Comment: Neil Steinberg said what?

"God bless free speech."

That's how Neil Steinberg began his column for the Chicago Sun-Times last week and, I gotta tell ya, I could not agree more.

God bless free speech for every reason Neil Steinberg said at the beginning of his column, including but not limited to that it allows columnists — or anybody else — to write whatever we want without fear the government is going to haul us off to jail, it allows us to air the truth as we see it including but not limited to anything you want to say about former Presidents, and it includes but is not limited to the freedom of speech to resist a war we are currently fighting. But also God bless free speech because it allows for people like Neil Steinberg to expose himself to the masses every god damned day so they can read for themselves that Neil and people like Neil don't know a god damned thing they're talking about.

Before I get into it, I'll give Neil a small benefit of the doubt. I'll assume he was just shy of his Sun-Times advertising page-view/link quota and needed to hit his month end numbers, so he pulled the columnist equivalent of threatening Cheeseface the dog on the famous "Death" Issue of National Lampoon magazine in January of 1973.

That's okay. Two can play at that game.

Neil Steinberg attempted yet another one of those wannabe-intellectual, predictably eye-rolling, "you hurr-durr hillbilly dummies just can't understand big-brained city liberal logic" arguments that forever makes you side-eye when he’s around. Neil attempted to parallel that anyone who doesn't immediately agree with Neil Steinberg and the people who agree with Neil Steinberg on the discussion of Second Amendment gun rights, not only must they be far right but that they would also somehow defend the possession and production of child pornography.^[1]

Hey, nothing says, “Come on guys, let’s just sit down to a reasonable conversation about gun laws, don’t worry about slippery slopes and steps toward the bogeyman or anything,” like calling them defenders of child pornography if they don’t…

I want to make sure I don’t misquote him so here's Neil in his own words:

The far right have a twisted logic about gun laws that goes like this: the Second Amendment is such an absolute value that even the most common-sense restriction — don’t sell assault rifles to teenagers — is a step toward the bogeyman of total confiscation. Ban .50-caliber bullets, their thinking goes, and the black helicopters are on their way. As they repeat that, over and over, remember: by their reasoning, child pornography should be legal, out of respect for the First Amendment, with the harm it causes children shrugged off.

For now, we’ll ignore which political ideology and its followers has, decade after decade after decade, done everything they can to try to push the boundaries of “free speech,” specifically in regards to obscenity laws, because a.) it ultimately it doesn’t matter to this debate and b.) Neil doesn’t even know which end of his metaphor goes up as he tries to piece together some semblance of an argument from the IKEA catalog-esque book of big "D" Democrat party talking points he keeps next to his desk and on display on his north shore coffee table to impress at dinner parties. And, for now, we'll ignore the leap in logic it would take to suggest that anyone, far-right or otherwise, with a reasonable and rational mind would argue that the First Amendment, in which "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," would or should protect the production and distribution of child pornography - which fundamentally requires a heinous crime to be first committed against a child - is the same as offering a reasonable and rational defense of one of the rights specifically enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" section of the American Constitution, the foundational law of this land.

We'll ignore all of that because, according to Neil Steinberg and people who agree with Neil Steinberg, if the hordes of Right-Wing Barbarian Free Speech Absolutists from beyond the walls of the empire had their way and had it had not been by the Holy Grace of some sort of benevolent gods of the Left-Wing, no one would have ever done anything about protecting children from perverse childhood sexual trauma in the name of "muh free speech."

Now I know someone out there will read this and rush to the keyboard to defend Neil's point and argue some slightly altered combination of the same and this imbecile, this village idiot, this bonafide moron's online persona will no doubt look as you would expect it to look, hold the opinions you would expect it to hold, and behave in their online discourse exactly as you’d expect it to behave and whomever this person is will not care to have this conversation or any conversation about anything really that doesn't immediately result in you responding to them with, "oh gee golly yes you're so smart and wise please teach me master." Like Neil, they don't actually care about conversation or earnest discussion of rights and principles, and the irony of Neil quoting Kierkegaard here is all but lost in the caverns within:

I didn't read any of the 9,000 plus comments appended after my tweet yesterday. "Happy is he," Kierkegaard said, "who didn't have to go to hell to know what the devil looks like." Some opinions are self-defeating: anyone who says that is a person whose opinion carries no weight.

— Neil Steinberg (@NeilSteinberg) June 9, 2022

Oh well. Since neither Neil nor his defenders care, let's play along for those of you who do.

Considering that we know laws against murder have not only been morally reprehensible but also a part of all forms of civil societal laws and moral codes going back to at least the foundation of written civil law itself and likely further, that we even have to have a discussion highlighting someone who somehow is able to frame a defense of Second Amendment rights as some sort of vague condonation of child murderers is absurd on its face, but that, too, seems lost on Neil Steinberg and people like Neil Steinberg.

Whatever it was he was trying to argue falls somewhere between a particular brand of insouciant, patronizing "Whataboutism" and a subtle yet extreme mischaracterization of policy positions that are thrown around as if out of left field in a baseball game being played on Mars that all of us normal people attempting to have honest and earnest policy discussions are forced to detour and deal with time and time again that has become far too common in our daily public morality debates held on platforms like Twitter by betterthanyous slamming IPAs and smoking medicinal grade sticky-icky-icky they were prescribed for their faked "anxiety" by their Mommy's therapist who is suspiciously still trying to be a little too cool with the cool kids.

It’s a tactic and it’s nothing new. It’s the same tactic that’s now applied all day every day to every single political policy conversation over the last 5-10 years whether the topic involves wealth or race or sexuality or safety or health and all that any of the people Neil Steinberg carries water for really want is power and control. And they'll say and do anything to get it.

You know the drill by now, don't you? “Just shut up and agree to what me and everyone like me wants or you’re a(n) [insert utterly absurd descriptor here].”

CUT TO:

Normal people having a rational and reasonable discussion about whatever.

Person A: Well I think that we need to do this.
Person B: I disagree because...
Looney Toon (interrupting): You're a racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe/child pornographer?
Person B: What? No, I...
Looney Toon: You're a racist /sexist/bigot/homophobe/child pornographer!
Person B: Oh come on, now...
Looney Toon: YOU'RE A RACIST/SEXIST/BIGOT/HOMOPHOBE/CHILD PORNOGRAPHER!!!
Person B: Stop. Person A, can you back me up here?
Person A: ... I have won the argument.

In case you haven't figured it out by now, I own firearms. I'm looking at a pistol right now, as I type this. It's sitting on the desk, right there, next to the computer.

It's odd then, I suppose, and perhaps it's because I don't live in Neil Steinberg's world, I have never had any perverse sexual thoughts about a child and I've certainly never had an urge to commit any violent sexual crime against a child. I've never had the urge look at, possess, or distribute any depiction of the same. And I've never once argued that "child pornography should be legal, out of respect for the First Amendment, with the harm it causes children shrugged off."

It's quite the opposite, in fact. I carry a pistol specifically to try and protect and defend not only myself but others I love and care for most in this world and to protect and defend others but particularly children from the people who would do them harm.

No, I don't have an arsenal that could fill the armory in Washington Park, but I have several and I have a concealed carry license. I often encourage law-abiding, good citizens of Chicago and Illinois to learn about guns and gun safety for their own personal protection. I encourage those of all colors and creeds in this town and elsewhere to be familiar with firearms and continue to practice and understand the laws of this land surrounding the subject. More on that later.

I pray to God I never have to use this weapon or any weapon, of course, and heretofore now I am thankful that I have never been in a situation where it was necessary. No, I don't walk around constantly terrified of every shadow as Neil and people like Neil often like to insinuate when they're not comparing me and people like me to child pornographers.

I believe in the right to personal defense.

Call me crazy, I guess, but since the gun has been invented and exists in the world in which I live, and since the gun is the primary weapon of the criminal element around me, I believe I have the right to defend myself and those I love with a gun against the criminal who could and would use a licensed or unlicensed gun against me and those I love.

I'm sorry this is the world we collectively inhabit. I wish we could wish away human nature and violent crime becomes no more but, and I guess it may be the Boy Scout I once was talking, I do my best to stay grounded in and prepared for the realities of this world.

It's funny, as I type this the pistol there on the desk next to my computer has not moved. And I know this is a difficult concept for Neil Steinberg to understand but it will just continue to lay there, unmoving, until I move it. Same with the shotguns. Same with the rifle and its magazines and other assorted accessories.

They are not imbued with the breath of life, you see? It is not a living being. It is a tool. And just as a hammer will not hammer a nail or a saw will not cut wood or a screwdriver will not turn a Phillips head without some sort of deliberate action taken by a life source with an indescribable consciousness that can only barely and inadequately but briefly be summarized by the word "soul," that tool is no more effective than a paperweight.

Kind of like a camera. Which is also sitting here on the desk, next to the pistol.

The same as a gun does not fire a bullet until a trigger is pulled, a camera does not take a picture or video without a person pressing the shutter button. As such, I suppose, if Neil Steinberg truly wants to rid this world of child pornography, he should want to rid this world of cameras, no? After all, the camera is the tool that makes it far easier to produce child pornography, and in ultra high-resolution, too.

It's an interesting intellectual thought experiment I'm all but certain Neil Steinberg would support. I mean, sure, it would make the Sun-Times more boring and more difficult for them to compete in this hypermedia world we live in, but anything for the greater good, as they say.

Think about it. We’re all big-brained intellectuals like Neil Steinberg so let's have a dinner party on the north shore to discuss.

Banning cameras would not only make it more difficult for people to produce and distribute child pornography, it would make it more difficult for individuals and media organizations alike to broadcast and disseminate and provide the platform to infamy child murderers so desperately seek. It would be a far greater challenge for individuals and media organizations to glorify the images of and manifestos of child murderers on the internet and nightly news and maybe, just maybe, it would begin to put a dent into the endless supply of death and destruction that constantly surrounds and desensitizes our young people in the form of movies and television and that can be found with a quick click on a computer to any and all corners of the internet filled to the brim with big bright flashing advertisements for young girls barely over the age of eighteen and drugs and gambling and terrorist bombings and beheading videos and drug cartel assassinations and the day-in-day-out/night-in-night-out gang violence that plagues Chicago’s very own streets?

And if any person or news media organization or Hollywood production house or silicon valley tech company has a problem with banning cameras? Tough. I suspect a lot of people Neil knows will be out of a job but tough. Too bad. Sorry, not sorry. Neil Steinberg wants us to DO SOMETHING about child pornography.

You got a problem with that? You’re not a child pornographer, are you? Do you not agree that there's a problem with the tool that produces child pornography?

Forget the stories good people can tell with cameras, some of us are trying to have a common-sense discussion here. Forget the lessons cameras can help us teach and forget the places the camera allows us to go from the comfort of our own homes and forget the emotions we can feel as collective witnesses to this grand creation through the lens of a well placed camera. Sorry, so sorry. We have to DO SOMETHING about child pornography.

Fine, we can't ban all cameras? Clearly you would agree we should ban ultra-HD resolution cameras then, right? No one needs High-Definition. And while we're at it, no one needs high-capacity memory cards. No one needs to be able to store thousands of images and hours of video. Only child pornographers would need anything like that. You’re not a child pornographer, are you? Regular people don't need anything more than a camera that uses film and takes images developed by Daguerreotype. You don't disagree, do you? Neil wants us to DO SOMETHING.

Okay fine, let's compromise. We’ll still allow everyone who wants a camera to be able to get a camera but the good, law-abiding people will have to pay more and wait longer to get one. Oh and only the people we say are good people will be allowed to get a camera and if someone accuses anyone of being a bad person we will also be able to take their camera until we figure out they're definitely not going to go out there and make child pornography with it. Oh and also we’re going to make them wait until they’re older but if we ever get into a war because we need more oil or something and/or we want to run a propaganda operation against say, Vladimir Putin or Nicolas Maduro or whomever is the dictator of the moment, then they can go shoot the shit out of the those motherfuckers with an unlimited supply of cameras and tell all the stories we tell them to tell.

Do you understand? We need to DO SOMETHING about cameras. Child pornography is proliferating at a greater rate than it ever has in the history of the world. We NEED to DO SOMETHING about CAMERAS!

AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE A CHILD PORNOGRAPHER! AND A RACIST/SEXIST/BIGOT/HOMOPHOBE, TOO!

I hope I've been sufficiently facetious and you're beginning to see the point I'm trying to make.

Before it gets twisted, no, none of the above is a call to lift obscenity laws around child pornography "out of respect for the First Amendment." That I even need to clarify that is ludicrous. It's not even a defense of additional requirements related to gun purchases, of which I've never once said in this piece or any prior, that I'm not open to some sort of discussion on the issue.

It's merely to highlight the nonsense of people who don't understand what they're talking about. It's to highlight the absurdity of bad-faith tactics that come from flawed fundamental premises. It's to highlight that Neil and people like Neil are only interested in DOING SOMETHING to make them feel better at north shore dinner parties so they can continue to ignore that which happens day-in-day-out and night-in-night-out to the good people right here in their own city.

And I don't know, maybe I just don't take kind to being called a defender of child pornography...

Listen, I'm sorry that bad things happen in this world. Truly, I am. I can't imagine the experience of losing anyone I love to gun violence, let alone a child, and I pray I never do. I understand the urge to want to do something, anything, particularly after such loss I'm certain is felt by a parent(s) and all those who've experienced that type of tragic loss. I understand the type of recoil in disgust at someone who doesn't immediately agree to do something, anything you demand, to alleviate that pain.

Alas, as those of us with even a fraction of a modicum of wisdom and historical understanding know, the invention of the camera was not the beginning of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. People sexually abused and exploited children before the camera and, as Neil points out but didn't understand, despite our obscenity laws no amount of bans on cameras or licensing of ultra-HD resolution mirrorless cameras or the federal registration of high-capacity memory cards will ever prevent sick, twisted, and perverse people from sexually abusing and exploiting children.

I'm not saying our society should do nothing about gun violence, I'm trying to highlight for people who may not understand that doing something is not the same as doing the right thing or the effective thing.

No, I’m not delusional to believe that because I have a gun I’ll never be a victim but the difference between the gun and the camera is, if you are a victim of an attack, the camera can’t shoot back. Sure, the camera can help a person tell a helluva story and, in a perfect world, that's the only thing people would do with cameras. But this is not a perfect world and, at the very least, the gun can maybe, just maybe, give a person a fighter's chance in hell of living to tell that story.

As for tyranny?

Well, I won't get too deep into it here but I'll offer a simple tip for any in this city or elsewhere who may be confused whether or not they support the Second Amendment. It's a tip for all Americans, really, be they white or black or brown or any shade in-between and it's a tip for those who believe in any religious creed or who may understand that, perhaps not tomorrow but some day in the future, they may wish to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of their grievances.

It's not the person trying to teach you about guns and encourage your safe and responsible use of guns that you need to be worried about. It's the person who wants to take them away.

Yes, some of us believe that the Second Amendment ensures the First. Many have died fighting for those rights and the American way of life.

You're welcome, Neil. And God bless your right to continue to say stupid shit.

The Chicago Journal needs your support.

At just $20/year, your subscription not only helps us grow, it helps maintain our commitment to independent publishing.

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE

Notes & References