Free Speech II

Attacks on free speech never end, especially against those with traditional or conservative views. The last time I wrote about this, I called Don Imus’ case one of “wrongful dismissal,” since he had broadcast in much the same manner throughout his career, and his employers had never warned or disciplined him, so far as we knew. Now, he has settled a breech-of-contract case with CBS. That doesn’t mitigate the attack on free speech, but it does compensate him for it and get him back on the air, eventually. His troubles are not over because one of the offended basketball players is suing him for defamation of character. He probably did hurt her feelings, but did she suffer economic loss? I doubt it!

Currently Mike Savage is going through a similar situation. I have listened to Savage enough to get irritated and turn him off, but I agree with his most basic themes—borders, language, culture. Those themes put him at odds with open borders folks, anyone opposed to English as our official language, and the advocates of multiculturalism. Gays despise him because he opposes the gay agenda. So do I. Gay rights are not like civil rights. Most gay people live well regardless of their preferences or behavior, and most could live discretely with little difficulty. One reason I’m not a Savage fan is that he tends to be rude and confrontive, but that is his shtick, as it was Imus’. MSNBC fired him; perhaps they had previously warned him. The lawyers will handle that, as they did in the Imus case. That isn’t the end, however.

Now, San Franciscan officials are going after Savage because he opposes their efforts to use tax dollars to subsidize immigration. It would seem, at first, the issue is Savage’s use of outrageous language, but ultimately it is his opposition to uncontrolled immigration and its effect on our nation and culture. Even worse, as it relates to free speech, is a governmental body trying to use its power to silence a citizen.

Free speech guarantees Savage’s right to speak outrageously. Speech is truly free only if people are free to offend others, disagree with the prevailing wisdom or the government, and even tell somebody to “drop dead,” since speaking those words doesn’t usually represent an actual threat. Savage may do it, just as those at the other end of the ideological spectrum may do it. However, we live in a time when selective application of freedom has become the norm.

The Left-leaning Democratic majority’s effort to resurrect the so-called “fairness doctrine” is another such case. The Bill of Rights says nothing about “fairness” as a measure of free speech or a free media (a free press being the only form of media when the U.S. adopted the Bill of Rights). Do the “air waves,” from radio and TV station to receivers, belong to everyone? Must the government assure that everyone has equal access? If it ever was a valid position, it is now irrelevant. With the explosion of the new media, radio and TV are not so significant; people get their news, information, and opinions from the Internet and the World Wide Web, blogs, audio and video feeds, as well as the MSM.

The Left despises Rush Limbaugh’s popularity and influence, but he didn’t just dominate radio. He saved it! He took AM radio, once thought archaic and worthless, and single-handedly gave it a new and popular use. Many have tried to counter his success with opposing views, but none are commercially viable, because the Left doesn’t have popular appeal. Rush’s successful imitators are all conservatives, of one kind or another—Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, Ingraham, Savage, Doyle, and Hewitt, to name a few. They are not Rush Limbaugh clones, and they each have their own approach. No one stops those who disagree, but few listen to those who try.

The problem is not fairness (Didn’t your parents tell you, “Life isn’t fair”?). The problem for the “other side” is attitude. Progressive, socialist, secular big-government types tend to be angry, negative, depressing, and humorless. Mostly they attack traditional conservatives ideas and any who support them. I don’t enjoy Hannity or Savage as much, when they attack politicians and candidates or argue with guests or callers, but the other side seems to do nothing else but. To them, everyone is a victim or an oppressor; nobody is just a person trying to make his or her way in life. There’s nothing fair or enjoyable about that perspective, and most of us don’t really want the government try to make us listen to more of it.

Many today are suspicious of the market place. Texts make the word “capitalist” synonymous with profiteer in an effort to promote socialism. Yet a free market is the fairest regulator of culture; in a free market, people can get what they want. Laws already exist to discourage collusion and monopoly, and plainly there is no more restriction of free expression on the Right than on the Left. Everyone has plenty of money to get their message out, especially now that so many free avenues are available. Therefore, the only purpose for a “fairness doctrine” is to limit some of those avenues.

In the meantime, some people prefer to “shout down” those who say things they don’t want to hear, like many have done recently on college campuses. Efforts to “punish” guys like Imus and Savage are also “shout downs,” where they try not only to silence them but also to take their jobs away. That isn’t really new, but those who really treasure freedom should not tolerate such things. Remember “Stick and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me?” Most of us know that words may hurt, but we can handle and tune out painful words. We can go on, regardless of what others say.

We can’t go on if we allow someone to “be in charge” of may or may not be said. That power is too great to exist; no one is trustworthy enough or wise enough for us to grant such power. We are better off having to put up with rude, outrageous, and even offensive speech so that we all may be free to express our opinions, especially when they are in the minority.

If someone does succeed in burdening us with a new fairness doctrine, I want to use it to require every pornographer, R-rated movie producer, sit-com writer, and soap opera promoter to give equal time and space for an opposing message of traditional values. Do you think they might go for that?