"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 07 May 2004 07:03:09p, "Brian Hill" wrote in
message :
"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Thu 06 May 2004 10:39:42p, tommyknocker wrote
in message :
Brian Hill wrote:
"-=jd=-" wrote in message
Well, Brian, the cat's out of the bag now!
Seriously, I find it particularly perplexing when someone
complains their right to free speech trumps someone else's right
to free speech.
It usually surfaces from someone with a liberal viewpoint. For
instance:
The Dixie-Chick(s) start "singing the blues" when they realize
that the right to express an opinion works both ways. That they
never considered someone's right to free speech could include
advocating a boycott of their products reeks of either rank
naivety, or extreme eliteism.
Tim Robbins - How dare someone else use their right of free speech
to criticize me.
Michael Moore - Same thing.
John "Two-Face" Kerry - Same thing.
J. Garafolo(?) - Same Thing
etc. etc. etc...
Now, I'm sure such vocal proponents of free speech and public
debate DO NOT have any intent to strip those same rights away
anyone else. It's just very difficult to try and understand the
mind-set that on the one hand is a most vociferous supporter of
free-speech, yet routinely equates any free speech criticism
directed at them as somehow different from their right to
criticize...
You nailed it jd!. Liberals hate to be critiqued in any way shape or
form. It hurts their sence of moral superiority 
It's not only liberals. Look at the Bush Administration's suggesting
that criticizing the war is treasonous while at the same time
insisting they're in it for freedom's sake. AND it's not only the
elites-the average guy seems to be all for free speech as long as
it's his free speech and not anybody else's, an attitude which allows
the elite to get away with it. There's a reason that free speech is
the first of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
It's no different than what I said earlier - There's nothing
constitutionally wrong with defeatist remarks about either the war on
terrorism or the troops in harms way. There's also nothing
constitutionally wrong with anyone else criticizing those defeatist
remarks as damaging to the moral of those very troops and encouraging
to the enemy.
So, you think it's wrong when someone else points out the impact of
defeatist rhetoric as if it's oppression -yet- by your very demands,
you are insisting counter opinions be either outright suppressed or
given less weight.
I just find it difficult to understand the logic behind that
interpretation of free-speech...
-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:
(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)
I'm missing a post here jd. who you responding too? My sever doesn't
show it?
No, it's still there in your reply - but it looks like the attribution
lines got crammed together... Up towards the top, it appears it was
"tommyknocker".
-=jd=-
I got it!
--
73 Brian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of radios and 100' of rusty wire!
Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/