The social/environmental/political costs of hydrocarbons are not focused on by economists because orthodox economics views these things as not something economists should consider.
Your criticism of CAMERA and other partisan organizations are spot on, but I really do think that this:
"Selective editing of texts and videos, innuendo, framing statements unfairly, trying to make certain authors taboo, and other such dirty tricks are the bread and butter of the far right"
is an incomplete statement. Many on the left as well are guilty of this offense. It's a huge mistake to ignore or dismiss that, as that implies acceptance which also therefore implies hypocracy on our part.
Moreover, to invoke the founding fathers as a bastion of free speech is somewhat misplaced. "Free speech" taken in a liberal (liberal in the sense of classical liberalism) context is such a purist and abstract notion divorced from reality that it's effectively meaningless. Sure, the founding fathers spoke extensively of "free speech" but they also worked hard at smashing any form of dissent to their new government.
You have to place these things in context. All states have a purpose, and that purpose is to perpetuate both itself as a means of rule and the current state of society. Freedom of speech is tolerated as long as it isn't perceived to be a threat.
To take "freedom of speech" out of context is just as reductionist as the "clash of civilizations" ilk who blame everything on Islam.
Finally, once we put "freedom of speech" in the proper context (which I have very simply and rudimentarily done in this post), we can gain insight into the reasons that these groups and people do what they do, and what freedom of speech actually means.
Read Paul Street
The social/environmental/political costs of hydrocarbons are not focused on by economists because orthodox economics views these things as not something economists should consider.
Your criticism of CAMERA and other partisan organizations are spot on, but I really do think that this:
"Selective editing of texts and videos, innuendo, framing statements unfairly, trying to make certain authors taboo, and other such dirty tricks are the bread and butter of the far right"
is an incomplete statement. Many on the left as well are guilty of this offense. It's a huge mistake to ignore or dismiss that, as that implies acceptance which also therefore implies hypocracy on our part.
Moreover, to invoke the founding fathers as a bastion of free speech is somewhat misplaced. "Free speech" taken in a liberal (liberal in the sense of classical liberalism) context is such a purist and abstract notion divorced from reality that it's effectively meaningless. Sure, the founding fathers spoke extensively of "free speech" but they also worked hard at smashing any form of dissent to their new government.
You have to place these things in context. All states have a purpose, and that purpose is to perpetuate both itself as a means of rule and the current state of society. Freedom of speech is tolerated as long as it isn't perceived to be a threat.
To take "freedom of speech" out of context is just as reductionist as the "clash of civilizations" ilk who blame everything on Islam.
Finally, once we put "freedom of speech" in the proper context (which I have very simply and rudimentarily done in this post), we can gain insight into the reasons that these groups and people do what they do, and what freedom of speech actually means.