Monday, October 15, 2007

When "No Law" Means Some Laws

I was listening to Michael Medved this afternoon, intermittently, whenever I was in my car. At one point, I turned the radio on and heard him talking about islamic fascists. I think he was talking about some islamist recommending martyrdom, or something like that. Not terribly important to my point.

What was important was what he said immediately afterward. "There can be no debate over the fact that free speech is not absolute." Or something very like this.

Let's parse this just a little. "There can be no debate...." is a very interesting phrase. It's designed to cut off argument before it can be born. It's the very same phrase the algorians use to cut off discussions about "global warming" and discredit the "deniers." It's very insidious, the way this works. I don't buy it for an instant.

"....Over the fact that free speech is not absolute." I've heard variations of this phrase dozens of times in the past five years or so. It's usually conservatives that say it. Leftists, on the other hand, say they're for free speech, to counter the position of the conservatives, but they're lying.

So, let's see what the Bill of Rights says: Amendment the First: "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...."

The Founders wrote that Amendment to counter the British tradition of prosecuting political dissent.The First Amendment serves to protect the purveyor of controversial expression; to protect the holder of unpopular opinion.

And Michael Medved, a radio talk show host, one of a very few conservative movie reviewers, and a writer, fully ignoring the letter of the Bill of Rights, has the freedom to say that the First Amendment doesn't mean what it says. I've also heard Sean Hannity express the same sentiment. He ought to be ashamed. If he and others continue to ignore the meaning of the Constitution, he may find himself limited as to what he can say, as might we all.

They do this while, out the other side of their mouths they disparage the leftists for suggesting that they ought to provide balance on their shows.

I'd suggest that we ought to hold to the letter and meaning of the Amendment absolutely, lest we let this precious freedom be gradually nibbled away.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California


MK said...

You're right, much as i dislike leftist gasbags, they still should be allowed to say what they want to say. Now me having to listen to it, well that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Col. Hogan said...

Well, we sure don't have to give 'em a microphone!