|
DaddySatyr -> RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech (1/16/2012 2:18:44 AM)
|
I'm sorry, Ron but, I don't see where failing to defend someone for lying is the same thing as not advocating free speech.
Mr. Rather lied ; plain and simply. He "knew" (on some level) that those documents were false and he lied because of a personal bias he had towards the president.
That's fine. It happens all the time. I notice that Mr. Rather was never prosecuted for lying about the president (prosecution being the only thing that the first amendment protects anyone from).
If I remember correctly, Mr. Rather also was not fired but he did, rather suddenly, decide that it was time to retire. Oh, I'm not naive enough to think that there wasn't some pressure from CBS executives but, I don't think he actually got fired . Personally, I think Mr. Rather was very ashamed of his behavior and it was that that was truly the impetus of his retirement. I could be wrong about that but, I don't think I am.
In fact, if I recall correctly, I was one of the people saying that Mr. Rather should resign (and quite possibly retire) because he had betrayed his profession (of which I was a member, at the time) and the trust that he had partially earned and which was partially willed to him when "Uncle Walter" retired.
Back onto the topic of the moment: whenever anyone, anywhere calls for any limitation of the open and free exchange of ideas, if we don't beat them back into the Stone Age, we are well and truly fucked as a society.
There have been plenty of people/groups with whom I don't agree. I defend their right to be wrong in a very public manner because the only thing that grows if you keep it away from light is fungus. I love it when the KKK or the Neo Nazis come out to march and spew their vile because every time they do, they make probably 4 times as many new enemies as they do recruits. I've actually gone to one march and seen it with my own eyes (I am "guestimating" the ratio, though).
Also, there's a difference between ... I don't know ... Stone Phillips and Rush Limbough. One is paid to deliver us the news, as it happens without putting any of his own opinion into the mix. The other (for reasons beyond understanding) is paid handsomely to bloviate about issues of the day and offer his opinion . That's a huge difference.
If it's true, I think the Canadian position of "If you lie on your newscasts, we won't give you a license to broadcast here" is pretty cool. I also don't think that that's a violation of free speech. It's certainly not a violation of our (U.S.) Constitution and it seems appropriate to me. One hopes that the news is accurate and not purposefully giving false information.
On the other hand, shows that are Op/Ed don't necessarily have to be truthful (It would be nice if they were) and it is very difficult to say that when someone is giving their opinion, they're lying.
I experience that kind of thing, all the time. I wonder if you've noticed that when I post here, I use a lot of "I believe ..." and "I think ..." and "I have always thought ..."? It is very rare that someone can say to me: "You're wrong!" or "You have mis-stated the facts" and I happen to know that it drives some people nuts.
Free speech (forget the legal implications because they don't really count until someone gets charged with a crime for speaking their mind) is the most essential component of a free society. Only by hashing out ideas and doing so with an open mind can our society progress.
I support some of what the Tea Party stands for. I admit that like any organization, there are a few out there on the lunatic fringe but, no one will ever convince me that the Tea Party has added doing away with opposition speech to their platform. I ain't buying it.
Peace and comfort,
Michael
|
|
|
|
