RANGER AGAINST WAR: All by Myself

Sunday, November 16, 2008

All by Myself

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself.
It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime
--Justice Potter Stewart

The test of democracy is freedom of criticism
--David Ben-Gurion

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise,
we don't believe in it at all
--Noam Chomsky

Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy,
it is democracy
--Walter Cronkite
_______________

What follows is the transcript of a correspondence between myself and a die-hard Obama supporter whose acquaintance I have recently made. What is your opinion on the two positions?

My correspondent is extremely accomplished, erudite and liberal in his thinking. He has founded non-profit agencies to assist minorities on both the East and West Coast. But he could not countenance a major news outlet reporting on Georgia State Rep. Broun's suggestion that Obama's declaration for a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military]" is socialistic.

[E.]: Where does this crap come from? The media shouldn't give idiots like this a voice.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27655039

[L.]: I believe you're wrong, E. Bad things thrive in an environment of secrecy. This article reports on the words of an elected U.S. Representative, Paul Broun (GA). If you silence him, you are every bit as Brownshirt as Hitler's bullies. If his words are outrageous, let them wither in the light of democracy. This is the job of a free press.

Give your fellow citizens enough credit to determine what they like and do not like. they are the one who voted Obama into office, all. Food for thought.

[E.]: History has seen the effects of this venom. The stuff that was spewed before the assassinations of Malcolm X, JFK, RFK, MLK aroused cowards who plotted to silence our best & brightest. In protecting the life of President Obama, we can err on the side of a free press protecting similar cowards like Broun. Obama’s protection trumps Broun’s freedom to spew & ignite.

[L.] You can't blackout an elected Representative and still call yourself a democracy.

Just because the press might put a gag order on all he says, as you suggest, doesn't mean he is not saying the things is saying. Dialog is the key to a vibrant democracy. We deserve the right to hear, and oppose, opinions of elected officials, don't you think? This country is strong enough to sustain that.
I do not want some editor deciding for me what elected officials I may and may not hear, just because I may be offended. That is patronization of the highest order. We are not juveniles.
Freedom of the press is part of the Bill of Rights. I don't want that rolled back by or for anybody. This is not Nazi Germany.

Labels: freedom of speech, protecting obama from confrontation, silencing the opposition

24 Comments:

Ghost Dansing said...: i'm sorry, i'm missing something..... what was the gist of the disagreement. the free-speech right of an elected representative to say something "stupid" or unconstitutional?; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 7:51:00 PM EST
Ghost Dansing said...: i wasn't able to retrieve the msnbc url by the way.....; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 7:56:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: Lisa -- Far too many of modern-day, self-styled, political-activist "liberals" or "progressives" or "neo-conservatives" (esp. the compassionate kind) that I have had the misfortune to discuss political or civil goings-on with react much the same way as your friend...that is...no matter how accomplished, intelligent, etc. they may be...any contrary ideas or opinions or criticisms, especially if at all reflective of...how should I say this..."traditional" American values(?) (which are increasingly lost in the mist of time -- think George Washington and a nonintervensionist foreigh policy for example)...result in red-faced anger, incredulity, personal attacks, and a strong statement or two that our first amendment rights to free speech and assembly only go so far, by god!! (little "g" intentional since most don't really believe in the big "G" even if they say they do) And, finally, they firmly believe that those prospective limits to the first amendment should be determined by them...especially since they are loving, tolerant, and sensitive folk...and the ones that don't agree with them -- aren't! One more thing -- none of these folk give ANY credence to the so-called "conspiracy theory of history"...so just like your friend...assinations will always be committed by single, deranged shooters, acting alone...but influenced somehow to commit political murder by the "hate" speech of someone somewhere.

Just my .02. (Rant off.)

GSJ

P.S. My apologies for painting with a really broad brush...; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 8:18:00 PM EST
Lisa said...: ghost dansing,

Yeah, that was the gist of it. I gather my correspondent would be on the side of those who also wish to expurgate unflattering racial terminology from Mark Twain or Rudyard Kipling.

Protecting our delicate ears does not mean we have won the fight against ignorance, and I believe it is un-liberally arrogant and unconstitutional to suggest we censor an elected representative.

To E.: if you are reading, I'd welcome your interaction in this forum.; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 9:04:00 PM EST
Lisa said...: GSJ,

I am in agreement with your position. Bigotry and narrow-mindedness are still that, regardless of which side of the fence you occupy.

ghost d. -- I'll check the link, thanks.; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 9:06:00 PM EST
The Minstrel Boy said...: here's the deal. all speech, especially by elected representatives, is, and must be protected.

it's the only way things will work. when i talk about protected speech i'm not talking about it the way shitheads like sarah palin talk about it. she is free, and protected to say anything she wants to say, she can spout bullshit, she can outright lie. everybody else is free to call "bullshit."

the right to free speech is not a right to go unchallenged. if the mormons want to spew their hatred of gays on the streets of california we are free to call them out on it. and tell them that their god is stupid and false while we're at it.

that's liberty bitchez.; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 10:27:00 PM EST
Lisa said...: That's how I see it, MB.

No wiggle room.; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 11:10:00 PM EST
FDChief said...: My issue is not with free speech per se. It's with "speech" that gets reported this way:

Me: I think we should have a period of darkness called "night" that will be relatively as long and powerful as the period of light we call "day".

Rep. Broun: "To suggest that this "darkness" should be considered the equivalent of "daylight" is just the sort of thing you would have heard in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany."

Reporter: There you have the two sides of the issue: we report, you decide."

I think what your liberal correspondant was pissed off about, and what pisses me off, too, is that the public press refuses to call bullshit on a hell of a lot of the lying of the Right. It's one thing to report two sides of an issue that genuinely has two sides. It's quite another to report, as much of what we read is reported, on an opinion and a lie as if they were the same thing.

Broun is a fathead and says fatheaded things. I have no problem with that. But many people have no idea of the criticality of his fatheadedness. IMO the solution is not to not report on his fatheaded remarks. For the people who haven't been paying attemtion, anything he says should be bracketed with a sort of disclaimer, announcing that the following (and "the preceding") are the unsupported opinions of a total fucking boob.

That said, report away. Supressing the babbling of an idiot gives way too much importance to the babbling and the idiot.; Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 11:14:00 PM EST
Lisa said...: FDChief,

You remind me of Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" with that talk.

Newspapers give ink to those who are newsworthy, savory or otherwise (I could do with a lot less Kenny Chesney/Britney/Paris/et. al.) A Representative is newsworthy, esp. when provocative. The press reports, sans commentary, which is the domain of the Op-Ed page.

IMO, a thriving democracy keeps those lines sacrosanct. Lately, it has not.

You say, "It's one thing to report two sides of an issue that genuinely has two sides. It's quite another to report, as much of what we read is reported, on an opinion and a lie as if they were the same thing."

Most things have more than two sides, and the bifurcation is the lie. But to the point, fathead Broun's opinion was a fact, not a lie, inasmuch as he stated it. To report it as such, devoid of value judgment, is the correct way to report. You, the reader -- blessed recipient of the responsibilities of living in a democracy -- decide the uttered statement's merit.

Lord love a duck if the news must "bracket" and censure the comments of our representatives (or anyone, for that matter.) Have we become so flabby reading the running commentary under a CNN story for the predigested summary that we must have everything regurgitated to us?; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 12:29:00 AM EST
The Minstrel Boy said...: a perfect example of this freedom to be an idiot in action came with representative michelle bachman. she went on "hardball" and spewed some truly odious stuff about how the democrats in congress need to be investigated for being "unamerican" and shit like that.

people saw, and heard her, and nearly 15million in fresh contributions bubbled up for her opponent. sometimes, shining the light on them is the worst thing that can happen. expose them for being the idiots they are.

if it's shown, and folks refuse to comprehend, well, that's also the way that it works.

ted stevens was convicted, and still might win his election. if alaska wants to be that stupid, if they are that easily bought off by pork projects, let them be. them's the rules, even when it doesn't shake out my way.; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 11:10:00 AM EST
Lisa said...: Exactly right, MB. Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't be a little bit democratic.

It is or it isn't. If the least of you aren't free, none are.; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 12:04:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: The sad reality of our national condition is that we are a nation born in blood, and rebellion.
Granted, alternatives were sought, but the end result was a people who wanted out of the economic compact that England said the colonies were formed for.
So here we are, two-hundred plus years later and really, not a whole lot has changed except for where the fence line ends.
In the same way, historically, bellicose political comparisons are part and parcel of our national past-time...but also, comes the realization that murder, assault, libel, and more than likely assassination is also part of our national political identity.

When Obama ran for President the reality of our national political identity is the very first thing he should have considered.
If he didn't, he's a fool.
So, every President, regardless of political persausion, must take in consideration that they are now a target for every loon with a gripe against the government.
It is an unfortunate reality of our nation, and to not address it is foolishness.
Also, I think it is important to note that freedom of speech has limitations, and my take on Mr. Broun's charaterization is this: By making the comparison to Hitler, he has increased, not decreased, but increased the chance that someone, somewhere in the US will take it upon themselves to rid a perceived holocaust...because that is a question of historical conjecture that many have entertained...what would the world be like right now if Hitler was assassinated long before he could start WWII, or murder 6 million Jews, and another 2-3 million non-jews for being non-Aryan?
I further submit that there are a lot of loony-toony-nut-job-Fundametalists right now who believe Obama is the anti-Christ.

Mr. Broun is a tool, but having read a lot of the Religious Rights repeated quotations of Mr. Broun's statements I firmly believe that Mr. Obama is in danger. At the least, Mr. Broun should be censured by Congress for stupdidity unbecoming of even a Congressman...but more over, should an assassination attempt be made on Mr. Obama...Mr. Broun should be charged with incitement.

Mr. Broun made not have meant to insinuate assassination, but he will own the results of his "free-speech" if someone acts on his words.; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 1:58:00 PM EST
Lisa said...: sheerahkhan,

With all respect, no one cares about the Jews. Mr. Broun was trying to tar Obama with the brush of Socialism or -- gasp -- Communism. Obama's own statements about "sharing the wealth" haven't helped deflect such perceptions. As Obama as has two father figures who were avowed socialists / communists, the rhetoric would not be foreign to him. As I have written before, he comes by it honestly.

Our own Republican President has made major moves towards socialism, so it looks like that is a new reality, no matter how unsavory to some dyed-in-the-wool Republicans.

You're right -- not a lot has changed since our founding; we are still the same people. We have tried to kill sitting and former presidents on 20 different occasions, four of them successful. So, we have a 10% kill ratio on sitting presidents. Them's the facts. We are a bloody brutish lot. Maybe most people are.

I have long maintained that racism is a given, and surely was not erased with Obama's election. Many voted for him under duress. But surely nothing Rep. Broun says will animate anyone to like him less.

Mr. Broun is reflecting the thoughts of a portion of his base. He was not recently dropped off a spacecraft onto the fine people of Georgia, though it may seem that way to many West Coasters.

Georgians voted for Mr. Broun b/c they LIKED him and his stance. So if one is going to get mad at anyone, it should be at Mr. Broun, but the mass of their fellow bigoted Americans, the 27 percenters.

Mr. Broun, nor I, nor anyone, can be charged with incitement to murder if we say Obama is a Socialist. That does not equate with a writ to murder. Broun did not call for Obama's assassination. That is spun from the insanity of the left wing which would silence every and anything which cast any aspersions upon Mr. Obama's character. NOT ALLOWED!

However, the fact is, we enjoy freedom of speech, all of us. Period (though we may not shout "fire" in a crowded movie house.); Monday, November 17, 2008 at 5:20:00 PM EST
FDChief said...: Lisa: "Have we become so flabby reading the running commentary under a CNN story for the predigested summary that we must have everything regurgitated to us?"

Yep.

Twelve years of indifferent education and a culture that tells you that if you see it on the electronical TV It Must Be True has made the U.S. public among the world's most fatuous and undiscriminating consumer of news. So, the point that Broun is a fathead and commonly says fatheaded things is lost on most viewers. They see this guy dressed up in a suit, looking official, who says something that they don't really understand and they nod along and have no freaking clue.

I loves me some democracy, but it's sure frustrating when I look around at my fellow voters. I have no idea what we "should" do, but I have a certain amount of sympathy with your liberal friend who gets frustrated with the sheer volume of people who seem to get their "news" from Rush Limbaugh and the Musclehead Revolution...; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 8:02:00 PM EST
Lisa said...: Chief,

1 in 4 high school students drop out, and the United States is now the only industrialized country where young people are less likely than their parents to earn a diploma.

Still, we may as well pack it in if we must run disclaimers on the news to the effect that what somebody is saying is merely their opinion. What anyone says is merely opinion, except for the anchors behind the desk, or at least, that used to be the case.

Farrakhan wears a suit, Oral Roberts did -- must we run disclaimers behind everybody's speech? No. Then you are Orwellian, for who is watching the watchers? We have no Solomon to determine that Obama's story is any "truer" than McCain's.

Many people choose for provincial beliefs, or for being afraid, or for patriarchy. That is their right. That is the freeman's burden.; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 9:36:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: I think it's important to draw a distinction. An elected representative's comments are definitely important to the public interest, and the press should definitely be reporting what they say no matter how obnoxious anybody finds it. This is an essential element in maintaining an informed electorate. Having said that, I don't think it's appropriate for the press to give your average (i.e. non-elected) hate-monger a soap-box. Somebody lock Ann Coulter in a basement, please!; Monday, November 17, 2008 at 11:40:00 PM EST
Lisa said...: kootenay,

You're correct on Ann Coulter, who's just wing nut crazy. She belongs where she is, providing insane, bilious commentary on FOX commentary programs. She is not a reporter; unfortunately, she passes as a critic.

Actual straight news is another matter, and reportage of the utterances of public officials need not be editorialized in the news story. The editorial page is another matter.

As you say, drawing the distinction between "news" and "commentary" is essential. The stated opinions of elected leaders comes under "news". Pure and simple, savory or not.; Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 12:32:00 AM EST
Anonymous said...: Lisa,
I can see your passion coming out, and I want you to know that I think we are...somewhat...talking past each other.
First off, I'm quite positive that my wife, a liberal, would take exception to me being called a liberal...in fact I know quite a few liberals who would take exception to me being called a liberal.
Secondly, I can see your point about unfettered speech being allowed to voice itself loud and clear.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Happens to be something I believe in as well.
That said, you are wrong about something: You can be held accountable for the words you speak if it can be proved that a crime was committed due to your incitement.
That is how the Mullah, Omar-something-or-another got tagged along with the others for World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
Granted, much harder to prove, but it should provide a check to diarrhea of the mouth, which is what Mr. Broun was exhibiting.

Lastly, Mr. Broun was using the same paint brush that McCain, Palin...oh hell, the entire Republican Right used to denigrate Obama with.
Need I point out that the crowds were turning very ugly, and that death threats were uttered...not just at one rally, but three that had been reported...so, very real consequences to speech.
So...to recap, and to refine...I'm all for freedom of speech, but I'm also for restraint.
Even you stated the truth, "However, the fact is, we enjoy freedom of speech, all of us. Period (though we may not shout "fire" in a crowded movie house.)"
Why can't we do that?
Because if there is no fire, and even though it was just a jest, the individual who causes the stampede, and the forthcoming injuries, owns the results.
So, with all due respect, Lisa, even though you don't care about the Jews, and I do. Mr. Broun foolishly made a dangerous comparison in a very crowded movie house, with an already hyped up crowd.
His words may be made in the spirit of political jest, but if something untoward happens because of those words...he stil owns the results.; Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 11:54:00 AM EST
Lisa said...: sheerahkhan,

Thank you for your clarification.

For myself: I care very much for Israel and the Jews. My comment was simply, no one fears another Holocaust, as you suggest they do.

Re. speech as incitement to crime: yes, if that linkage can be proved. However, I seriously doubt suggesting that Obama may be Socialistic or Communistic in some of his policy trends equate with a mandate to murder. We are a democracy, and even have Socialists on the presidential ticket. (We don't kill them, but they don't win Miss Congeniality, either.)

You equate any angry speech at rallies to being a reaction to the spoken word. I must disagree strongly with you.

One can only get whipped up into such a furor if one already possesses the inclination to hate. One doesn't go to a rally level-headed, and within the hour call for someone's head. They already had predisposition for that behavior.

That has been my position all along: racism (ageism, sexism, whatever) is rampant in America. The election of Obama does not erase these longstanding passions. you can not mandate someone into reason. All you can do is shine the light of day upon them.

If Broun were such a space alien, he wouldn't be sitting in the HOR. The sooner we accept reality, view it, observe and later dialog, the better off our society will be. However, it is what it is, and that is your baseline.; Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 12:41:00 PM EST
FDChief said...: Lisa: "Many people choose for provincial beliefs, or for being afraid, or for patriarchy. That is their right. That is the freeman's burden."

You're right, of course. It's just a saddening thing to see the cumulative effect of all those freemen exercising their right to make dumb choices. My personal suspicion is that if we continue to do so that we will no longer be so-burdened for much longer...

Unfortunately a republic cannot be defended from itself. "A Republic...if you can keep it." Ben said, and, as usual, Dr. Franklin was wiser then most.; Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 4:52:00 PM EST
Lisa said...: Chief,

It is Erich Fromm's "Escape From Freedom": "Can freedom become a burden, too heavy for man to bear, something he tries to escape from?"
Hence our religions, laws, antidepressants, and everything else that conspires to keep man on an even keel.

On our Republic's tombstone: "They were too dumb and fractious to secure the blessings of liberty."; Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 5:30:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: "The election of Obama does not erase these longstanding passions. you can not mandate someone into reason. All you can do is shine the light of day upon them."

I whole heartedly agree with your sentiment, but where do we draw the line?
For me, I've drawn the line at common sense...if I'm getting all wound up in the pants, and I start mouthing off a whole bunch of nonsense, and you come up and slap me across the face and tell, "dam boy, pull it together!"
You, for all intents and purposes, are applying a level of censure on me...it may not seem like censure, but it is, and it comes in the form of slapping my silly ass back to reality.

Anyway, I think we have a basic disagreement on where that line should be. For me...it's a lot closer than it is for you.; Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 1:27:00 PM EST
Lisa said...: sheerahkhan,

I look to the Constitution and see Freedom of Speech. As Thomas Jefferson said, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god."

Broun can say whatever he wants, short issuing a diktat for someone's head. Just because Obama is biracial doesn't mean he's off limits for censure. My sense of liberal guilt doesn't extend that far.; Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 2:27:00 PM EST
Lisa said...: sheerah.,

P.s. -- Neither I nor anyone else has the right to censure you or slap you for being silly. If I did so I would then be curtailing your right to free speech (and maybe committing other offenses, as well.)

Freedom of speech it the highest command. That you or I cause offense is a lesser concern.; Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 2:31:00 PM EST

RANGER AGAINST WAR

Sunday, November 16, 2008

All by Myself

24 Comments:

Contributors

PREVIOUS POSTS