Debating free speech
Contrary to the claim made by Bruno Walther published on your editorial page on Thursday (Letter, Jan. 13, page 8), the appalling shooting of US Representative Gabriel Giffords and innocent bystanders was not “the result of political hate-mongering,” it was the result of the actions of a lunatic who had apparently taken a dislike to Giffords back in 2007, long before former Alaska governor Sarah Palin had become a national figure in the US and the “Tea Party” had been formed.
The implications of this for the veracity of Walther’s claims I shall leave for others to draw for themselves.
The “central question” of “how far should the fundamental right to freedom of expression go?” is transparently oxymoronic to anyone not suffering from the confusion of what Isaiah Berlin politely termed “positive liberty” (ie, freedom to) with “negative liberty” (ie, freedom from).
The freedom to achieve a particular social outcome (ie, capacity or power), as distinct from the condition of being free from coercion, is what lies behind Walther’s fixation upon “the freedom to express wrong and stupid opinions.”
He does not see that in questioning the limits of the right to free speech, he corrupts the meaning of those words by equating them to a privilege granted by the state which, though it may be desirable, is ultimately frivolous relative to the momentous importance of broadcasting the correct opinions of luminaries such as Walther himself.
I protest. If a right is -“fundamental,” then our attempts to uphold that right can accept no compromise whatsoever, since it is the basis of other, derivative political rights — to compromise the integrity of the right to free speech is to open the door to further state encroachment upon this right and, moreover, an encroachment which can no longer be limited and held in check by any rational principle, but only the uncertain sufferance of political parties.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
Michael Fagan writes that the claim that Palin was to blame for the shooting of Giffords is “little different from the claim that violence on TV causes violence in real life” (Letters, Jan. 15, page 8). I disagree. There is very strong evidence that media violence causes violence in real life (ie, www.psi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/81.abstract) and no such strong evidence in the Giffords case.
On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that violent rhetoric such as that which routinely comes from Palin’s mouth could inspire real life violence, even though it has not been shown to have done so in this case.
Martin Luther King, Jr was able to lead an effective movement that produced fundamental change in society, while cautioning his followers against hate and violence. Palin might consider this model of leadership.
JIM WALSH
Taipei
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS