Need some ammo to respond to LTTE on suppressing free speech

I'm having a Friday morning writer's block, and would like to respond to this letter that appeared in the Hartford Courant:
>>>
Who's Threatening Free Speech?

In his Sept. 16 To Wit column <"Salty Talk Erupts, And Tyrants Rush In">, Colin McEnroe wrote about the case of the Lewis Mills High School student who was prohibited from running for class secretary because she called school administrators "douche bags" on the Internet. From the LMHS case, McEnroe jumped to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, calling them "tyrants" because they "will not pass up a chance to limit what is said by the people" of this country.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have apparently passed up many chances, because Jay Leno, "Saturday Night Live" and even Colin McEnroe are still in business. And a tyrant does not allow the press to report that he has less than 30 percent support among the people.

The greatest threat to freedom of speech in this country does not come from the political right but from the political left, with campaign speech restrictions, speech codes on college campuses and talk of bringing back the so-called fairness doctrine, which would ration political speech on the radio.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-lets0920.artsep20,0,4027899.story?page=2

fear the fairness doctrine? For the same reason they fear swearing to tell the truth? The alternative to fairness is 24/7 right wing lying propaganda on the PUBLIC airwaves? That's what conservatives want or more importantly that's what those on right wing radio want. Because their work results in letters written by (whomever wrote the letter) who obviously is just another student who will eagerly tell you he is an independent thinker (because he has been told to do so.) They believe they are patriotic, they believe they are great Americans, they believe that voting against their own best interests is good for them. All praise right wing radio. Who needs fairness? Who needs intellecual curiousity?

You need to articulate that free speech and hate speech are two different things. Free speech is one of the fundamental bedrocks of our country. Hate speech, i.e., speech by far-right extremist conservatives, is not free speech. The far-right is anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-peace, etc. So the Left is not restricting FREE speech; it is simply trying to curtail HATE speech.

One can deplore something without trying to curtail it.

Remember ACLU fighting for the free speech of the American Nazis?

I can see both sides of this issue and they both have valid points (damn me for having a liberal mind that sees everything in shades of grey!!) - however, I do think it's usually better to let the idiots say what they have to say.

Sorry, my poor attempt at satire.

I believe that all sides have a right to voice their opinions. However, I do not believe in the fairness doctrine to the extent that the government controls what is said on the airwaves. I believe that if you want an audience for your views, then you have to work for that audience. You can't have the government mandate that you get to be heard.

I always say: If you create a program that people enjoy, then you will be successful. But I don't want the government forcing a radio or TV station to air programs by force of law.

a lot of those RW radio hosts are big money losers that are financed by RWers with very deep pockets. And, Rev. Moon has lost billions in keeping the Washington Times afloat year after year after year - literally, they lose over $100 million a year.

If people like that are controlling the airwaves and blocking more progressive hosts from getting airtime, isn't it anti-competitive?

I'd never heard of any connection between Moon and the Washington Times! Really?

But how does the Washington Times block any progressive views from getting out?

And, since Moon is very very far right, he used the paper to advance the RW agenda through editorials, op-eds, etc.

Same with several other multi-billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife and his foundation funding some RW radio.

The things you learn!

Reminds me of that scene in Citizen Kane when Kane's buddy tells him that his newspaper lost $1 million last year. Kane says something like, "And I'll lose a million this year, and I'll lose a million next year. At that rate I may have to close this paper in 20 or 30 years."

THANKS!

Scaife bought a lot of books in bulk - tens of thousands of copies - so various RW "authors" would gain the credibility of being high on the NY Times bestseller lists. Then, when they are high on the bestseller list, they get invited onto "mainstream" talk shows to spew their venom and give their tainted opinions.

The problem got to be so bad that the NY Times eventually modified their bestseller list to include a dagger next to any book that had large amounts of bulk sales.

What a sham!

I'd heard some vague stories that PAC's or other big groups will buy books in bulk to make it seem like a best-seller. I often wondered how some of these books became best-sellers. In my view of the world, we don't seem to have a whole lot of readers left, let alone people who want to read arcane political books. And I remember wondering, "Who in the world is buying Pat Buchanan's latest book? Is there really an audience for that?"

Thanks for clarifying! How does NYT know when sales are in bulk?

that either book sellers or distributors can inform if certain product is bought in bulk. In that line of business, I would imagine if an individual bought 10,000 copies of a book, it would stand out.

the speech codes on college campuses. Such codes should be guidelines, sure, because a lot of kids weren't raised in homes where manners and tolerance were values. However, violating them is generally its own punishment, as kids who use hard fighting racist and sexist words soon find their social horizons extremely limited, whether or not the limitation was accompanied by a knuckle sandwich.

People are known by their speech, and I'd like the racist, sexist and homophobic shits to advertise that fact ASAP so that I waste as little time on them as possible.

In addition, I've seen too many good and productive discussions derailed by some attention seeker who is playing language enforcer.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ---Voltaire.

We need to remember those words. We don't have to like pinheadspeak. We do not have the right to declare it illegal.

the Bush government is interfering in the newsroom. Remember when Keith Olbermann held up the WH fax he got -- it was a list of questions he was supposed to ask Joe Wilson in an interview. I'm sure you can think of more examples, up to and including the Senate's condemnation of the content of that MoveOn ad. What bigger infringement on free speech can there be than a media held hostage by the Republican White House?