder if Fish has provided us an answer:The university’s responsibility is, rather, to safety and (relatively) good order.
– Which, of course, to anyone but an idiot with the alarcrity of a bag of hammers, means exactly the same thing as protecting free speech of all parties involved, directly or indirectly, it doesn’t really matter, by maintaining order. Thereby dropping a very large Steinway on his own premise.
In a purely academic sense Fish is correct – There is no such thing as “free speech” if we define freedom as the lack of all consequences. Call it the “Social Heisenberg Principle.” Sometimes the result of your speech will be convincing someone to your perspective, other times it will be them denouncing you.
What strikes me as fishy about Fish’s stance is the implication that universities don’t have a responsibility to safeguard speech because no speech is “free.” It seems that Fish is essentially trying to construct a rationale for such things as speech codes, even though by any rational assessment protecting an atmosphere in which intellectual exploration can occur (id est, “free speech”) is more important to the core purpose of the university than an individual or group’s particular grievances with that discourse.
As one who has and is paying college tuition and “fees” in the six figure range by now, I will testify there is no such thing as free speech.
Student fees are not optional. I’m forced to subsidize opinions with which I disagree. So it’s pretty annoying when the brownshirts don’t have the courtesy to allow an opposing view.
We know it’s because they can’t win the debate.