No One Is Restricting Anyone’s Rights
Cinncinnati “Tea Party”
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. – Winston Churchill
I was reading Kos this evening and found a post that really hit home. He was addressing right wing response to the debacle in Pittsburgh that clearly showed the Faux News psycho-tainment of Glenn Beckt et al fed Poplawski’s right wingnut paranoia and whipped him up into a killing frenzy. His point was, whenever you disagree with right wingers, you are assaulting their First Amendment rights. Says who?
He’s absolutely right and it is a really pathetic argument that has been made on A Time for Change and on right wing blogs. In their minds at least, criticism = oppression. Kos gave the following example:
Let’s be clear what these attacks on folks like Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are all about – the left-wing in our nation want to silence ALL opposing voices in the media, and they will do it using all tools at their disposal INCLUDING blaming journalists and political commentators for the criminal behavior of others.
You can see similar, although less coherent, complaints all over the internet. This is another example:
The first Amendment appears to be dead under the new Obama Administration. No matter where you go or what you read, if it opposes President Obama it is instantly labeled “racist” and right wing extremism and a whole host of other derogatory names.
This is a concerted effort by the left to silence all opposition to President Obama and his administration. Obama is pulling this country into the abyss of socialism and the Obamatrons are out in force all over the internet, attacking anyone that opposes Obama.
***
Obama is an absolute disgrace. His cabinet is rife with tax dodgers and criminals, Obama himself can’t seem to form a cognitive sentence, and his budget is going to bankrupt America for the next ten years.
Obamatrons seem to think that there should be no opposition to this. Obama should simply have carte blanche to do whatever he wants. They are all over the internet hammering anyone that opposes the Moron in Chief.
Well I have news for the {name omitted] of society. It gets much worse from here. This is my website and I will do all that I can to point out the hypocrisy from the left and Obama himself. If [name omitted] don’t like it then I would advise them to once again blow hot sand out of their collective asses. John De Gennarro -Broken Country
Posts such as these show a clear lack of understanding of the First Amendment and a lack of logic. These bloggers are criticizing alleged “liberal” bloggers for infringing their First Amendment rights when the “liberal” bloggers are simply exercising their First Amendment rights on their blogs. No one is trying to suppress or silence anyone. As Kos wrote:
This is a familiar refrain that comes up every time anyone raises a socially damning issue like this one: We’re trying to oppress them, to silence their voices, by pointing out how morally and ethically bankrupt they are.
Actually, we’re just pointing out how bankrupt they are. No one here has said anything about silencing their voices — we just want them to face up to the consequences of their irresponsible rhetoric. It’s called culpability: They obviously are not criminally culpable, nor likely even civilly culpable. But they are morally and ethically culpable.
We do have serious differences of opinion here. We strongly believe that there’s a clear, common-sense connection between the paranoiac fearmongering that has passed for right-wing rhetoric since well before Obama’s election (and has become acute since) and violence like that in Pittsburgh, or in Knoxville: horrifying tragedies, in which the sources of the criminal’s unambiguous motives are that very same hysterical fearmongering — whether it’s about the evil socialists, stinking immigrants, or conspiring gun-grabbers who’ve taken over the country since Election Day.
So the next time a blogger claims that you are denying their First Amendment rights, remind them that they can go back to their own blogs and write whatever they like within the bounds of the law. The primary purpose of the First Amendment was to create a debate and to foster criticism of the government. When a blogger points out the fallacy in a fellow blogger’s post, that is not an attempt to suppress the First Amendment. It’s called expressing your point of view.
It’s the same old attack mentality that they have been using for years — if you are attacked, turn it around somehow on your attacker no matter how illogical. It’s really quite sad.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
[...] Committee and senior aide, speechwriter, and climate researcher for Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) No One Is Restricting Anyone’s Rights – catherinemacivor.com 04/07/2009 Cinncinnati “Tea Party” A fanatic is one who can’t change [...]
Posts about Rush Limbaugh as of April 7, 2009 » The Daily Parr
April 7, 2009 at 3:40 am
Boy, I’m a big fan of calling it like it is. If I hear racism, I’ll say so. There are a lot of ways to criticize the President and his administration without resorting to petty racism, but there are apparently few conservative commentators/bloggers/journalists who can figure that out (and apparently they get real offended when called on it, ooops, sorry). There are also plenty of ways to affirm and protect your Second Amendment rights; violence (or even the mere threat of violence) is not one of them (yet, again, if you call someone out on inciting violence, then you are somehow encroaching on their rights, WTF?). We can be proactive or we can react. My experience, and study of history, has made it clear that reactionary responses tend to be less than ideal and oftentimes create bigger and messier problems than do well-planned solutions. My biggest issue with the Becks, Malkins, and Limbaughs is that they offer no solution but instead relish fanning the fires of discontent and hate.
Sidhe
April 7, 2009 at 6:55 am
Good post. Thanks.
Your caveat “within the bounds of law” is key. But there’s also another limit, or should be — that of common sense. The First Amendment isn’t absolute. If you get the chance, it would be good to post a summary of some of the case law that has provided boundaries because beyond the old chestnut about not having the right to cry “Fire” in a crowded theater, I’m fresh out of responses.
It seems that the cry of “free speech” is mis-used in terms of campaign spending limits as well, but in that case it’s not so much free speech but as much speech of whatever kind one can afford.
morelightthanheat
April 7, 2009 at 8:12 am
Arguing about this stuff with the kind of people described in this post, remind me of arguing with folks in a small town. “I know my rights, I watch Judge Wapner or Judge Judy!”
Uh, yea whatever.
Since when was having a right, an entitlement to shirking responsibility?
Glenn Beck, Faux News, and others do not know how fucking good they got it in this country. Having been stationed overseas, I can tell you, that people like that criticising other political figures in other countries might find themselves on the wrong end of a noose or a firing squad. And yet they basically call for Right Wingers to execute their rights in much the same way.
To put minorities and dissenters on the wrong end of a noose or firing squad. Talk about projection.
At my blog I simply called for people to really think about and talk about Gun Laws and the problems we are having, and even that gets attacked. Its like some people cannot even slow down and read the words. They imagine what I mean, instead of reading what I wrote.
and what the hell is a Cognitive Sentence? Didnt they mean Coherent Sentence?
Duh
Reply: The funny thing is that I support people who have an opinion different than mine even though I might not agree with it as long as it is
lawfully
expressed. That does not include the defamatory statements that have been made by the blogger, but as for his political views or take on the news, he is always free to lawfully express his opinion, but so am I and so are you.
The real issue there if you analyze what is said is, I don’t like that you disagree with me. Even that is Ok I suppose, but just don’t call it suppression of the First Amendment because that just isn’t true.
seeing eye chick
April 7, 2009 at 8:32 am
The morons among us: they cast blame on everyone but themselves for why people think they are stupid.
At least a wise person can admit they are wrong.
It must be a scary world to live in when you are perpetually on the losing side of the argument.
The world has changed… *people* have changed and that’s why the majority of America voted how they did last Fall. These types are too dumb to see it.
We voted for change ~ but ~ we also *stood up* for the change we see in ourselves and others.
Tolerance. A desire for peace. A world not led by idiots driven by their precious egos–the most dangerous form of attachment there is.
It isn’t about “me, me, me” anymore, tin-foil wing-nuts. It’s about “us, us, us”.
Evolve or get left out in the weather when climate change really starts to kick in in the next 25-30 years. My hubby studies ice core samples from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Wise people, those scientists… with Ph.D.s and stuff, too.
Another argument in which these woefully unenlightened folks are on the losing side…
Sorry to rant, Cath.
skyewriter
April 7, 2009 at 9:34 am
Thanks sweetheart xxx ooo
John De Gennaro
April 7, 2009 at 10:30 am
[...] For additional quotes, see Catherine Macivor: [...]
A Fractional Revolution « Just Above Sunset
April 9, 2009 at 1:25 am