About the far left's freedom of speech...

[Matter]

I grow a tad weary of the complaining from the left about their 'freedom of speech infringements'. This small piece hits some of the high points of my heartburn..


www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php

But “fear of reprisal” — read: of criticism — is everywhere among the left, including even major media players. Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times, frets that after September 11 “if you were thinking of saying anything negative about the president, you had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation.” CNN’s Christiane Amanpour believes that the press has been “intimidated by the administration.” And Dan Rather of CBS — check out this metaphor — worries about having “a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck.”<br>
Treating counterargument as a threat to freedom would be laughable if it weren’t so insane. So would the whole “Bush lied” mantra, which is merely an attempt to avoid even acknowledging an opposing viewpoint. Rather than stand up and confront your opponents with reason, how much easier it is to just dismiss them as liars — or worse. Thus Al Gore calls supporters of the president Nazi brownshirts. The left-wing extremist group MoveOn.org posts videos equating President Bush with Hitler. And [LA Times writer] Tim Rutten none too subtly juxtaposes Rush Limbaugh and Depression-era pro-Nazi radio priest Father Charles Coughlin.

Liberals apparently are tolerant enough to respect a dictator’s right to fill mass graves with children. They just can’t countenance anyone with contrary political views.

[Matter]

Here's another one with salient points:

www.rachellucas.com/archives/2004/07/mikey_attempts.html

So Mikey Moore is all mad because the guy in charge of a private property kicked out Linda Rondstadt because she dedicated a song to Moore (which actually isn't true, surprise, they kicked her out because lots of paying customers were ticked off and causing a ruckus). Mikey stamps his feet and throws down his blanky and says:


What country do you live in? Last time I checked, Las Vegas is still in the United States. And in the United States, we have something called "The First Amendment." This constitutional right gives everyone here the right to say whatever they want to say. All Americans hold this right as sacred.


Actually not all of them do hold it sacred but that's another rant. The biggest problem with Moore's tantrum, which is exactly like the tantrums liberals have had every time some asshatted famous person uses a public forum to shriek about their politics and then gets criticized and boycotted (Dixie Chicks, Whoopi Goldberg, blah blah), is that they don't realize these freedoms work both ways. Idiots.

Yep, Linda Ronstadt can say whatever the hell she wants during her shows, as that is her First Amendment right. A right which, unfortunately for smug, arrogant, narrow-minded Hollywood liberals, also extends to people who think Hollywood liberals are smug, arrogant, and narrow-minded.

And the people who're in charge of the private property where Ronstadt's shows occur can throw her the hell out after she exercises her free speech, because while you can say anything you please in my living room, I can kick your ass out if I don't like it. There's a right for you.

And sure, Ronstadt can complain publicly about being thrown out, and people like me can publicly say, "What a dumbass." On and on it goes, freedom of speech just flowing around like a river - except unlike a river, it is not uni-directional.

More from the sloppiest liar ever to exist on the planet:


For crying out loud, it was a song DEDICATION! To "Desperado!" Every American loves that song! Sure, some people didn't like the dedication, and that's their right. But neither they nor you have the right to remove her from your building when all she did was exercise her AMERICAN right to speak her mind.


First of all, not every American loves that song. In fact, I myself am one American who completely freaking hates that song and always has. I think it's stultifyingly boring, and frankly, silly. I would have said that before this brouhaha, by the way. Just ask my friends. Every time I have ever been in a place where that song has come on and most of the people around me started acting like total dopes, as though the song was a brilliant piece of musical workmanship, I've wanted to just die. But that's neither here nor there.

What I really have a problem with is, once again, Michael Moore's apparent inability to say things that are true. "But neither they nor you have the right to remove her from your building when all she did was exercise her AMERICAN right to speak her mind." Really? Sorry, dude. You're wrong. They - the management - do have the right to remove her stupid ass from the building because the building is private property. Get. It. Through. Your. Thick. Head.

I realize that private property rights aren't the forte of Hollywood liberals, but I don't think it's too much to ask that they learn how to comprehend the very basics of logic. Ronstadt has free speech rights; so do the owners of the casino and the audience members. Ronstadt has free speech rights; but, once they're exercised, there may be consequences, such as getting thrown off of private property. People on the left have got to stop being such godawful hypocrites about this stuff, because you know, it's really starting to backfire on them. People are sick of it and they see through it.

Yep, I believe that sums it up.

[TNRighty]

Great topic. We discussed this a few weeks ago, but I never get tired of it. Free speech is not free, it has its consequences. The First Ammendment says only that the government cannot take legal action against you for what you say. So long as Whoopi Goldberg and The Ditsy Twits aren't thrown into jail, their First Ammendment rights have been upheld. However, your rights have not at all been violated if your record sales drop like a rock or if concert venues cancel your show. Your rights have not been violated if the company for which you are the spokesman drops you like a hot potato for what you say. If I worked for the Democratic Party and walked into the office one day and said, "All liberals are whackos, I love George Bush, John Kerry is a queer!", I'd be fired the same way Whoopi was, but my First Ammendment rights would be in no way violated. If the majority of Americans don't agree with what George Bush is saying and therefore "fire" him, his First Ammendment Rights have not been violated. You have a right to say what you want, but you don't have a right to sell records, sell Slim Fast, or be President. There are consequences for what you say.

Liberals have tried to ammend the First Ammendment to include "hate speech" and "offensive speech", in which they classify any political opinions that don't agree with theirs, unless, that is, they're the ones doing the talking. This is why I think the FCC is so dangerous. Government regulatory agencies have been historically hijacked by Democrats. What's to stop liberals from labeling Limbaugh or Hannity as "offensive" and lobbing the FCC to shut them down? Free speech should remain protected by the government and regulated by private individuals. By that I mean that the constitution should continue to protect our rights to say what we want without government interference and the consequences for what you say should be enforced by private individuals who buy or don't buy what you're selling, what you're writing, what you're saying, or what your singing.

[Matter]

Free speech should remain protected by the government and regulated by private individuals.

Correct.

Some of our liberal friends want to reintroduce the 'Fairness Doctrine' because the liberal radio recipe doesn't hold up in the real world. They want government funding, again.

[TNRighty]

What do conservatives do when they encounter a liberal saying something they don't agree with?

Answer, we engage our right to free speech and respond with debate.

What do liberals do when they hear a conservative saying something they view as "offensive"?

Answer, they run to the government and request that such speech be deemed "insensitive" or "bigoted" in an attempt to rob us of our free speech rights.

To liberals, free speech only applies to them or to speech with which they agree.

A perfect example is the Howard Stern issue. I'll be the first to tell you that Howard Stern is a complete whackjob. Yet who do we see coming to the defense of Howard Stern? None other than conservative talk show hosts like Rush and Boortz. Obviously they understand the concept of free speech and the danger the FCC poses. Do you think Al Franken would ever in a million years come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh if Rush were the one dueling with the FCC? I doubt it.

[TNRighty]

I'll continue.

I was listening to Boortz a few months ago not long after the Air America network was launched. He was saying that he hoped like hell that Air America would succeed and that Franken would gain popularity. He went on to say that realistically he doubted Air America would ever gain any significant listenership and that Al Franken would fail miserably. As it turns out, he was right. Its not that he wanted millions of Americans to subscribe to the views of Franken; he was afraid that if Air America failed liberals would try to force the FCC to pull the plug on conservative talk radio because it wouldn't be fair if there were no liberal shows out there to counter them (basically reinacting the "Fairness Doctrine that Matter spoke of). This is why its so important that conservatives uphold everyone's right to free speech, even Howard Stern. I think he's garbage, but if we go around hooting and cheering when he's taken off the air, we have nothing to stand on when they go after Limbaugh or Hannity. We MUST fight to protect everyone's right to free speech. We can't be like the libs and only support the speech with which we agree.

[rush22]

I haven't really thought about this much, but this part of the original post

The left-wing extremist group MoveOn.org posts videos equating President Bush with Hitler.

is incorrect. This was a smear job by the GOP. Moveon held a contest and people could send in their own ads. Two separate people sent in ads comparing Bush with Hitler, and at the end of their ads wrote in "Sponsored by Moveon.org," as was common amongst the people who sent things in (even though I doubt you were supposed to do it). Any ad that people sent in was available for viewing at the Moveon site, so if you sent in any ad it would be posted. Then a Republican site noticed the ads and decided that 'all liberals are crazy extremists and Moveon thinks Bush is Hitler ' and made a big deal about it, using their clout to call newspapers, etc. Once Moveon noticed, they removed the ads because they were getting bad press and everyone was saying it was their ad because of the "sponsored by" message at the end. Neither ad would have won, as there were far better ads on the site anyway. (Though the Republican site kept the ads on its site for a long period time after Moveon removed theirs)

Somewhat ironically, Bush then used the Hitler ad in his own campaign, to show how "crazy" liberals are.

This whole Moveon thing is bull****. Anyone who has seen any sort of send-in-your-own-media contest on the web knows that this stuff happens all the time, and knows that people are always writing in "sponsored by" stuff to get that advertising feel. Moveon should have probably taken them off, not because they compared Bush with Hitler (who cares, people can say what they want, get over it), but because they falsely implied they were sponsored by Moveon.

[Matter]

rush22 said:

I Moveon held a contest and people could send in their own ads. Two separate people sent in ads comparing Bush with Hitler, and at the end of their ads wrote in "Sponsored by Moveon.org," as was common amongst the people who sent things in (even though I doubt you were supposed to do it). Any ad that people sent in was available for viewing at the Moveon site, so if you sent in any ad it would be posted.

So, why did Moveon.org express regrets that the videos 'slipped' through their screening process. That makes them culpable, correct?

.. and Moveon thinks Bush is Hitler ' and made a big deal about it, using their clout to call newspapers, etc.

Let's see. Moveon has a contest. They screen the videos and post it on their web. Seems to me that an outsider would think they agreed with something on the video, no?

Once Moveon noticed,

Once they noticed the outrage. I'll agree with that.

they removed the ads because they were getting bad press and everyone was saying it was their ad because of the "sponsored by" message at the end.

A couple of questions here:

1. Do you think they deserved bad press?
2. From an outsider looking at their website, wouldn't you think they sponsored it when they screened and posted it on their OWN website?

Neither ad would have won, as there were far better ads on the site anyway. (Though the Republican site kept the ads on its site for a long period time after Moveon removed theirs)

Doesn't matter.

Somewhat ironically, Bush then used the Hitler ad in his own campaign, to show how "crazy" liberals are.

Do you think it makes others view liberals as more mainstream?!

Moveon should have probably taken them off, not because they compared Bush with Hitler (who cares, people can say what they want, get over it), but because they falsely implied they were sponsored by Moveon.

If Moveon doesn't care what people think, why remove them?

[Walter]

And, of course, the latest outrage.

MoveOn is raising Hell that a Conservative 527 has popped up with the SquftBoat ad.

Seems only the Left is permitted to use the McCain-Feingold loophole.

[TNRighty]

Excuse me if I'm a bit confused here. We have liberals on this board spewing all sorts of "Bush is a Nazi" garbage. Yet when Moveon.org posts the same sort of crap, these same liberals backtrack and try to explain Moveon's posts as a GOP smear job???

Which is it? Don't come here telling me that Bush is Hitler reincarnate, and then try to excuse similar garbage posted on Moveon as some "vast right-wing conspiracy". Take a stand one way or the other. Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop. Sounds familiar.

[Matter]

Which is it?

Let's see if rush comes back for more. I'm locked and loaded for this debate. It's not the first time on this subject.

[TNRighty]

I'll be right here when he does.

[Malebolgia]

That's the most slanted thing I've ever read, I love It. ;D

p.s. I have read several substanciating articles that confirm Hitler, or as I call the Mine Fuhrer, and Georgie B. do share a common birthmark placement. Coincidence, please.

[Cheneysmyhero]

The left-wing extremist group MoveOn.org posts videos equating President Bush with Hitler.

Have you watched those videos?

[Cheneysmyhero]

Malebolgia said:

That's the most slanted thing I've ever read, I love It. ;D

p.s. I have read several substanciating articles that confirm Hitler, or as I call the Mine Fuhrer, and Georgie B. do share a common birthmark placement. Coincidence, please.

You could also point out how the Jews are to Hitler as the Muslims are to Bush.