Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

The Chronicle's story today on the ongoing furor over Ann Coulter and the 'F-word', reports that the backlash includes a campaign initiated today by a gay rights group and media watchdog to persuade mainstream media outlets to dump her for good.

The organizations in question, GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, are seeking to get rid of Coulter from the airwaves and from being syndicated to newspapers.

Is all this a step too far?

Ironically, GLAAD itself is the target of a campaign by the American Family Association to get the Ford Motor Co., a development noted by the gay web site, Queerty.

Taking a leaf from HRC's book, should other organizations petition to take Bill Maher off of HBO because of his off-color remarks on the possible untimely death of Dick Cheney. That happened to Maher once before, when "Politically Incorrect" was summarily dispatched from ABC after he made comments perceived to be politically incorrect about Al Qaeda.

So, how far might, or should, this erosion of offensive speech go?

Is there a difference between activist organizations pushing to boot Ann Coulter off the air, and, say, the government of Turkey banning You Tube because of perceived undignified references to Kamal Attaturk (since lifted by a Turkish court). Or schools and libraries banning literature considered "dangerous." Or New York City banning the "N-word", no matter how much it is part of the vernacular (as is the "F-word"). Or, for that matter, Europe criminalizing Holocaust denial.

All terribly offensive, of course, but so are Klan marches, and neo-Nazi marches through Skokie, which the ACLU defended

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; borked; dixiechicks; freespeech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-77 last
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...?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.
53 posted on 03/09/2007 4:00:35 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Domicile of Doom
Staright men need to stand up against the gay agenda. That agenda is 100% destructive.
54 posted on 03/09/2007 4:00:49 PM PST by Giant Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

BTTT


55 posted on 03/09/2007 4:14:55 PM PST by LucyJo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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.

58 posted on 03/09/2007 6:27:15 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

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.


60 posted on 03/09/2007 6:29:46 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Must download(if you can get away with it or have a good lawyer(pr one yourself) South Park Season 11 Episode 01
1101 With Apologies to Jesse Jackson
Download Now:
http://www.southparkx.net/episodes/1101-with-apologies-to-jesse-jackson

Pick your version that best fits your PC and personal likes.....
Mods please delete if I have done wrong by posting a link to download a TV Show/Episode.........
61 posted on 03/09/2007 6:30:50 PM PST by yield 2 the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

What do gays have to do with Ann Coulter sort of, kind of, intimating that John Edwards might have a f----y quality to him?

I don't get it?

Was sorta calling Edwards an F-word an insult to gays?

Maybe it was.


62 posted on 03/09/2007 6:34:53 PM PST by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Soon to be a Law and Order episode:
"When a female controversial conservative commentator makes a slur, someone takes it too far, now(Insert which detectives) must stop the suspect(s) before they go even further.."
63 posted on 03/09/2007 6:39:17 PM PST by yield 2 the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

Censor:1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a: an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b: an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful.

Don't confuse normal montoring, selection, and/or elimination of speech and writing by indiviuals with the censoring by government officials.


64 posted on 03/09/2007 6:41:47 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Reminds me of the government employee who used "niggardly" in a meeting and had to resign because the blacks weren't familiar with the meaning of niggardly and were offended. Disgusting!


65 posted on 03/09/2007 6:54:37 PM PST by lonestar (Me, too--Weinie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

Let's go to the unquestioned authority on the English language, the Oxfored English Dictionary:

censor, n. Forms: 5­6 sensour, 6 sensor, 6­7 censour, 6­ censor.
1. The title of two magistrates in ancient Rome, who drew up the register or census of the citizens, etc., and had the supervision of public morals.
2. a. transf. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.

And here are the ciations they give for this second -- and modern meaning:

1592 Greene Upst. Courtier in Harl. Misc. (Malh.) II. 224 A severe sensor to such as offend the law.
1622 Massinger, etc. Old Law v. i, Cleanthes..for his manifest virtues, we make such judge and censor of youth.
1776 Gibbon Decl. & F. I. xx. 564 The bishop was the perpetual censor of the morals of his people.
1818 Scott Hrt. Midl. xxxiv, Regarding his father as a rigid censor.
1871 J. Duncan Colloquia Perip. 118 Punch is a censor, but not censorious.

Note that not one of them refer to a government official.

And if the OED isn't authoritative enough for you, there is always Wikipedia:

Censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist.

++++

And they go on to list the numerous others non-government ways censorship works.

But honestly, did you really think when you saw the naughty bits covered with a black bar in some magazine or newspaper that it was being done by some government worker?

Or when the sex scenes are cut from movies broadcast on TV?

Or when dirty lyrics are blanked out from songs?

It is so hilarious that this junior high school debating point has survived, let alone thrived around here.

Explain to the moderators how they don't censor.


66 posted on 03/09/2007 6:56:23 PM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Somebody is presently conducting a denial of service attack of some sort on anncoulter.com, Ann's home website. It's been nearly impossible to get to since the furor over the F word.


67 posted on 03/09/2007 8:25:40 PM PST by rickdylan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rickdylan

Not sure it's a denial of service attack...actually, the site is just getting a lot of visits and their server is probably locking up. If you try refreshing your browser (that is, try reloading the page) you should eventually get to the site. Please don't ask me why I know this; I'm nobody of any importance in the grand scheme of things.

If you can't get through to the site, her homepage has a commentary titled, "Shooting elephants in a barrel." The commentary goes over the recent history of absurd prosecutions (or should that be "persecutions"?) against "conservative" people as opposed to the lack of prosecutions against others who have allegedly commited far more serious crimes.

It's actually quite interesting because she makes no mention in the commentary about the situation with her comments at CPAC, yet clearly there is a similarity with how she--and those around her--have been treated and how other "conservatives" have been treated in the past. I find this interesting because usually Ann Coulter is definitive in specifically drawing out analogies.

I'm using "conservative" in quotes because I'm new to FreeRepublic and I wasn't sure if it was okay to use that term or if "conservative" is considered a dumb word. Or maybe I'm just timid.

Thanks.


68 posted on 03/09/2007 10:28:23 PM PST by mediainsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: potlatch
server stiil down


69 posted on 03/10/2007 12:34:56 AM PST by devolve ( ........upload images free & fast at tinypic.com or Photobucket or Imagecave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

The newspapers carrying Anne are probably having profitability issues the same as all papaers these days...they may lose a few customers if they keep Anne but they'll lose a whole bunch more of their paying customers if they ditch Anne.

So let them ditch Anne, and let them pay the consequences for it!


70 posted on 03/10/2007 2:32:46 AM PST by mdmathis6 (Save the Republic, don't vote for IVY LEAGUERS(red ribbons or blue ribbons))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; denydenydeny; Rummyfan; Domicile of Doom; Puppage; Beckwith; Sols; JRochelle; ...
This is becoming a very sensitive issue for me.

One that I fear is going to get much worse.

Freedom From Fear

71 posted on 03/10/2007 2:43:22 AM PST by expatguy (http://laotze.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
I am so sick and tired of some so called conservatives claiming this is a free speech issue.

It isn't. Its about proper etiquette, class and just plain decency.

How can you justify what Ann said? She has the right to say it but she also needs to accept the consequences of what she said.

Remember what Whoopi Goldberg did in 04? She said some very vulgar things at a Kerry fundraiser. And we ALL had fits about it.
Or maybe you were out there defending what she said.

We all recognize that she had the right to say it. But it was crude and very inappropriate. And guess what?

We conservatives demanded action. Kerry was forced to apologize for having her there and Whoopi was dropped by Slimfast as their spokesperson.

Why the hell should we conservatives have to defend a vulgar Ann Coulter?
I for one am not going to do it. The Conservative movement is more than Ann.
72 posted on 03/10/2007 9:03:09 AM PST by JRochelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The left has imposed fascist control over free speech. The left has created stalinist suppression of dissenters.


73 posted on 03/10/2007 9:12:42 AM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (damn the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle; joesbucks; MNJohnnie
"Why the hell should we conservatives have to defend a vulgar Ann Coulter?"

How about for the same reason that our nation would choose to defend a vulgar Larry Flynt.

I'm not sure how much of my article you read - but you seemed to have missed the point.

My concern is not about whether or not you agreed with a "word" that Ann Coulter used or whether or not you find her indecent.

My concern is that "the line" (standard) on what is to be considered hateful or bigotted is moving lower and lower to the point where Americans are now finding themselves having to practice self-censorship, which I consider to be the worst form of censorship.

I closed by asking a question - Where does it end?

Today we find the single "word" 'faggot' offensive - how many more words will we find offensive in the next few years and where does it end?

74 posted on 03/11/2007 3:20:20 AM PDT by expatguy (http://laotze.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

More Center-Right politicans and pundits should realize what Ms Coulter Knows, Conservatives want people who fight the Left, not spend all their time trying to get along with them.

The Left is at war with us 24-7-365. It would be nice if a few more of our pundits would fight back.


75 posted on 03/11/2007 4:08:56 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you will try being smarter, I will try being nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: expatguy; SmithL; denydenydeny; Rummyfan; Puppage; Beckwith; Sols; JRochelle

It will only get worse if y'all let it. Go to a restaurant and a homo is serving you, never go back. Same with any service. The gay agenda is emboldened by the overwhelming tolerance for their type of buggery. The best way to combat (without pure barbarism) it is through economic means. Just like we do with Cuba and the like.


76 posted on 03/12/2007 6:08:01 AM PDT by Domicile of Doom (Hey boy why is there dirt in my hole? I dunno Boss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

77 posted on 03/12/2007 6:28:17 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-77 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson