Words

Words.  Some words are so magic, special and powerful that they don’t require pre-qualifiers.  And when these words are pre-qualified, their meaning and currency is diminished.

Two particular such words come to TAFKAS’ mind – justice and freedom.

Whenever someone throws something in from of justice (eg social justice) or freedom (eg press freedom) it signals to TAFKAS that the speaker/writer is trying to claim some superior morality or power.

To use expressions like social justice or racial justice or gender justice plainly devalues the justice and enhances the social, racial and gender.   Similarly, and has been repeatedly noted last week, expressions such as press freedom and academic freedom devalues freedom and enhances press and academic.  There is justice and there is freedom and they often go together in as much as injustice and tyranny go together.

Don’t take it from TAFKAS.  Take it from one of the left’s favourite poster children, Glenn Greenwald:

Press freedoms belong to everyone, not to a select, privileged group of citizens called “journalists.” Empowering prosecutors to decide who does or doesn’t deserve press protections would restrict “freedom of the press” to a small, cloistered priesthood of privileged citizens designated by the government as “journalists.” The First Amendment was written to avoid precisely that danger.

Kapow!

If only Australians had such freedom protected in our laws and constitution.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Words

  1. stackja

    Words
    F.R. David
    Words don’t come easy to me

  2. Fat Tony

    If only Australians had such freedom protected in our laws and constitution.

    The US Constitution was available to our “Founding Fathers”.

    Instead, they chose a politicians’/government constitution.

  3. Shy Ted

    The real problem is not about words, it’s a bout letters. 3 of them. ABC.

  4. Tezza

    Assange, journalists, and TAFKAS are all equally deserving of protections of free speech.
    They should also be all equally vulnerable to being convicted of espionage if they violate laws imposing government codeword-protected restrictions on some information, graded (doubtless imperfectly and sometimes excessively) to protect national security.

    I’m happy with that, and look forward to seeing Assange convicted, as was Manning. Same goes for any journalists who published any information in breach of its legitimately imposed security restrictions.

    Is TAFKAS really driving at the conclusion that there is no such thing as a valid national security reason to protect any information? Or instead saying that if genuine national security sensitivities do exist, they should be unenforceable and we should all as individuals be free to make our own decisions as to whether to adhere to those sensitivities without fear of prosecution?

  5. No Tafkas is not. He is saying that speech protections apply to everyone and not just so called journalists.

  6. And Tezza. There is a big difference between manning and Assange. Between stealing and publishing. If Assange stole then that is another matter.

  7. Press freedoms belong to everyone, not to a select, privileged group of citizens called “journalists.” Empowering prosecutors to decide who does or doesn’t deserve press protections would restrict “freedom of the press” to a small, cloistered priesthood of privileged citizens designated by the government as “journalists.” The First Amendment was written to avoid precisely that danger.

    Now, would someone point that out to Google, Facebook, Twitter, the Age, Their ABC and every other media organisation that makes certain that only a privileged group have a voice.

  8. Rob MW

    Fat Tony
    #3046720, posted on June 19, 2019 at 5:40 pm
    Instead, they chose a politicians’/government constitution.

    Worse than that Tony, it’s nothing more than an ‘Act’ of the British Parliament passed into law by our founders that’s why its called the ‘Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act’. And the stupid bastards were so up themselves and the notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty over all things so they decided that the Common Law should not be written into the Constitution because they didn’t want enshrine proper liberty and freedom from Gov’t or societal overreach.

    Any Constitution without either or both Roman and/or Common Law is a nothing, just another form of an electable tyranny.

  9. Helen

    If the words freedom and justice are so magic, special and powerful that actual freedom and justice were already shared by everyone, then the words wouldn’t need to be qualified to make sure they apply to everyone.

  10. Mark M

    Words – The Monkees

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.