Posted on 03/09/2007 12:57:28 PM PST by SmithL
The Chronicle's story today on the ongoing furor over Ann Coulter and the 'F-word', reports that the backlash includes a campaign initiated today by a gay rights group and media watchdog to persuade mainstream media outlets to dump her for good.
The organizations in question, GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, are seeking to get rid of Coulter from the airwaves and from being syndicated to newspapers.
Is all this a step too far?
Ironically, GLAAD itself is the target of a campaign by the American Family Association to get the Ford Motor Co., a development noted by the gay web site, Queerty.
Taking a leaf from HRC's book, should other organizations petition to take Bill Maher off of HBO because of his off-color remarks on the possible untimely death of Dick Cheney. That happened to Maher once before, when "Politically Incorrect" was summarily dispatched from ABC after he made comments perceived to be politically incorrect about Al Qaeda.
So, how far might, or should, this erosion of offensive speech go?
Is there a difference between activist organizations pushing to boot Ann Coulter off the air, and, say, the government of Turkey banning You Tube because of perceived undignified references to Kamal Attaturk (since lifted by a Turkish court). Or schools and libraries banning literature considered "dangerous." Or New York City banning the "N-word", no matter how much it is part of the vernacular (as is the "F-word"). Or, for that matter, Europe criminalizing Holocaust denial.
All terribly offensive, of course, but so are Klan marches, and neo-Nazi marches through Skokie, which the ACLU defended
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Thanks for the pic. :) Although we've never even met, I love that gal! She's strong, independent, assertive, determined, smart, truthful, articulate, witty, charming and one downright hot babe! lol If I were 20 years younger... LOL
There's no there, there.
This is convincing proof of how the mass media can manipulate the (unthinking and unquestioning) masses to believe anything they want them to believe.
It's just another test of their waning power to control the public dialogue. Obviously, there's more than a few not falling for it -- and those are the ones who make a difference in the world -- the increasing more that can see right through them and their manipulations.
Good work, people.
It's time for them to drag out Jimmy Carter with his latest inanity -- or Helen Thomas with her latest love psalm to George Bush. Don't you just love that twist of rage that contorts liberal's faces when they are seen through as the hate- and fear-mongers they are?
Eventually, those looks become permanently embedded into their faces. (No pictures, please.)
"If those laws come up, then it's a Free Speech issue. If the media expresses an opinion about something, it may be repugnant, but again, it's not a Free Speech issue. This Ann Coulter flap has absolutley nothing to do with Free Speech."
I love ignorance parading as authority.
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
That doesn't mean that the only limits to free speech can come from the United States government -- which is prohibited by the US Constitution from doing the same.
There are plenty of other ways in which "free speech" can be limited or punished apart from the US government -- or any government.
Ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition? The Hayes Code? Political correctness?
Hell yeah it's a free speech issue. Coulter's joke was about how political correctness is destroying free speech.
Call someone a schoolyard taunt, and you have to go into rehab or lose your job -- even your career.
And of course her joke has been proved highly accurate by the response it has gotten -- from boneheads like you.
Wake the hell up.
They never get it! Ever.
We know their modus operandi.
I agree with your basic argument that everyone else has the right to object to what she says. But that is not the case. Yes, they object to her use of the term faggot, but they are taking it one step further, and therein lies the problem.
They demand censorship of her. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, I decided simply to not listen to their music or purchase their albums or listen to the stations that played their music. That is my response to their objectionable comments on foreign soil. I did not decry their right to continue singing nor did I want them banned from the airwaves. People demanding banning are somewhat silly given the fact that they don't have to listen to a particular radio station. That will hurt the station far greater than trying to get someone banned.
The same applies here. If these people do not want to read what Ann says, simply do not buy the newspaper that she is printed in. But they don't want that, they want all newspapers to stop carrying her column. That is what I have a problem with.
BTTT
I missed your reply earlier. And it is probably a waste of time to respond to you at all.
But, let's just take one highly relevant instance of someone being deprived of their right to freedom of speech -- and not by the government.
I give you Isaiah Washington. Mr. Washington faced losing his job -- and for all intents and purposes his entire acting career -- because of something he said.
If you don't think that Mr. Washington wasn't being deprived of his right to free speech, then that phrase has no meaning.
And, irony of ironies, you are trying to do pretty much the same thing to Ann Coulter for mocking the utter injustice and insanity of PC run amuck.
What a world.
But that's different. We don't like the Dixie Chicks, but we like Ann. Don't you understand that one must discern.
"You personally may not have, but a whole bunch of people here did. Clear Channel eventually decided to quit playing them because of the number of complaints they received. That's not censorship. If the government took her off the air, that would be censorship. Giving your readers/listeners what they want is merely good business practice."
Your ignorance on this issue is unbounded.
Again it is a childish myth that only governments can censor.
Churches censor. Newspapers censor. Film commissions censor.
People censor themselves all the time. Which is probably a good thing, or I would say something about your resorting to idiotic arguments to try to destroy someone that might get me banned.
And, yes, even Free Republic censors.
Sheesh.
I've seen and heard so many spins as to what she did, even she probably no longer knows what, how, why and even if she did it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.