Charlie Rose Responds to ORMag/FR Post

Oregon Magazine ^ | October 16, 2003 | Larry Leonard

[WaterDragon]

Charlie Rose proves we were right!

He hangs himself with his own words.

Here's a link to the article, "A Free Speech Message To Charlie Rose, that Charlie finds so offensive. At the end of it is added the email Rose wrote to Leonard today to complain.

(Here's the link to the October 14 FR post of the article" ) with FREEPER COMMENTS setting him straight.

In that email, Charlie proves Leonard and the FR commentators to be absolutely correct!

[Jackson Brown]

One of the MOST ridiculous aspects of this is the LIBERAL love of boycotts as a direct expression of free speech. (pardon the caps for emphasis, I don't do HTML very well).

They will boycott a business at a drop of a hat if they don't like their policies. But we are not to even imagine that big money entertainment franchises like the Dixie Chicks -- et al. are a business too and subject to the same standards.

It's just GREAT if THEY boycott Star-Kist Tuna or Champion Paper company (or the like) and put those companies employee's jobs at risk -- but -- don't you dare threaten the basis on which these jerks make millions...their popularity.

God forbid that there unpopular views makes them...unpopular (and therefore less marketable).

What the statements by idiots like Robbins and Charlie Rose says is that they believe in THEIR free speech, no matter what form -- yet they THEN add a nonexistent additional freedom from consequences that applies only to them and those with which they agree.

Hypocrites, one and all!

[headsonpikes]

Charlie Rose must think we live in BarneyWorld.

He thinks 'free speech' means speech free of consequences, and free from contradiction. Just a big hug-fest.

What a wanker!

[headsonpikes]

Charlie Rose must think we live in BarneyWorld.

He thinks 'free speech' means speech free of consequences, and free from contradiction. Just a big hug-fest.

What a wanker!

[freep_toad]

Per Charlie: Here is my understanding of your position: It is acceptable to prevent free speech because in so doing one is simply expressing himself or herself.

Memo to Charlie,
Your inability to understand what truly defines free speech is quite astounding. Strike that. It is actually quite enlightening. Taking the Dixie Chicks for example. They had their chance at free speech. No one prevented that. A large faction of Americans followed this by refusing to spend money on their products. Hint: The usage (or restraint) of the dollar is one of the biggest exercises of free speech there is) All of you liberal whiners need remove your blinders. No one's rights have been violated. Other self-proclaimed Follywood foreign policy experts have also felt some repercussions from the anti-American (read: pro-French/Saddam/bin Laden) remarks. But no one prevented them from speaking their mind.
Everyone with half a brain understands that anything they say can be turned against on them. But, they still have a right to say it. Just because 90% of those who hear it don't like it does not mean that any supposed "rights" have been violated.

I can foresee that it would be presumptuous to consider these liberal nutcases as possessing the mental capacities required to comprehend a simple fact: The First Amendment is a restriction on the government, not the people! ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...")

Am I to gather that I violate ABCNNBCBS's rights to free speech when I watch FoxNews instead of their socilialist propaganda?

In the same vein, I must also assume that Charlie also watches FoxNews (Ha!) at the same time he watches Pontificating Jacque-Ass ...errr... Peter Jennings - of course to give FNC the same right to free speech as ABC. Am I right, Charlie?

*sigh*

[AwesomePossum]

Dittos toadster.

Here is my understanding of your position: It is acceptable to prevent free speech because in so doing one is simply expressing himself or herself.............Charlie "Rose Colored Glasses" Rose.

Sorry Charlie, but Tim Robbins, the Dixie Chicks, Charlie Rose, Martin Scheen, Bill Maher, Tom Hanks, Dave Matthews, yada, yada, yada, can say anything they want (legally), and no one has prevented them from doing so.

There have been anti-war marches, on American soil, that were organized in part or fully by communists and communist fronts, and no one stopped them.

Every day someone rants against Christians, or conservatives, or Republicans, and no one stops them. But, when a conservative tries to speak at a college campus, he/she is shouted down, and not allowed to speak.

Every day, in the big liberal media, the conservative view point is restricted (censored) by just flat out not being allowed to be aired. NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, CNN, THEY ALL DO IT. Yes, even the "Charlie Rose Show" does it.

You see, conservatives constitute the largest single majority in the USA, but are barely represented in the big liberal media. There are more conservatives than liberals, more that independants, more that libertarians, more than greens, and yes, even more than moderates.

And yet, as I just mentioned, conservative views are probably the least mentioned (in a positive way, or in other words, spoken by a conservative) in the big liberal media.

Charlie, you should change the name of your show to the "Charlie Rose Presents the Liberal View Show". It is within your right(s) to format your show any way you want, and MY right to criticize it. But pleazzzzzse, don't accuse others of doing what you yourself and your buddies in the big liberal "objective" media do on a regular basis.

[RobbyS]

What I discovered when I went to collegeforty years ago: Liberals will tolerate any opinion, provided we concede to them the right to judge what is Truth.

[CyberCowboy777]

I really hope you both email him those exact comments.

Well done.

[L.N. Smithee]

My gut reaction to Rose's smug, dismissive email is the same as Jeff Spicoli's at his first encounter with Mr. Hand.

If you have seen Fast Times at Ridgemont High, you know what I am talking about.

[WaterDragon]

I haven't seen the movie. Can you be specific about what you're referring to? Sounds good.

[L.N. Smithee]

Click here.

[WaterDragon]

ROFL! That is WICKED, Smithee!

[Andy from Beaverton]

"If you feel you are intimidated from your freedom of speech, it's un-American." -- Charlie Rose to Tim Robbins --12:50 AM. Tuesday, October 14th, 2003, on PBS (OPB).
I agree 100% with Rose's statement. Intimidating someone's free speech rights are wrong. But what consumers were doing by not buying products from people they disagree with is not intimidation. The Dixie Chicks and the other anti-war people still have all the same free speech rights that we do. Larry Leonard trying to make a point used the wrong quote because Rose is right. Remember that I'm only analyzing the direct quote headlined in Larry Leonard's original column.

'Intimidating' would be me hunting down anyone who disagrees with me and threatening to remove your scalp. Sometimes liberals can make a statement and be right.

[WaterDragon]

Sometimes liberals can make a statement and be right.

I agree with you, Andy. I think that is the point. The libs know the words....amazingly, they don't seem to grasp the meaning.

[opus86]

Good point. The problem is that liberals like this will scream bloody murder whenever someone merely disagrees with them, distorting a philosophical disagreement into hate speech, mean-spiritedness, racism (my personal favorite), etc.

They don't know how to engage in logical debate and discussion. I don't believe the government should recognize homosexual marriage, so naturally I'm a homophobe and a hate-monger. I don't believe the government should continually hand out checks to able-bodied people, so I hate the poor.

[WaterDragon]

I don't believe the government should recognize homosexual marriage, so naturally I'm a homophobe and a hate-monger. I don't believe the government should continually hand out checks to able-bodied people, so I hate the poor.

The liberals are so relentless doing this to ANYone who disagrees with them that they chip away at people's willingness to confront their twisted logic. People like Larry Leonard, Donald Luskin and many others don't let up, thankfully.