Skip to comments.
"Ban Ann Coulter": Free speech for me but not for thee?
SFGate: The Ross Report ^
| 3/9/7
| Andrew S. Ross
Posted on 03/09/2007 12:57:28 PM PST by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
To: SmithL
Thanks for the pic. :) Although we've never even met, I love that gal! She's strong, independent, assertive, determined, smart, truthful, articulate, witty, charming and one downright hot babe! lol If I were 20 years younger... LOL
To: RobRoy
There's no there, there.
This is convincing proof of how the mass media can manipulate the (unthinking and unquestioning) masses to believe anything they want them to believe.
It's just another test of their waning power to control the public dialogue. Obviously, there's more than a few not falling for it -- and those are the ones who make a difference in the world -- the increasing more that can see right through them and their manipulations.
Good work, people.
It's time for them to drag out Jimmy Carter with his latest inanity -- or Helen Thomas with her latest love psalm to George Bush. Don't you just love that twist of rage that contorts liberal's faces when they are seen through as the hate- and fear-mongers they are?
Eventually, those looks become permanently embedded into their faces. (No pictures, please.)
42
posted on
03/09/2007 2:15:00 PM PST
by
MikeHu
To: Stone Mountain
This has nothing to do with Free Speech. Coulter isn't being prosecuted by the government. She has the right to say what she wants, and others have the right to complain, boycott, or whatever. It wasn't a Free Speech issue when Freepers boycotted the Dixie Chicks, and it isn't a Free Speech issue now.
Succinct and accurate. Thank you.
To: SmithL
More faggot news out of SF. Big surprise.
44
posted on
03/09/2007 2:40:30 PM PST
by
fish hawk
(The religion of Darwinism = Monkey Intellect)
To: Stone Mountain
"If those laws come up, then it's a Free Speech issue. If the media expresses an opinion about something, it may be repugnant, but again, it's not a Free Speech issue. This Ann Coulter flap has absolutley nothing to do with Free Speech."
I love ignorance parading as authority.
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
That doesn't mean that the only limits to free speech can come from the United States government -- which is prohibited by the US Constitution from doing the same.
There are plenty of other ways in which "free speech" can be limited or punished apart from the US government -- or any government.
Ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition? The Hayes Code? Political correctness?
Hell yeah it's a free speech issue. Coulter's joke was about how political correctness is destroying free speech.
Call someone a schoolyard taunt, and you have to go into rehab or lose your job -- even your career.
And of course her joke has been proved highly accurate by the response it has gotten -- from boneheads like you.
Wake the hell up.
45
posted on
03/09/2007 2:53:51 PM PST
by
Sam Hill
To: SmithL
I will never understand. She sets traps for the Liberals and they leap into them. They then writhe around, screaming, excoritaing, wailing etc. proving, affirming her point.
They never get it! Ever.
46
posted on
03/09/2007 2:56:16 PM PST
by
Jimmy Valentine
(DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
To: Sam Hill
Even here on FR there are many who do not under stand that political correctness has stopped people from saying what they really believe for fear of losing their means to make a living.
Very sad.
47
posted on
03/09/2007 3:12:49 PM PST
by
kempo
(blA)
To: Sam Hill
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
Well, if you look at it like that, sure. I was referring to Freedom of Speech as defined by American law, not the overall concept. Which means that it's the the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment from the government. Any other punishment - losing her job, losing her credibiliy, whatever, has nothing to do with the government. And therefore, as far as I'm concerned, has nothing to do with Free Speech. Again, I am looking at it from a legal point of view - otherwise, you could just as easily say that the Dixie Chicks were denied Free Speech rights by Clear Channel.
And of course her joke has been proved highly accurate by the response it has gotten -- from boneheads like you.
Nice insult. When all else fails, resort to ad hominem, huh? It's a shame you can't debate in a civilized manner, but hey, there you are. If JR decides to ban you from the forum (I didn't complain, btw) for inappropriate posting, it wouldn't be a Free Speech issue either. Maybe you can point to the response that I gave that makes her joke "proved highly accurate." How about it? Hint: She can say what she likes. People can choose to hire her if they like. The government isn't enforcing political correctness - so again, it's not a Free Speech issue.
To: Rummyfan
Let us vow to buy her next book. Of course, if the DemonRATs had their way they would turn this country into the People's Republic of China and have Ann taken in for re-education--rehab--complete with shaved head like the did in the novel
1984. Then they would purge all of her writings from the public.
We know their modus operandi.
To: kempo
Even here on FR there are many who do not under stand that political correctness has stopped people from saying what they really believe for fear of losing their means to make a living.
This may be true, but it's still not a Freedom of Speech issue (as in US government). People are allowed to say anything politically incorrect they want. Employers are allowed to fire employees for not espousing the views they wish. That's the way the market works. If there are enough people out there who care about politically correct speech, and if newspapers or TV broadcasters want to pander to them, that's their right. If they want to print the politically incorrect view and risk alienating their reader/viewership, that's their right, too. Ann Coulter has no free speech issue here. She made a statement that was within her rights. Some of her employers didn't like what she said and dropped her. That's the market at work, not a Free Speech issue.
To: SmithL
I'm glad Ann brought the word back into fashion. I'm using it more, ahem...liberally these days.
51
posted on
03/09/2007 3:31:04 PM PST
by
randog
(What the...?!)
To: JRochelle
I agree with your basic argument that everyone else has the right to object to what she says. But that is not the case. Yes, they object to her use of the term faggot, but they are taking it one step further, and therein lies the problem.
They demand censorship of her. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, I decided simply to not listen to their music or purchase their albums or listen to the stations that played their music. That is my response to their objectionable comments on foreign soil. I did not decry their right to continue singing nor did I want them banned from the airwaves. People demanding banning are somewhat silly given the fact that they don't have to listen to a particular radio station. That will hurt the station far greater than trying to get someone banned.
The same applies here. If these people do not want to read what Ann says, simply do not buy the newspaper that she is printed in. But they don't want that, they want all newspapers to stop carrying her column. That is what I have a problem with.
52
posted on
03/09/2007 3:44:48 PM PST
by
MissouriConservative
(We accommodate other cultures at the expense of ours.)
To: MissouriConservative
They demand censorship of her. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, I decided simply to not listen to their music or purchase their albums or listen to the stations that played their music. That is my response to their objectionable comments on foreign soil. I did not decry their right to continue singing nor did I want them banned from the airwaves.
You personally may not have, but a whole bunch of people here did. Clear Channel eventually decided to quit playing them because of the number of complaints they received. That's not censorship. If the government took her off the air, that would be censorship. Giving your readers/listeners what they want is merely good business practice.
But they don't want that, they want all newspapers to stop carrying her column. That is what I have a problem with.
That may be a philosophical difference you have with people who would take the time to ask their newspapers not to carry columns they don't like. But once again, it's not censorship. Consumers have a right to complain about products they buy. Media owners can decide whether or not they want to listen and heed those complaints. As long as the government isn't involved, it's not censorship.
To: Domicile of Doom
Staright men need to stand up against the gay agenda. That agenda is 100% destructive.
To: Sam Hill
55
posted on
03/09/2007 4:14:55 PM PST
by
LucyJo
To: SmithL
I have two vanities in support of Ann Coulter
here and
here. And one on the hypocrisy of the liberal free-speech mavens
here. Cheers!
56
posted on
03/09/2007 4:15:54 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Stone Mountain
I missed your reply earlier. And it is probably a waste of time to respond to you at all.
But, let's just take one highly relevant instance of someone being deprived of their right to freedom of speech -- and not by the government.
I give you Isaiah Washington. Mr. Washington faced losing his job -- and for all intents and purposes his entire acting career -- because of something he said.
If you don't think that Mr. Washington wasn't being deprived of his right to free speech, then that phrase has no meaning.
And, irony of ironies, you are trying to do pretty much the same thing to Ann Coulter for mocking the utter injustice and insanity of PC run amuck.
What a world.
57
posted on
03/09/2007 6:24:28 PM PST
by
Sam Hill
To: Stone Mountain
This has nothing to do with Free Speech. Coulter isn't being prosecuted by the government. She has the right to say what she wants, and others have the right to complain, boycott, or whatever. It wasn't a Free Speech issue when Freepers boycotted the Dixie Chicks, and it isn't a Free Speech issue now.But that's different. We don't like the Dixie Chicks, but we like Ann. Don't you understand that one must discern.
To: Stone Mountain
"You personally may not have, but a whole bunch of people here did. Clear Channel eventually decided to quit playing them because of the number of complaints they received. That's not censorship. If the government took her off the air, that would be censorship. Giving your readers/listeners what they want is merely good business practice."
Your ignorance on this issue is unbounded.
Again it is a childish myth that only governments can censor.
Churches censor. Newspapers censor. Film commissions censor.
People censor themselves all the time. Which is probably a good thing, or I would say something about your resorting to idiotic arguments to try to destroy someone that might get me banned.
And, yes, even Free Republic censors.
Sheesh.
59
posted on
03/09/2007 6:28:12 PM PST
by
Sam Hill
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
I've seen and heard so many spins as to what she did, even she probably no longer knows what, how, why and even if she did it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson