Posted on 07/09/2008 10:07:48 PM PDT by kristinn
...How important is calumny today? In 2000, calumny effectively led to John McCain's defeat in South Carolina. That smear campaign against him used robo-calls and fliers, and e-mail also played an important role, as the New York Times reported in February 2000. Arguably, calumny defeated John Kerry in 2004, and the infamous Swift boat television ads of that summer were, importantly, preceded by an aggressive Internet campaign begun that January that included perhaps the first viral campaign e-mail: a computer-generated image of Kerry and Jane Fonda beside each other on a podium at an antiwar rally. The image originally emerged at the Web site FreeRepublic.com, and Fonda had not in fact been at the event. But the damage was done. Today we are seeing viral anti-Obama e-mails, some of which I have traced to some of the same origin points for the 2000 and 2004 smear campaigns.
SNIP
A right to free speech is no excuse for lying. While strongly protected rights of free speech are critical to a healthy democracy, rights bring responsibilities. Citizens should, as a standard practice, take responsibility for their views -- the matters of fact and principle that they wish to put before the public for consideration -- by appending their full, legal names to their expressions, even in blog posts. While there are times and places for anonymity, it should be the exception. Unfortunately, the Internet has brought us to a point where anonymity is the rule, not the exception. Rather than facilitating free speech, this is corrosive to democratic discourse. It's time to rebuild a responsible culture in which people speak in their full, legal names and honor the truth.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It is a fact that both Fonda and Kerry did speak at the same rally on one occasion, at the 1970 rally at the Snopes link, and that they were both well known Anti-War activists. Allen does not mention this.
There is no way that the Internet community will adopt her suggestion voluntarily. In order to get the chilling effect she desires, it would have to be enforced with legislation and regulation. It would an unconstitutional nightmare and an onerous burden on web site operators and users.
Interesting study in futile narcissism and ideas of grandeur.
Boy, I can hardly wait for MSM to start printing it's sources, those anonymous "experts", sources in the white house, Who really "outed" Valerie flame, and those behind that entire media scam. And oh so many other "sources" for the LIES media prints in it's attempt to sway elections and promote the leftist/ communist agenda to destroy this nation, our freedom and our soveriety.
Joe McCarthy became the "issue" and the issue of Soviet shenanigans was swept aside (the CP/USA invented the word McCarthyism, I believe) -- true, McCarthy had his faults.
Ann Coulter takes a stab at forced "sensitivity training" and she becomes the "issue" using the excuse that she used the word faggot.
Here a photo itself becomes the "issue" rather than the truth (or not) vis-a-vis Fonda and Kerry. Anyone from that era would (like me) say that it was impossible for the two not being at the same "anti-war," pro-Ho demonstration at least once. Though I do not recall Kerry prior to his Senate subcommittee appearance.
I cannot find a word that means to make your opponent the "issue" to deflect his veracity. It's what liberals/leftists do when they're finished shouting "Racist!" "Bigot!" "Nazi!"
That is the true danger to discourse and democracy.
The term to “bork” someone comes to mind.
Danielle....you’re clearly a gal with too much time on her hands.May I ask you when it was that you last got.....bleeped?
.
I must have missed the report she did on Rathergate...
The Left will never recognize that Kerry lost because he is a pompous ass, not because of some photo or ad.
You just know that this is the start of the drumbeat to end anonymity on the net coming from a supposedly educated woman who has no idea that "Publius" wrote the Federalist Papers and that anonymity has historically been a basic makeup of our political process.
What, to make it easier for the likes of Ms. Allen here to stalk and "stop" (her word in the original WP hit piece!) us bloggers who engage in free speech and get the truth out?
No thanks! I don't want her or any other Obama minion (or any other potential sicko out there) showing up on my front door to harrass me and my family.
Wow... Danielle Allen needs to send that memo upstairs to her bosses at the Washington Post... cc Punch at the NYT and while she's at it... send to the editors of LA Times, etc.
Seems to me that she's just a little pissy that Republicans have better ideas than Democrats...
And, while Ms Allen's at it she might drop a note to Al Gore... his lies are scaring the bejessus out of the children...
Doesn't this sound oddly familiar to the Obama "enemies list" article from yesterday?
Thanks Southack.
Bump the snopes article, IT IS TRUE THAT FONDA AND KERRY WERE AT THE SAME ANTI-WAR RALLY:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp
Many of their images come from the Still Picture Branch of the National Archives and Records Administration at College Park, Maryland.
A number of academic institutions try to do the same thing with government photographs so that they can charge usage fees.
Who do ya turn to when ya wanna blame?
http://www.leecountyrepublicans.org/images/Fonda_Kerry_arrow.jpg
It is the real deal.
Danielle Allen proffers a fake podium shot of Kerry and Fonda as a straw man, then knocks him down, “proving” that Kerry's opponents were practicing calumny.
Professor Allen either hasn't done her homework (quite an omission for a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study) or she is intentionally deceiving (lying). And as we have just learned from Professor Allen, “A right to free speech is no excuse for lying.”
No where in the article do I see her lambasting large MSM news sites for the rumors, for example, they broadly broadcasted about, say, The Duke Lacrosse players, or targeting the newsies who made absolutely scurrilous remarks. Nor does she go after those in the MSM segments who made outlandish statements about the Lacrosse players. No, of course not.
But for the moment, let's assume she's only trying to address the matter of those posting materials "rumoring" about "Obama, once a muslim, always a muslim".
With that thought in mind, why should anyone take her word for anything, being that she is in fact, posturing a rumor, based on tidbits she collected off FR. She is as much a part of the rumor mill, as anyone. Not once does she dispute any of the rumors. Instead, she blithely goes along saying "everyone" was passing these rumors on via email, and she's "here" to stop it; to draw attention to the fact that people are passing on rumors.
Sure, Miss Allen. Why not instead direct your pointy attention to all those millions of "rumors" about the US in a depression, recession, doom and gloom. When in fact we are not.
'Fraid to go after the real rumor mill-ers?
This piece is not AP content.
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.
