Listeners and readers not robots
Pittsburgh horror and, pipe bombs reignite 'censorship vs free will' debate                                                     

Several decades ago, Roseanna Arquette was a Hollywood celebrity of sorts. And, not unlike so many faded show business notables, she recently sought new limelight by foolishly attacking the president for a terrible crime someone else had committed:

"Blood is on your hands Mr. trump  you have incited this Hatred and violence" [sic] she tweeted after the Pittsburgh horror. 

Her ugly instinct to exploit tragedy for grasping political advantage recalled the filthy advice notoriously dropped by Rahm Emmanuel: "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Deviant Hollywood's unpleasantness aside, the Pittsburgh tragedy and pipe bomb mailings have reignited a very old debate. Are listeners helpless in the clutch of speech? Is there no such thing as personal responsibility?

In the 1980s, the Parents Music Resource Center inspired actual senate hearings into the claimed possibility that uncensored rock lyrics might engender practical social harms. 

The nexus between politics and speech-hysteria was underscored by the PMRC's leadership: Tipper Gore, wife of then-Senator Al Gore, and Susan Baker, who was married to Reagan White House Chief of Staff James Baker. 

The censorious two were dubbed the "Washington Wives." Together, and with a little help from friends in high places, they succeeded in forcing unnecessary advisory stickers onto record albums.

Rap lyrics were also alleged by vote-counting bluenoses to be pernicious. 2 Live Crew was attacked by Florida attorney Jack Thompson, who sought to block sales of the group's CDs. Thompson was said to wear a Batman watch; he also crusaded against video games and the Howard Stern radio program. 

These illustrations were preceded by 1950s rock'n'roll critics and later Punk Rock's adversaries.

Of course received messages can impact attitudes. Ask advertisers. But no phrase can compel listeners to act in extreme ways to which they are not already disposed. Those arguing otherwise must pretend individual autonomy does not exist.

Rational persons are not robots. We do not automatically perform actions that speakers might urge.

Curious is the apparent belief by speech-squashers that they somehow possess the superpower necessary to allow them to obsess over 'outrageous' phrases, without suffering the negative influences they darkly intone would befall every single other listener.

Barring psychological dishevelment, we realize our places in the larger society; understand actions have consequences; seek to live harmoniously with others; and heed our consciences' counsels.

Assigning to speech responsibility for random listeners' ensuant misdoings is not only wrong, but dangerous; once accepted, that false notion can provide justification for censoring open expression.

And its ultimate potential is still darker. Eventually, emboldened by early-stage successes, those intent on stifling the free exchange of perspectives will doubtless push to silence all voices that challenge orthodoxy on matters of public interest.

Already, Big Tech is actively stifling conservatives like Alex Jones. Liberals once defended unpopular speech. And they would have fiercely battled the phenomenon of wealth determining citizens' political expression. 

But the old 'More speech, not less speech' maxim seems no longer fashionable wheresoever donkeys gather.

During a White House press conference, CNN provocateur Jim Acosta lamely tried to pin onto President Trump culpability for the pipe bombs. But Press Secretary Sarah Sanders would have no truck with Acosta's attempted dirty business, and took up her switch.

"I think it's irresponsible of a news organization, like yours, to blame [Trump for] a pipe bomb that was not sent by the president," she said, And "not just blame the president but blame members of his administration for those heinous acts. I think that's outrageous and irresponsible."

Hear, hear.