The Right-Wing
neo-Conservative, Teapublicans are bent out of shape because someone big, a
corporation like A & E, with lots of media attention, had the audacity to
suspend Mr. Robertson for holding an opinion with which the Right Wingers happen
to agree. Throw in the fact that Robertson’s
remarks have been cloaked in the veil of religion and the Religious Right is
screaming about the protection of Mr. Robertson’s “Rights;” Rights they tend to
completely ignore when it happens to be the Left, those Progressive bastards,
and it is that much worse to them.
Not too long ago, Right Wing
Conservatives got bent out of shape about remarks made by a member of the Dixie
Chicks country band when they made statements that called into question
then-President George Bush going to war in Iraq. Need I point out that we went in with the
absolute guarantee that it was looking for weapons of mass destruction; none
were ever found! In retaliation for
their remarks, the Dixie Chicks had sponsors pull out on them and the public
made sure their then-number-ten hit on the country charts dropped off the
charts completely in a couple of weeks.
Where was the Right about their
Right to Free Speech? Personally,
although I am not a country music fan, I went out and bought their “Wide Opens
Spaces” album as a show of support for their position.
In 2012, Ozzie Guillén, then manager of
the Miami Marlins, was suspended for five games after making comments supportive
of Fidel Castro. Where was the Right
then? There were no voices from the
Teapublicans screaming about Ozzie’s “Rights.”
Hell, they were calling for his head on a platter, and the five-game
suspension was not near enough for them.
It is 0kay for a company, like the Miami Marlins, to suspend the manager
for making statements with which they agree, but not Mr. Robertson, because
they agree with what he says.
Jill Filipovic of The Guardian wrote
a rather excellent article, in of all things in a British paper, regarding The
First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States. I invite you to read this article at the link
below.
I wish to comment further on
Ms. Filipovic’s commentary and explain, yet again, to the neo-Conservative,
Right-Wing Tepublicans a basic lesson in civics or social studies. I have already written about the First
Amendment, way back in 2011. You can see
my previous comments at:
http://wam18jr.blogspot.com/2011/06/conservative-vs-liberalforce-vs.html
As I always start with, I will,
and have, defended with the offer of my life anyone’s Constitutional Rights;
that being said, I do not have to agree with the position or opinion of the
person offering up the protected speech.
That is my Right as a citizen of a free country. I can respond to a protected speech by doing
anything from boisterously complaining about their position to taking
action. Acceptable actions are things
like: not patronizing their business, not patronizing someone that sponsors
their business (in this case a reality TV show), not buying their book, not
going to their church, refusing to contribute to their political party, and a myriad
of other “actions.”
The key here is the term “protected
speech.” The Constitution of the United
States does not protect the people of the United States, referred to in the
Constitution as “We the People” from, well, “We the People.” The Constitution protects us from the
Government, not each other. If you read
the First Amendment it says, “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” [Emphasis added]. The Constitution
does not say that any person or
citizen cannot do anything within the limits of the law to establish a religion
or prohibit the free exercise of speech.
The last I checked A & E was not Congress, so there is no Constitutional
prohibition for them doing what they feel they must to indicate their displeasure
with Mr. Robertson’s remarks.
Let us assume some scenarios
that might result if we were prohibited from interfering with each other’s free
speech rights. Your boss, the guy that
pays you a paycheck, is a miserable, sniveling coward; let us assume it is an
absolute fact, not an opinion (it really doesn’t matter whether it is an
opinion or not). You walk into his
office and tell him exactly what he is and why.
I would bet my own paycheck that, all things being equal, you will not
have a job in short order.
See, you do not have a “Right”
to tell the boss what is true if the boss does not want to hear it, even if it
is true. You have a right to say it and
there can be no consequences from the government, but The Constitution does not
protect you from your boss. Yes, if your
boss is a public official and you are a member of his political constituency,
an argument can be made that you can tell him he is a schmuck and get away with
it, as long as you are acting solely as a citizen, but let us not split hairs
too fine. In a world where you had the
absolute, unabridged right to say anything to anyone and it was guaranteed by
The Constitution, your boss could not fire you, but we do not live in that
world. If you dare to test the theory,
you might become a supporter of extended long-term unemployment benefits and
become, God forbid, a Liberal.
If you publish an article that
John Q. Public engages in sex acts with sheep, and you cannot prove it, expect
to get sued for liable, and probably lose.
Believe it or not, if you are talking about a Senator, you are a lot less
likely to have to pay because public officials give up some of their
protections by holding elected office. I
am not sure it would work with Senator Sheepskin doing the above. In the fictitious world where you have a
Right to say anything, John Q. could not win in Court.
When the Right finds someone
with their viewpoint on the receiving end of “actions” related to their speech,
especially religious speech, they are the first to cloak themselves in Old
Glory, the First Amendment to the Constitution, all sorts of Civil Rights Laws
and scream at the top of their lungs about their “Rights” being violated. It is a misapplication of the Constitution,
the Law and is particularly heinous and atrocious because these same people will
happily trample the Rights of others with impunity if the exercise of the same
Rights involves a position with which they disagree.
It all depends on whose ox is
being gored. The hypocrisy is so thick
you could cut it with a knife.
No comments:
Post a Comment