When your advertisers leave in droves, that’s not an abridgement of your free speech rights

Tiny violin/fiddle less than half an inch long "Chen, of Beijing, China, took seven years to craft the tiny instrument from 30 separate parts with strings thinner than a human hair."

Just let me tune up my tiny violin

Something which most junior high schoolers could tell you straight out of their civics textbook, “Dr Laura”, while you moan on Larry King about how nasty folk are being about your use of the N-word repeatedly in a program last week.

How many talking head jobs now is it that you’ve lost by spewing vile bigoted bullshit of one sort or another? Never mind, I’m sure that the bigot dollar will keep you afloat as you hawk your upcoming bigot book around the traps. You really are a piece of work.

via Pam’s House Blend

Categories: ethics & philosophy, media

Tags: , ,

7 replies

  1. Michael Bérubé lets the rest of us in on the special right wing view of the American Constitution:

    First Amendment. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of the Christian religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. All but the first of the foregoing clauses may be repudiated in times of dire Emergency. Most importantly, the right of conservatives to speak without being criticized for their views shall be respected at all times.

    Also, great post title from Jamelle Bouie – “When Racial Slurs are the Least Racist Thing About Your Rant, It’s a Pretty Racist Rant.”
    Amanda at Pandagon points out that while it’s nice to see the general blogosphere pay attention to one of the “self help/religious/family-oriented media” talking heads rather than just to the overtly political types like Beck and Limbaugh, because it’s these generally “softer” and “nicer” conservative voices that really rally the reactionary activists (and generally only feminists are paying attention), it bothers her that if only Schlessinger had had the restraint to avoid using the N-word then this would hardly be getting any attention at all, yet she’s regularly just as racist even when she’s not using obvious slurs.

  2. Oh, and this: There’s No N In Context

    It’s never really about the word. Not the syllables, not the number of times you say it, and not the frequency with which you say it. It’s about who you say it to, and why. It’s context and motive and intent and how all that interacts with history and the social contract. And if you don’t get that, and want to reduce it to a simple “if they can say it, why can’t I” argument, then you’re just gonna have to accept that you’re at least a little bit racist. But take heart, you’re probably not as racist as Dr. Laura.

  3. I think it shows a distinct lack of understanding of what the First Amendment to the US Constitution actually *means* that isn’t particular to bigoted right-wingers. All too often USians react to any criticism of their speech with an appeal to the First Amendment, never apparently realizing that it only protects you from *government* interference.
    It’s popped up on LiveJournal, for instance, during discussions of LJ’s policies, with the people bringing it up completely oblivious to the fact that nothing forces the owner of a private system to let anyone use it to say anything they want. Hell, I bet it comes up in comments on blogs (possibly even here, although I doubt y’all let ‘em through the mod queue).
    I blame the lack of basic civics classes in public schools here, really.

    • Too right, Andrea: I have posted quite extensively on this common misunderstanding in the past – it’s not just folks in your nick of the woods misunderstanding the First Amendment to the US Constitution, it’s folks all over the world not understanding that Freedom of Speech is not the same thing as Freedom from Criticism, and that Freedom of the Press refers to those who own the press that publishes content, and to certain of their employees – not to anybody else.
      The great thing about the new media is that anyone can be a publisher, and have the freedom of their own press – they’re not obliged to share that press’ publication space with anybody else.

  4. All but the first of the foregoing clauses may be repudiated in times of dire Emergency.
    No, no, it’s “refudiated.” People need to read the real conservative original Constitution and see what the Christian founding fathers truly intended. Also.

    • My apologies, Michael. I was a bit quick off the mark with my virtual red pencil there! (eta) ‘Refudiated’ is a perfectly cromulent word.
      Thanks for dropping by.

%d bloggers like this: