by the Left Coast Rebel Even if the most acidic of Rush’s quotes are real, what difference should it make? If a statement is offensive, let us discuss why it is offensive instead of criminalizing the opinions of private citizens some of us don’t like. This attitude is also evident in Rush’s quotes that are verifiable. Whose civil liberty is infringed upon when we are pressured from discussing whether a particular football player might be overrated because of his skin color? Is it the person who asks it or is it the rest of us who are to resist talking about that because it is considered offensive to somebody? Like Don Imus two years ago, Rush Limbaugh is guilty of a thought crime against elites who are uninterested in hearing anyone else’s opinion except the ones they give us.
I'm reading Andy McCarthy's piece at the National Review - So Much for Post Racial America.
McCarthy points to Sharpton and Jackson being of the worst race-baiting, poverty-pimping, ethnic tribesmen that could possibly reside in the sewer of our national consciousness. Why does the press listen to and parrot these morons, he asks?
Which is interesting and a big part of this story but reader Carl Wicklander blogging over at Uncouth Ruminations, (a very astute true-conservative thinker), has this to offer in an email that he sent to me, I will carry just a portion of his letter to the editor, as to not take from his site where he will soon post this -While most of the negative reaction has been directed at quotes of spurious origin, people seem to be consumed by the wrong issue. What is plain to see is that while we have freedom of speech in this country, some speech is more equal than others.
- Carl Wicklander
Carl absolutely hits the nail on the head with his letter, freedom of speech is more free for the politically correct than those that are not, a dangerous road that we traverse and an omen of worse things to come in this country. Hold tightly to your freedoms.
UPDATE: Redstate has a post up that is getting a lot of attention from Tsquare. Listen to this, taken from his post -
Via MemeorandumTonight the left proved that they will stop at nothing to end our dreams.
Our dreams of success and happiness devastate their need to dominate and control
you and me… and well everything and everyone.Chrysler bondholders
GM dealers
Bankers and stockbrokers
Small business owners
Medical Doctors
Oppressed people wanting freedom around the
worldThe left can not and will not allow anyone to realize
their dreamsTonight a light went out… a dream died… it died from
political correctnessTonight we are under withering fire, we on the right
those in the middle,Tonight our values are under withering fire, those thoughts
ideas and dreams that made this great nation are under withering fireWill your light of your dreams be next?
Will my dreams be next?
THis is of topic, but is a topic near and dear to your heart. Recently, Robert Wexler D FL has stepped down due to a growing housing and loan fraud scandal. In January we will be having special elections to pick a replacement for Wexler until 2010. I have offered to volunteer for and throw my weight behind Edward Lynch. He is a libertarian who gave Wexler a good run in 2008. Lynch is a gifted speaker and knows the issues. I met him at a tea party against Wexler and he gave a rousing speech. The Democrats will be putting all their weight into keeping that seat, but that area is all elderly and they are very upset about Medicare cuts. This election is winable if Lynch has some blogger and financial support. I know that You and most of your readers are libertarian and would love to see a libertarian win a previously communist seat. You can go to his website ElectLynch.com, e-mail him at Edward@elect lynch.com and call his campaign office at 561 302 2983. This is probably the most viable libertarian opportunity to win a house seat in my lifetime. I hope the rest of you will join me in supporting Lynch. Most of you know I am not some political lackey. I would not throw my support behind Lynch unless I thought he believed in our pro-liberty principals. check out his site and decide for yourself.
ReplyDeleteWhat are examples of opinions that have been criminalized? If it's true you should put an excerpt from the criminal complaint. I suspect you're making it up.
ReplyDeleteI will obviously retract this statement if you put up a link to or excerpt from a recent case of someone being prosecuted for having offensive opinions.
@ CJ - The point of this entire Rush issue is prosection for lack of political correctness. Of course he wasn't prosecuted in a court of law but in the court of public opinion and the press.
ReplyDeleteDo you not think that suppressing the freedom of speech w/Limbaugh is a bad omen? What happens when this same tactic is used against liberals one day? Blacks? Gays? Would that be right?
And by tactic I simply mean a public-lynch effort and contextual quote falsification.
What speech was suppressed? Rush wanted to buy into a football team and when his intentions were announced, some people voiced their opposition (which is freedom of speech too!) and then the partners kicked Rush out of the partnership.
ReplyDeletePublic Opinion didn't do a thing, the NFL did not even vote on it...nothing happened except the partners of Rush Limbaugh decided he was a liablity to their personal financial interests.
So, they kicked him to the curb....and I am sure they are not liberals, I am sure they are not Democrats, so.....
Rush is now back on the air speaking and saying whatever he so desires, whether it is true or not...
Freedom of speech is just fine in this country.
Do you not think that suppressing the freedom of speech w/Limbaugh is a bad omen?
ReplyDeleteI am speaking without being informed. What efforts are being made to suppress his speech? If it's just the court of public opinion, that's just part of the social contract. You have the right to say whatever you want, and that same right gives someone who hears (in this case public opinion) you the right to disagree.
@ TAO - I beg to differ, the lynching smear job by the press and the likes of Sharpton et al are a bad omen for freedom of speech. They have the right to say what they did, but he also has the right litigate for libel, I hope he does.
ReplyDelete@ CJ - Refer to above to TAO, I reiterate, the poverty-pimps Sharpton and Jackson along with media sources spread misinformation about things that Rush said in the past. The equivalent would be I saying that you said the 'N' word towards blacks and other racist stuff and then drummed up false information. If I had the entire governmnet/media complex backing me up and not fact-checking it would be a bad omen for freedom of speech. Rush has the right to sue for libel, which he should.
I see what you're saying. If government officials misrepresent someone's comments and condemn them, it's a form of government pressure. It would be like a gov't official saying I want American to lose the "war on drugs", "war on terror", or whatever wars they come up with to expand government powers. I would start to wonder if some government agencies might view me as the enemy in a war.
ReplyDeleteYou're saying there's a war against racism, which IMHO is as stupid as a war against terrorism.
Let’s look at the reaction to things that Rush Limbaugh has actually said.
ReplyDeleteThe “suppression” we talk about is the attempt to cut off debate. The reaction suggests that it is unacceptable to say that a black quarterback might be overrated by media types on account of his skin color. At that point the debate it cut off. To this day the only explanation I’ve heard is that the comment is wrong because it’s offensive. That makes it offensive to even bring up the subject rather than to even discuss the possibility that someone, whose career has been up-and-down, MIGHT have been overrated. It’s just called racism or bigotry and not discussed.
So can an opinion only be either offensive or true? Is it true to say that the United States, particularly under George W. Bush, behaved arrogantly on the international scene? My opinion is yes, but the notion that America could ever be arrogant is offensive to millions of people because many will accept it as a broad-brushed stereotype that is not true. The point is that I do not wish to pressure an end to the debate about whether that period of time can be considered arrogant or not.
Here’s another related example. In the months immediately preceding the invasion of Iraq it was not uncommon for opponents to be shouted down as unpatriotic, usually issued by Republicans at the expense of Democrats. Congressmen that might have wanted to vote against the use of aggression against Iraq have said that they felt pressured to vote for the war. Was this device an attempt to suppress debate about an issue as important as going to war? Was that suppression? It’s certainly not healthy.
Free speech is something that can be infringed upon by either party and it is. It is a grave mistake to believe that just because the ruling party has changed that this infringement cannot be happening.