[BC] Bill O'Reilly's interesting comments

[dean tiernan]

Message: 24
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lewis Munn <looey323 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [BC] Bill O'Reilly's interesting comments
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>

Content-Type: skewed......
Dana,
 
Seems to me that the ACLU virtually never stands for MY personal rights, but always for those who would interfere with my rights.
 
I cannot say a prayer in public places, but folks have a right to use profanity in public, which offends my ears and sensibilities.  As an example.  And "God" is often mentioned in both.
 
I am glad to know that a "neo con" is represented by Hitler.  I have often seen the term used, often derogatorily, but never knew the example of what a neo con was.  Thanks for enlightening me.
 
And I have often wondered why, if the rights and perhaps ideas of the minorities are deemed so important, the ACLU and others never champion the minority parties to voters as a good bet to restore the balance of power and diversity of thought, and never go after the restrictive voting laws that hold the minorities in check??   Or the public school civics teachings that minimize or omit the history and viewpoint of minority parties.
 
Come to think of it, most radio news omits them also!!  Strange?
 
Looey Munn
Roundup, MT

********************************************

LM,

Let's review, (on this continued OT rant). The purpose of the First Amendment is to assure that no laws are passed which prevent ANY speech regardless of content from being uttered. Its an amendment I worked years to uphold. The point is that the majority (immoral or otherwise) doesn't need protection for their speech. The framers of the constitution were REBELS (not in the southern sense) and many espoused MINORITY viewpoints. They saw it as a good thing to allow and even encourage minority speech. Without this provision, there is no point in pretending we are a democracy. So if the ACLU protects minority speech and the majority take care of themselves quite well, where's the beef? Have you read any of the original reporting on the incidents which spawned this discussion?

Voting laws? Which voting laws?

As for protecting your ears........I would love to sit in the Roundup (or the nearest such legislative space)city hall, when you propose the legislation of naughty words in public. I'll buy my own gas, cause I want to hear what your neighbors have to say on the issue.

The theory here, is that by protecting minority rights, by extension, your rights are better protected. Its a bit of stretch, but kind of a good for all thinking. 

Now for a broadcast link, this IMO is what is wrong with embedded journalists in war areas. The censorship afforded this arrangement as well as the camaraderie developed over long periods make journalists, less critical observers. 

And finally, what are you doing in Roundup to see that minority views are represented on any broadcast outlets?

DeanTiernan.com