The problem with Free Speech is that...

....if you let everyone have it, then people can't help but to learn things.

For example, I saw the headline of a post about a bunch of rabbis slamming Glenn Beck for slamming George Soros for collaborating with the Nazis and not feeling bad about it, but that was when he was 14 years old and I'm willing to cut 14 year olds a lot of slack when it comes to moral judgment.  So, I was sentimentally on the side of the rabbis.

Then, I read the post with this selection from Soros' interview with 60 Minutes.

KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.

KROFT: In what way?

Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and–and anticipate events and when–when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets–that if I weren’t there–of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

Soros' mature reflection is that taking property from Jewish victims of the Nazis is like "the markets", i.e., if he didn't take it someone else would?

Really?

Place me in Beck's camp.  Soros is the kind of guy who is willing to take advantage of other people so long as the government is responsible for the oppression.  That's a horrible life ethic.

When did the intellectual class stop believing in free speech?

Probably around the time that the intellectual left realized it had lost control of the valves of public discourse.

The American Sociological Association calls for Fox News to censor Glenn Beck for pointing out that Sociologist Frances Fox Piven had called for violent riots along the line of the violent riots in Greece:

As officers of the American Sociological Association, we express outrage at the attacks made on Professor Frances Fox Piven by Glenn Beck in his political opinion show on Fox News.


Dr. Piven, Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the City University of New York Graduate Center who holds a PhD from the University of Chicago, is “widely recognized as one of America’s most thoughtful and provocative commentators of America’ social welfare system…equally known for her contributions to social theory and for her social activism.” [Smith College, Sophia Smith Collection] She has been recognized by her colleagues around the country, who have elected her President of the American Sociological Association, as well as Vice President of the American Political Science Association, and President of the Society for the Study of Social Problems.

Scholars of her caliber, intellectuals of her stature, and especially those who tackle social conflicts and contradictions, mass movements and political action, should stimulate equal levels of serious challenge and creative dialogue. Being called by Glenn Beck one of the “nine most dangerous people in the world,” and an “enemy of the Constitution” is not a credible challenge; it is plain demagoguery.

Despite its lack of substance, Beck’s attacks have resulted in a flood of hate mail and internet postings attacking Professor Piven, including a series of death threats. While it is true that death threats are generally only a form of extremist rhetoric, they indicate an overheated emotional atmosphere that researchers on collective violence call “the hysteria zone.” It is a zone in which deranged individuals can be motivated to real violence against those targeted by demagoguery. History tells us that such things as the attempted assassination of Representative Giffords that resulted in six deaths in Tucson, Arizona can be examples of how abundant, polarizing rhetoric by political leaders and commentators can spur mass murder.

We call on Fox News to take steps to control the encouragement of violence that has run rampant in recent months. Serious and honest, undistorted disagreement and public debate on unemployment, economic crisis, the rights and tactics of welfare recipients, government intervention and the erosion of the American way of life should be supported. We in no way advocate restricting the freedom of speech of political commentators. They in turn should recognize the right of social science researchers to gather and analyze evidence related to controversial topics and to reach conclusions based on evidence, even if such conclusions disagree with widely held beliefs. Where we all should draw the line is at name-calling and invective rising to the level of inciting others to violence.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” Thus, the right to free speech does not ever include rhetoric that encourages violence against one’s opponents, especially in the current atmosphere of heated political mobilization. We call on Fox News and other responsible media to set the appropriate standards of accurate and honest debate.

Except, you idiots, that Holmes was talking about immediate call for an immediate violent response, such as, "let's go lynch this person now."   Beck's language is no more - and far less - a call for immediate violent action than was the call of leftist demagogues for an violent overthrow of the government.  Or for that matter, it's no more - and far less - a call for immediate violence than Frances Fox Piven's call for Greek-style riots.

Professor Anne Althouse properly points out the class bias in the ASA's statement: Beck is just not the right sort of person to engage in a debate/discussion about Dr. Piven's call for violent riots:

So vigorous debate about Piven's ideas is really important, but it better be the right kind of debate by the right kind of people and most certainly not that terrible, terrible man Glenn Beck. She's very lofty and serious, so, while she should be challenged, she must be challenged only by lofty and serious individuals, and of course, Glenn Beck is not one.

Exactly.  The job of the intellectual class is to lead the unwashed masses into the progressive utopia.  The job of demagogic members of the unwashed is to shut up and listen to their intellectual betters.