It was wrong then. It is wrong now. Period.
However, this analogy shows that some people base their opinions re: First Amendment based on the message and not the principle.
Unless, of course, the posters who have opinion opposite of mine claim that then, they too were arguing in favor of the decision to remove Dixie Chicks from the radio waves using same logic as presented here.
The answer to your little puzzler is that it was not wrong under the First Amendment to call for the boycotting of the Dixie Chicks and to work to get their music taken off the radio. Considering the content of their message, it was reprehensible (in my opinion, of course), but it wasn’t a violation of their rights.
Accordingly, the same principle applies to Dr. Laura. If you agree with her message (or even if you don’t), you may find the campaign to boycott her sponsors reprehensible. But it’s still got nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Well, I’ll agree it’s a closer question. And I’m not really that motivated to defend her, because I can’t stand her. But I think there’s a difference between generalized criticism, as in a blogger or commentator, and a directed communication to a sponsor.
No, no – just pointing out that Moore made the same mistake others did vis-a-vis.
That was indeed tu quoque.
I think she’s a hypocrite. She wants to silence people from telling her sponsors and affiliates how wrong they think she is. But she wants to be free to tell other people how wrong she thinks they are. When they do it, it’s hateful. When she doe it, she’s just saying “what’s in her heart.” She thinks she should be the only one who gets to speak. Nuts to that!
All of that talking and quite serious consequences because of the use of a word ? Anti-racism is the McCarthysm of the XXIth century.
Again, I think that’s not quite it.
Let’s imagine two candidates for office. One says terrible things about his opposition, and during debates levels outrageous charges against his foe.
The second candidate recruits people to shout during the debate to drown out his opponent’s speech, and lobbies the debate organizer to stop sponsoring debates because it’s giving the hateful lies a forum to be spread.
Do you see the distinction?
Sure. But on the upside, you have to do something specific to get witchhunted for anti-racism, where McCarthyism could attack anyone. So we pity those who were blacklisted as Reds, but when people get their nigger on we rightly point out that if they didn’t want to get bit, they should have stayed out of the tiger cage.
Well, I would point out that it strikes me as unreasonable to hold members of the board to the standard of other members of the board, but i’m not sure your point works out anyway. I read the thread (very quickly and briefly, admittedly), but so far as I can tell, while there were certainly members who disagreed with you, I can’t really tell which members disagreed with you on the speech having consequences issue, except perhaps** Muffin**. People generally seem to have argued about whether there were rules to break.
Not really? Who does your hypothetical second candidate represent? Assuming your first one represents Dr. Laura?
“One says terrible things about his opposition, and during debates levels outrageous charges against his foe” and “recruits people to shout during the debate to drown out his opponent’s speech” aren’t really two separate and distinct things; they’re actually on a continuum. Shouting terrible things is recruiting other people to shout. As I think Palin ably demonstrated.
A more apt analogy would be Candidate A says, “Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger …” at the debates and then nobody votes for her. Is that a violation of her right to be elected to office?
To be entirely correct to the analogy, Candidate B would have to be saying “Hey you people, Candidate A is shouting “nigger”! Do you want to vote for that person?” And then Candidate B would be the bad person for asking people to take action against A (despite the fact that Candidate B stuck to the truth).
Of course, the real place where the analogy fails is that when people want to stick it to a candidate, they know the way to do it is not vote for them. There’s very little incentive to shout them down at debates and try to get their sponsors to abandon them, since there is a more direct approach. Whereas if you want to stick it to Dr. Laura, her sponsors are the voting booth.
“The well-funded and well-connected homosexual activist movement has become the McCarthyism of the 21st century.”
-Laura Schlessinger
Don’t you know that by disagreeing with her, you’re infringing on her constitutional right to free speech? Why are you doing that, Khaki Campbell? LEAVE LAURA ALONE!!!
No. My analogy had nothing to do with rights at all. It was on the subject of whether she’s a hypocrite.
I don’t see how your analogy addresses that.
The second candidate represents the people asking her sponsors to stop sponsoring her show.
The the first candidate ought to be calling for the protesters to be silenced. Dr. Laura has only failed to demand that people boycott their sponsors because they don’t have any to boycott.
Hypocrisy occurs when a person encourages or expresses a belief in one thing, but then actually practices something that’s generally regarded as opposite or antithetical to the original belief.
In this case, “Dr.” Laura objects to people trying to silence her by complaining to her sponsors in an effort to cause her employer to fire her.
To show hypocrisy, you have to show that she herself has attempted to silence others.