Free Throw
We have fallen down again tonight
In this world it's hard to get it right
--Everybody, Ingrid Michaelson
[NOTE: Due to an editorial error, yesterday's post
incorrectly contained two different pieces of writing.
incorrectly contained two different pieces of writing.
Today, we will publish Jim's portion. --ed.]
_____________________
There's
a lot of discussion and outrage about the racial remarks made by an 81
year-old billionaire somewhere in a world uninhabited by people like
this Ranger.
Even the President and Michael Eric Dyson have expressed their shock and ire at the comments. The NBA Commissioner Silver is moving to force Sterling to sell his team.
But wait a minute here. Doesn't Ranger remember 46 years ago taking an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic? Didn't I go off to war as a result of this oath?
Please correct my thinking, but isn't one of those things covered by this oath a little thing called "freedom of speech"? If a billionaire doesn't have freedom of speech then my oath of allegiance was certainly a wasted effort.
What is democracy without freedom of speech? Even if that speech is reprehensible.
Even the President and Michael Eric Dyson have expressed their shock and ire at the comments. The NBA Commissioner Silver is moving to force Sterling to sell his team.
But wait a minute here. Doesn't Ranger remember 46 years ago taking an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic? Didn't I go off to war as a result of this oath?
Please correct my thinking, but isn't one of those things covered by this oath a little thing called "freedom of speech"? If a billionaire doesn't have freedom of speech then my oath of allegiance was certainly a wasted effort.
What is democracy without freedom of speech? Even if that speech is reprehensible.
Labels: abridgement of constitutional rights, constitution, Donald Sterling, freedom of speech
posted by rangeragainstwar at 8:40 AM
10 Comments:
Mr Sterling said some stuff.
Other people said stuff in response.
I don't see any government abridging freedom of speech type problems there.
When the POTUS weighs in on the topic then the gov't is involved.
Also does it matter where the repression comes from? If we can't have free speech in our social lives then what good is the concept?
Certainly, when the POTUS made a comment, then Mr. Sterling acquired a great defense when/if the government tries to pursue legal action. However, I don't see how the POTUS repressed Mr. Sterling's freedom of speech.
I suspect Mr. Sterling's lawyers are trying to repress his speech much more than any journalist.
Being free to say something does not mean that saying something will be consequence free.
I have said foolish things in the past and have justly suffered for it.
AEL,
When the POTUS makes judgements on this topic ,then he is suppressing my right of free speech.
He is putting pressure on my rights.
jim
I do not understand how the Presidents comments on Mr. Sterling's utterances suppress your right of free speech.
AEL,
When he's speaking as POTUS ,and from the bully pulpit then how can i say anything that opposes his utterances..?
If i do then i'm tainted as a bigotjim.
AEL,
I've lived in the deep south for 46 years and i've been called "Mr.Salt" and whites are called crackers and red necks and that's not on the radar as being racial.
Why is it ok if directed my way ,but not if i put a round down range?
jim
@ Ael says,
Being free to say something does not mean that saying something will be consequence free.
I have said foolish things in the past and have justly suffered for it.
We are not discussing the philosophy of right behavior here. We do not legally crucify a person for moral turpitude ( as reader on my following post suggested).
We are simply discussing the law, the First Amendment, and matters of free speech.
Not only was Sterling's privacy breached, as in CA both parties of a recorded conversation must be aware and in agreement of such, but his personal bias is being used by the lead official in his business (the NBA Commissioner Nate Silver) to force him out of his job.
We know ageism is wrong, but we do not know that persecuting a person for thought crime is wrong. We are living in times of a witch hunt mentality.
Ael,
Mr. Sterling is certainly not a moral clarion, but that is not the matter. Too many of the b-ball players on the teams are not, either.
Wendell Barry has written on this sort of persecution as well as anyone:
fr. his "Do Not Be Ashamed":
They will want you to kneel and weep
and say you should have been like them.
And once you say you are ashamed,
reading the page they hold out to you,
then such light as you have made
in your history will leave you.
They will no longer need to pursue you.
You will pursue them, begging forgiveness.
They will not forgive you
. . .
I still don't see how Mr. Sterling's freedom of speech was abridged by an act of congress.
It does appear that his associates did not treat him fairly. I do not know how he has previously treated his associates. I assume that he can afford quality lawyers who will be able to get him whatever legal remedies are available.
Post a Comment
<< Home