Freedom of Speech (Depending on What You Say, of Course)
Beware the Central Committee for the Enforcement of Orthodox Speech. Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2.
Presented for your delectation by the Gentleman Farmer at 10:24 AM
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."
--Archilochus
Glenn Reynolds:
"Heh."
Barack Obama:
"Impossible to transcend."
Albert A. Gore, Jr.:"An incontinent brute."
Rev. Jeremiah Wright:"God damn the Gentleman Farmer."
Friends of GF's Sons:"Is that really your dad?"
Kickball Girl:"Keeping 'em alive until 7:45."
Hired Hand:"I think . . . we forgot the pheasant."
Alcoholic Yeti
in the
TTLB Ecosystem
Comments on "Freedom of Speech (Depending on What You Say, of Course)"
-
Anonymous said ... (4:10 PM) :
-
Gentleman Farmer said ... (5:17 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (12:16 PM) :
-
Gentleman Farmer said ... (10:15 PM) :
post a commentExhibit 3.
http://www.wndu.com/news/062006/news_50621.php
The anonymous commenter points to signing of the "broadcast indecency" law, which greatly increases the fines that may be imposed on broadcasters for "indecency."
The airwaves are public property, the use of which is granted to private parties by the Government. As such, the people (through their Government) are entitled to place whatever restrictions on their use as they might wish. If ABC wants to broadcast unattractive female breasts 24/7, then they ought to go into the cable, internet, or print publishing business, where they can do what they want.
That is not even close to the same thing as regulating (and banning) entirely political speech, or firing a public official for stating that homosexual activity is deviant sexual behavior, a simple statement of fact. (These being the two "exhibits" referenced in the main post.)
ahh, yes. believe it or not, i've spent some time in countries where all property is public property and "the people" have "chosen" to restrict the freedom of their own speech. such restrictions on the freedom of public discourse are ugly in all of their forms.
however, i do see some value in attempting to regulate campaign finances in order to combat corruption and promote democracy. i also see some practical value in dismissing an individual from any organization who abuses his stature to take a controversial public political stance. i do not, though, see any value in a government bureaucracy dictating taste and decency to the general public. in fact, i'm pretty appalled by the idea.
What are you talking about?