Lettermen and Palin
TURN THE CHANNEL!
Says a reader:
As with most people who are foolish enough to support liberal ideas, you fail to understand that the First Amendment (as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights) ONLY restricts the actions of the United States government.
Ah, yes. A a cafeteria conservative, ever appealing to the freedom of speech clause of the constitution only when it suit you.
Since you clearly don't know anything about the First Amendment, let me help you and the other home schoolers out.
Private citizens are permitted-- not restrained-- by the first amendment to say what they want, within the bounds of what is otherwise lawful, i.e. as regards to sedition or obscenity. The First Amendment applies to individuals, corporations, states, and the government. It doesn't only restrict the federal government. Here is the wording:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Right after the clause "freedom of speech" is "or of the press"-- which is scarcely a government function. The First Amendment doesn't innoculate individuals from tort liability for libel or slander, but the Supreme Court has set a low standard in regards to public officials such as Mrs. Palin. Generally, Palin is fair game for any kind of abusive or unfair speech because she is a public official. It is a gray area whether or not her children are fair game. As a matter of law, that can be addressed under libel or slander laws. As a matter of tactical politics as well as basic ethics, any kind of attacks on politican's children should be off limits.
Here is Wikipedia analysis:
"The nature of American defamation law was vitally changed by the Supreme Court in 1964, in deciding New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The New York Times had published an advertisement indicating that officials in Montgomery, Alabama had acted violently in suppressing the protests of African-Americans during the Civil rights movement. The Montgomery Police Commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued the Times for libel on the grounds that the advertisement damaged his reputation. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the $500,000 judgment against the Times. Justice William J. Brennan suggested that public officials may sue for libel only if the publisher published the statements in question with "actual malice."
"The actual malice standard applies to both public officials and public figures, including celebrities. Though the details vary from state to state, private individuals normally need only to prove negligence on the part of the defendant.
"In Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association, Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), the Supreme Court ruled that a Greenbelt News Review article, which quoted a visitor to a city council meeting who characterized Bresler's aggressive stance in negotiating with the city as "blackmail", was not libelous since nobody could believe anyone was claiming that Bresler had committed the crime of blackmail and that the statement was essentially hyperbole (i.e., obviously an opinion).
"The Supreme Court ruled in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974), opinions could not be considered defamatory. It is thus permissible to suggest, for instance, that someone is a bad lawyer, but not permissible to falsely declare that the lawyer is ignorant of the law: the former constitutes a statement of values, but the latter is a statement alleging a fact."
I'm not sure why the word "liberal" is used as a prejorative as it was foolish liberals that wrote the constitution in the first place, and it is conservatives such as the mullahs of Iran who do not want such foolish, new-fangled liberal ideas as free speech to prevail.
The fact is that right-wing talk radio, the forums (such as this one) and Fox cable have this kind of stuff on daily abd 24-7. I think it does debase the dialogue and tactically the low road isn't the place where you want to be. But that is a fact of today's politics. What does the Bible say about taking the log out of your eye? Lettermen is a mere speck compared to Limburgh, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Palin, Fox, and any number of forums, all spewing their hate, with some of it crossing the line into inference about assasinations of liberal politicans.
"In a harried, fragmented, media-addled time, there is an invigorating simplicity to this political fundamentalism. It is comforting to hold fast to hallowed values, to defend tradition against the slackness of relativism and hedonism. But when the tone darkens toward a rhetoric of purgation and annihilation, there is reason for alarm. Two days after watching "Seven Days in May," I was utterly horrified to hear Dallas-based talk show host Mark Davis, subbing for Rush Limbaugh, laughingly and approvingly read a passage from a Dallas magazine article by CBS sportscaster David Feherty claiming that "any U.S. soldier," given a gun with two bullets and stuck in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, would use both bullets on Pelosi and strangle the other two."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/05/13/7_days_in_may/
There is the saying that you don't wrestle with pigs because you get dirty and the pigs likes it. It seems to me that lip-stick covered pigs like nothing better than this kind of rhetoric. Kerry and some of the previous presidential candidates made a critical error of judgment in not answering these kind of attacks in kind and at once. And, since the Republicans are now a minority party lacking any kind of leadership at all, I expect that this kind of snarking will continue from them for as long as I can see, making it blue skies for the Democratic Party.
So, yes, there is indeed hypocrisy. But most of it comes from the right.
Labels: First Amendment, humor
posted by My Mall and News at
9:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home