So I was thinking about this whole Ann Coulter brouhaha with people boycotting media that give her a platform and it had a me questioning my principles. First, allow me to qualify myself. Very seldom do I agree with anything Ann Coulter has to say, but as Voltaire so aptly put it - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
So my question is this - Is removing one's platform for opinion a form of hindering free speech? Or is just being able to say what you have to say enough? By my participation in the active boycott of media that syndicate her column am I, in effect, playing a part in controlling her right to exercise her right to free speech (even though, I am well within my right to exercise my right to protest)?
I'm confused.
5 comments:
Don't be, She has the right to say whatever, just as you have the right to tune her out. We need to put more trust in the greed of media outlets to identify what's a popular and positive message and what isn't. Let the public decide, not some faceless coruptable organization (coughFCCcough). As far as I'm concern, Coulter being dropped by some of her syndicates shows that my theory works. It's a fundamental concept that seems to have gotten lost in the whole FCC-ruled world of media. Censorship is a slippery slope that the FCC has chosen to ski on. It is contributing to the homoginization of society. Don't get me started...I guess I already have.
I agree with Al, you have nothing to worry about.
In this day and age, with so many outlets for transmitting a message, I still can't believe how much people whine when they get censored from the usual media outlets. Ann Coulter must have a huge internet presence - she can leverage this. We live in a world where Paris Hilton is a celebrity. If she can generate so much buzz on the basis of nothing, certainly Ann Coulter with her crazy ranting can do half as well!
Speaking of the FCC, look how even more popular Howard Stern became when he moved to satellite radio.
Al & Nhi - I guess my confusion stems from the principle. I mean, would we be so cavalier if we agreed with Coulter?
Imagine if you will, the emergence of civil rights or sufferage. Initially they were not popular ideas. If the masses had gotten away with quelling these ideas, that most if not all of us, agree to be right and true, they may not have seen daylight.
I mean isn't free speech supposed to be an even playing field? (Perhaps a little naive).
If we let the masses control the media by dictating what they publish or broadcast by threat of boycott, where will innovative ideas find their voice? Do we really want to throw the baby out with the bath-water?
I'm not a fan of censorship, so I see what you're saying. I was none to pleased about the whole Dixie Chicks situation.
It's one thing for Coulter to express her right-wing opinions. What I'm opposed to and offended by is her narrow-minded stereotyping. She has zero credibility and has built her following on ass kissing and childish name calling. Plain and simple, boycotting her can't be wrong when she had no validity in speaking out to begin with.
I wholeheartedly agree Nhi, but permit me to play the devil's advocate (wow, as soon as I typed that, I realised how close to the truth I might be, but I digress...).
By its very nature isn't free speech going to offend someone, somewhere at sometime? I'm sure there are people on the right who are often offended by "bleeding heart liberals".
Ann Coulter is a nut bag, there's no denying that. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is who determines what level of credibility one needs in order to have a voice. Isn't the point of free speech so that any shmuck can be heard? I think this whole thing is bigger than Ann Coulter, granted she is a "fucktard" (hehe I REALLY like that word) but is that reason enough to deny her her freedoms?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that everyone from the KKK to the Black Panthers to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have equal rights to a soap box.
Maybe I'm just being too idealistic and naive...
Post a Comment