Replies

For people like Dixie Chicks, Pearl Jam, Bill O'Riely, and all politicians, We The People have the right to buy their music, watch their tv shows and movies, and vote for them.

Good point. Would the author believe that we "don't understand the concept of free speech" when we vote against a political candidate because of what he or she said? That's the exact definition of voting!

I'm really at a loss as to what the author wants. If I go to a restaurant and am offended by something the waiter says, do I still have to patronize that restaurant because not doing so would be stomping on the waiter's freedom of speech? Am I a "bad American" if I stop giving my money to that restaurant because I didn't like what one of the employees said? Perhaps the author would like a law that forces me to return to the restaurant after the waiter offended me? Is this the author's "concept of free speech"?

"If I go to a restaurant and am offended by something the waiter says, do I still have to patronize that restaurant because not doing so would be stomping on the waiter's freedom of speech?"

I would have to say no, because the waiter and the restaurant are not part of the "ruling" class. In the last year I started a new job. My first day at orientation we new hires were told that should we say something that another employee found objectionable we were subject to immediate termination. It made no difference if we intended no harm, it was how the other person "perceived" our speech. So much for not losing my livelihood because of what I said. However people like the DC's see themselves as different, bound by different rules.

Another excellent example is our dear conservative friend Bill O'Reilly. I'm sure Bill attends many parties and gatherings during the course of a year. The chances of you or I being invited to attend one of these gatherings can be expressed as a whole number between 1 and 0. For you see, we really aren't his kind of people. This is all well and good. It's called freedom of association. This is one of the basic rights of a free people. Bill enjoys that right, but is very uncomfortable with the "lower" classes pretending that they have such rights. To the point that he takes a public offical to task for not stopping an unauthorized gathering, unless the guest list meets with his approval. It's much the same with the DCs. They have every right to say what ever they want, but.... any indication of the peons feeling that they have similar rights sends them into a tizzy. I find the American public "flexing" a few rights to be a very good thing. I hope it lasts. Don't expect the ruling class to turn a blind eye to it for long. They will try to put us in our proper place. I know where they see our proper place to be. How about you?