Blog powered by Typepad

« IN DEFENCE OF WOLFOWITZ, MOSTLY | Main | THE COMMON (UNCLOTHED) READER »

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Comments

dearieme

"we scream bloody murder and demand accountability and heads on a platter": ah, the difference between literally and figuratively.

Sissy Willis

Cherchez le Soros: How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus

Peter Jackson

Clive,

I've been thinking about this, and I believe you're wrong. Freedom of speech has consequences, which may range from being fired to having your country's embassy torched. That does not mean that that freedom should be circumscribed.

There is no hypocrisy here. What the cartoon protesters want is for it to be impossible for anyone to publish such things. What the Imus imbroglio shows is that it is possible to say anything you want, as long as you're willing to face the aftermath.

The difference is that one approach tries to intimidate free speech by violence or threats of violence, while the other says that you can say what you want, but you might get fired if your audience calls up and complains. Which form of restraint would you prefer?

Best regards,
Peter

John

I believe Peter Jackson's put his finger on it. There's the matter, too, of appropriate response. No one was crying for Imus's literal head on a platter. Further the action taken was performed by a non-state actor--the broadcasting companies. Nor did mobs gather to burn down the various stations broadcasting the program.

I believe the word I'm looking for is 'proportionality'.

The comments to this entry are closed.