Posted on 09/07/2002 8:57:06 AM PDT by forest
Last week the Associated Press published an interesting bit of information: "Support for the First Amendment has eroded significantly since Sept. 11 and nearly half of Americans now think the constitutional amendment on free speech goes too far in the rights it guarantees, says a poll released Thursday. The sentiment that the First Amendment goes too far was already on the rise before the terrorist attacks a year ago, doubling to four in 10 between 2000 and 2001. " The poll found that 49 percent now think the First Amendment goes too far, a total of about 10 points higher than in 2001.
For many reasons, that information did not seem very reliable.
So, limiting the question to known Democrats -- of which we have an overabundance -- I notified a few people that a foundation called the Freedom Forum reports that half of Americans now believe the First Amendment's protection of free speech goes too far. Then, I simply asked what they thought.
Initially, no one believed the report. So, I produced a copy of the article.
There seemed to be a common consensus: "These people are crazy!" Many also asked who this Freedom Forum (1) group was, and that is really the story here. Because, indeed, "this is crazy."
"Many Americans view these fundamental freedoms as possible obstacles in the war on terrorism," said Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center, based in Arlington, Va., which commissioned the survey. "Almost half also said the media has been too aggressive in asking the government questions about the war on terrorism."
They say they polled 1,000 adults and the poll was taken between June 12 and July 5. It has a reported error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The report states that Republican respondents were more likely than Democrats or Independents to see the news media as too aggressive in seeking war information from government officials. But, we find that statement more humor than fact. Closer to the truth would be that a huge majority of Republicans are totally fed up with just about anything the liberal media does. Confining that opinion to just the way the corporate media questions politicians about the military belies the whole problem.
According to the header on their web site: "The Freedom Forum is a nonpartisan foundation dedicated to free press, free speech and free spirit for all people. The foundation focuses on three main priorities: the Newseum, First Amendment freedoms and newsroom diversity."
Snooping around their site, we see that the First Amendment means to them that nude and other strictly adult entertainment is protected speech and should be allowed in any residential area. But, of course, children must not be allowed to bow their heads in the schools.
That was enough to know where they were coming from: Staunch liberals.
Still, that information does not really explain why they would want to publicize such an obviously biased poll. There had to be a better reason. And, there seems to be.
As it turns out, they apparently have a vested interest in controlling and manipulating freedom of speech. Most of the leaders of the Freedom Forum are either in media now or are retired from corporate positions in the media.
Fancy that, eh . . . an ulterior motive. Could they be supportive of freedom of speech for the media, but not for the common people? Hint: Did the media support that draconian -- unconstitutional -- campaign finance bill that limits the freedom of speech of the people but not the media? The past corporate leaders of Gannett Co. Inc. are strongly represented in the leadership of the Freedom Forum. We also find the names of current left wing broadcasters prominently displayed.
Judy Woodruff (Mrs. Al Hunt) of CNN is on the board. Robert MacNeil of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions is there. So is Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief for NBC News, and the host of "Meet the Press." The retired socialist Senator, Paul Simon, is listed, too.
Interestingly enough, we did not see one name of a known Republican, Libertarian or conservative listed.
Perhaps a lot of us should ask friends and neighbors how they feel on this issue. The article is still available to anyone wishing to make a copy.(2) That way, we could inform the Freedom Forum what Americans really feel about freedom.
1. http://www.freedomforum.org
2. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020829_1634.html
Closer to the truth would be that a huge majority of Republicans are totally fed up with just about anything the liberal media does.
Snooping around their site, we see that the First Amendment means to them that nude and other strictly adult entertainment is protected speech and should be allowed in any residential area. But, of course, children must not be allowed to bow their heads in the schools. That was enough to know where they were coming from: Staunch liberals.
Corp media involved - an ulterior motive.
Not one name of a known Republican, Libertarian or conservative is listed.
Of course, the people responding undoubtedly are not referring to the actual words of the First Amendment at all, but the mythical First Amendment of the "living document," that protects nude dancing, flag-burning, and Nazi marches, and prohibits public prayers and Santa Claus.
There is nothing free about the Freedom Forum.
Such details are furnished as leaks of confidential information. Such transfer of information is a conspiracy that weakens our national security.
They are free to publish it if they are willing to face the consequences of charges of conspiracy to aid the enemy.
Nothing that the media discloses about our military plans is done to aid the cause and support of our troops. Nothing they are reporting will suddenly cause a cog to turn and say "you know, we should be in this fight".
Do you have a better name for leaking confidential documents? Does your life improve one bit from the data you learn from those documents or is it all just buzz-buzz-buzz gossip?
Can you tell me why anything at Waco should have been declared a military secret when it was a police/tax regulatory action?
I have often thought that about half the people who post here have next to no real respect for the constitution. When it comes to free speech they have the same attitude that many campus liberals do--no one should be allowed to say anything that offends them because it's hate speech, or "unpatriotic" or gives "aid and comfort to the enemy."
When it comes to the president's getting congress's permission to go bomb Iraq, they say (1) he already has it and (2) he never needed it anyway since he's commander in chief. When I ask, "What would be so awful about getting new congressional authorization anyway?" they answer "it's not needed," which of course isn't what I asked.
The fact is there's nothing awful about the president going to congress for authorization to bomb Iraq. It's not as if congress isn't going to fall all over itself giving him everything he wants and more. And at least this way we can console ourselves with the thought that the president is at least paying lip service to the separation of powers.
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.