A note to Moore and all others THE FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY PROTECTS YOU FROM GOVERNMENT SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST PRIVATE SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH. The casino was entirely within its rights to give Rondstadt the heave ho. Guess what? If your employer, say a bank, doesn't like your views on abortion, the war in Iraq, stem cell research, or who should be the new dog catcher, and fires you because of it - too bad, so sad, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Even the government, when it is acting as an employer, may validly restrict your speech if your speech interferes or impedes its operations.
Furthermore, the First Amendment doesn't mean that you get to say what you want, but then there are no consequences. Or that you get to say want you want, but if I disagree with you, I'm a hate-mongering fascists. In fact, as the Supreme Court constantly says, the First Amendment encourages an exchange of thought in the market place of ideas. I recently read a concurring opinion in an older case which states that the First Amendment can rightly result in the suppression of speech. How so? Well, when your speech and ideas are devoid of merit and are rejected by listener, you no longer have a platform or a willing audience, your speech is suppressed. Seems like free enterprise to me. Therefore, Dixie Chicks, when you make idiotic comments about the president and radio stations boycott your music, it's not censorship, it's the market place of ideas rejecting your speech.
End of civics lesson. Sorry for the extended rant. Rob, thanks for the platform. Everyone in the market place of ideas feel free to reject me, it seems easy enough for most women to do.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Civics lesson indeed!
I copied part of a response from Pat in Covedale and moved it here b/c I think it's important people understand the Constitution if they are going to use it to buttress their political stance (you can see the full text of his comments under the Let me throw Squeeze a bone post):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank goodness I can still wear my F*CK t-shirts in public!
ReplyDeleteYeah, in fact, under the Supreme Court's decision in Cohen you can wear your F*CK shirt in any courthouse in the state of California.
ReplyDeleteSee the shallowness of Michael Moore's reasoning here in an interview with Bill O'Reilly
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html
Ahahaha!
ReplyDeleteDon't you guys read anything besides Fox News or NRO? You know that you'll never be able to see the other side of things if you don't fish out of your own pond.
So what does this argument prove? A couple of chickenheads debating "Did not!" vs. "Did too!"? O'Reilly is no master debater, either--I've seen his "SHUT UP!" technique in action. Still, I like O'Reilly and agree with him on some issues.
But here, I'm siding with Moore (although I don't agree with his form of argument). I think it's bullsh!t that "Bush was misinformed". I think that he was looking for an excuse, any excuse, to go into Iraq. A quote from Hermann Goering comes to mind:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
But let's just say that we play Devil's advocate here, shall we? Let's say that it's true--Bush really thought that there were WMD in Iraq, so we go charging in there. And, as we know now, he was wrong.
Well, someone's got to take responsibilty for the screw-up. And he's the President. Guess that falls on his shoulders. If everything came out smelling like roses, he certainly would take all the credit. Now, it seems that we were incorrect with our intelligence and he's backing up, saying, "I was misinformed! It was a mistake!"
But he's not even doing that. Has Bush apologized for this mistake? Whether to us or the country of Iraq? Or are we just skipping down the list to reason number three: "Get rid of Hussein" (because the first two weren't true) and that's the official story that we're sticking to!
If this had been Clinton, he would've been demonized.
At the point when you accept that Iraq had WMD should he apologize for apologizing too soon?
ReplyDelete(fish from the other side of the pond: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=F2CZXSRP3EM51QFIQMGSM5OAVCBQWJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/07/10/dl1001.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=3129
So, on President Bush's directive, the United States deposes one of the most cruel and vicious despots of the last half of the 20th Century, and he gets lumped in with Hermann Goering?
ReplyDeleteJust checking.
As to the British article:
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't mention how the missiles the Polish troops found were tested negative for sarin gas by the multinational forces in Iraq. Even Charles Duelfer "could not say Iraq had hidden a 'military significant' stockpile of chemical weapons."
The theory that the WMD haven't been found yet is not evidence that they were there in the first place. I think that's reaching a bit.
I wasn't really lumping Bush in with the likes of Goering in my statement. The quote from Goering just came to mind under the subject of the "reasons" we went to war and the persuasion of public opinion.
If I wanted to compare Bush to the likes of Goering, however, I would've cited his(and his administration's) stance on gay marriage. It'd be much easier.