Speak no evil? Why tightening up on anti-Obama speech is a bad idea

The Boston Phoenix ^ | January 14, 2009 | ADAM REILLY

[wk4bush2004]

“President Sarah Palin”

I LOVE the sound of that!!!! It’ll happen in 4 years!!!! OH YEAH!!!!!!!

SARAH!!!!!! SARAH!!!!! SARAH!!!!!!

[MahatmaGandu]

Liberals love the freedom to criticize government...except when they’re in charge.

[wac3rd]

I guess ignorance of real interracial crime stats is another part of the deceitful MSM.

[Dahoser]

"If somebody tried to assassinate Obama," says Lewis, "and upon further examination it turned out that they were a regular listener to Sean Hannity [of Premier Radio, ABC Radio, and Fox News] — and decided, on the basis of Hannity's many broadcasts, that Obama was trying to destroy the United States — would that justify shutting Hannity down and curbing speech in some way? It's hard to say . . . but if it had that effect, surely the imminence requirement is at least partially met."

Commmunist Anthony Lewis does his best Bildo Klintoon hate radio impersonation as he provides the rationale for reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. Ah yes, change.

[SkyDancer]

There were eight years of Bush bashing (which will continue for a while until the MSM gets bored with it) prior to that there were eight years of Reagan bashing (BMT) ... IOW - read Republican bashing since Lincoln .....

Turn about is fair play to me ....

[Nervous Tick]

>> [Nadine Strossen, the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union and a professor at New York Law School]: “Each era tends to have historical hubris... We tend always to exaggerate the danger — and to unnecessarily cut off civil liberties.”

If I’m arrested by the Thought Crimes Division of the Obama DOJ for “anti-Obama thinking and speech”, will the ACLU come to my defense, Nadine?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

[domenad]

Death of a President was nothing more than an “aww shucks we can’t kill him” movie. The idea they were communicating was “Yes, we know you all would like to kill president Bush. We understand you, we approve of the sentiment, but it just wouldn’t work.” Anyone who saw it (and I damn sure did, although I didn’t pay for it :) ) would understand that. Anyone who saw it and had a sense of decency would have been royally pissed.

[WoofDog123]

“If you’re an Obama booster who thinks concern for his safety might justify even an incremental erosion of free speech, ask yourself: did Checkpoint and Death of a President bother you at the time? Do they bother you now? (Be honest.) And how would you feel if — four or eight years from now — expanded limits on speech that originated during an Obama administration led to the censorship of texts deemed too threatening to, say, President Sarah Palin?”

I have used almost verbatim the last 8 years comments about various expansion of federal powers supported by many freepers, just subbing ‘president hillary’ for palin...

[SkyDancer]

"LA Times promises to call Obama out if he doesn't fulfill his promises, which is not likely to happen because he's so eloquent and patient and intelligent.

[messierhunter]

upon further examination it turned out that they were a regular listener to Sean Hannity [of Premier Radio, ABC Radio, and Fox News] — and decided, on the basis of Hannity's many broadcasts, that Obama was trying to destroy the United States — would that justify shutting Hannity down and curbing speech in some way?

But when law enforcement finds NAMBLA published material on how to seduce and rape little boys and get away with it in a pedo's car after he's been caught doing just that, it's protected speech that the ACLU needs to defend vigorously. The double standards liberals try to force on freedom are breathtaking.

[45semi]

Uh...*cough* ‘swept under the rug’ *cough*

[ritewingwarrior]

The Fairness Doctrine is another step in the socialist scheme to bring down private business. Forcing companies to hold air time to unpopular commentators, will cause those businesses to fail. No more political radio or tv. Then all news can be government run.
Socialists take baby steps but they are almost to the end.

[Mr. Mojo]

"If you get a speaker who gets up there and says, 'All Jews and blacks should be hung,'

I suspect he means hanged.

[sionnsar]

You just brightened my day immensely. Thanks!

[Arguendo]

They probably would. Say what you will about the ACLU, but they take a pretty solid position on free speech and are consistent in defending that position. They at least know that it would be absurd to take the approach Anthony Lewis suggests here.

Only a journalist (Lewis never went to law school, and he really has no business giving an opinion on this issue like he's some kind of authority) could say something this mind-blowingly stupid:

"If somebody tried to assassinate Obama," says Lewis, "and upon further examination it turned out that they were a regular listener to Sean Hannity [of Premier Radio, ABC Radio, and Fox News] — and decided, on the basis of Hannity's many broadcasts, that Obama was trying to destroy the United States — would that justify shutting Hannity down and curbing speech in some way? It's hard to say . . . but if it had that effect, surely the imminence requirement is at least partially met."

[a fool in paradise]

says there's a chance that the courts will pay closer attention to extreme anti-Obama speech than they have to speech regarding previous presidents.

The Left made movies and books about assassinating President Bush (who managed to escape the "zero factor"just as did President Reagan, can we put that superstition away now) and Randi Rhodes made several on air death threats at Bush while he was president (including a statement about how someone should take him outside and 'kapow' like on the Sopranos).

I would speak out against anyone who made such works of art or broadcasts against Obama or any president. I don't think that the words or actions of a hypothetical Sean Hannity LISTENER should be used to condemn Sean Hannity. After all, the Unabomber took Al Gore Jr.'s "Earth In The Balance" to heart and had a copy in his shack. They need to be very careful using this line of reasoning to shut down political enemies (who offer no threat to the constitution or country).

[a fool in paradise]

The ACLU gave Courtney Love a free speech award at the same time she was leaving violent threat messages on a journalist’s answering machine for investigating the suspicious death of Kurt Cobain.

[a fool in paradise]

Maybe it’s a Freudian slip.

[a fool in paradise]

We have the next “best” thing to state run media. We have a purely partisan press. Not a news environment with differing editorial viewpoints, but a dominant press (radio news, tv news, information, and entertainment, film, magazine, newspaper) monopoly that spouts the DNC talking points every day. Clearly there has been outright collusion with the Democrat Party on some stories.

They don’t want an “end” to political content, their agenda is to politicize everything.

And if they hand over the reigns to government control/oversight, they risk losing their control when they are out of power.

They are Socialist yes, but even CPUSA published their newspaper on their own.