Elumia wrote:At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite….. (this comment is not specifically targeted at Ira’s publication)
Recently, a local sport announcer here in the SF Bay area was let go because of certain remarks. Specifically, he stated in a sports talk “opinion” show, that he was tired of “Caribbean ball players hacking at slop”. The local manager, a Dominican, was not pleased with what he heard. Since the radio station was the flagship broadcaster of this team. They of course promptly fired him for his insensitivity even though he had apologized.
So, given that, how come it is OK to exercise our “free speech”, in a morning zoo mentality, which feeds at the trough of the lowest common denominator in search of the almighty dollar, to broach just about any subject we deem fit in the name of “humor”?
When does our right to free speech usurp our responsibility to be that “village that raises our children” as one of our preeminent politicians wrote? Must we consistently push the limits of borderline humor just to see who gets a rise out of it?
If that’s they way is gonna be then, I say, hell’s bells, screw the v-chip, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead – do what ever you want. Let’s give the kids crack for breakfast and porn for recess. After all, it’s what all the other kids are doing and they’re not even wearing a helmet. Oops, I forgot, it’s already happening and all the kid’s are doing it on Youtube. Oh well, better buy that Google stock…..
The broadcaster case you mention isn't really an example of what we're discussing here--he's an employee of the station, ownership certainly has the right to fire him for representing them in a bad way, and it wasn't satire.
But do you know that he could say, "Keep all the Yids out of baseball ownership because they're ruining the sport and this country in general!" And the FCC would and could do nothing?
But if he said "tit," the station would be fined $50,000 dollars?
In other words, who is to draw this line/these lines, that you think we shouldn't cross? This is SPEECH, and it's amazing how some people are so frightened by it.
We're not talking about giving kids crack for breakfast, but instead realizing that if a 10-year-old hears the word "s***" on the radio, his life isn't going to end and he won't grow up into a deformed human being. (Heck, what do you think he's saying in the schoolyard anyway, where he learned it in the first place? Do you think he was listening to Opie and Anthony on the radio?)
It is real, real dangerous trying to restrict speech--because who gets to decide WHOSE speech?
And after speech, they come after every other aspect of your life, like my kid having to wear a helmet to ride his bicycle. He was 4 years old learning to ride his 2-wheeler, and the kid has to wear a helmet in Florida's 95-degree heat.
Is this actually SAFER than not wearing a helmet in the first place? Millions and millions of us rode bicycles without helmets and have lived to tell about it. But because one kid may get hurt out of millions, the millions are imposed upon? Where does it stop?
I guess one of the reasons I'm such a rabid Democrat is because Republicans claim to want less government in our lives, but I keep seeing more. Not saying the Dems are any better, they're worse, but if the Republicans lived up to that promise, it would change my thinking.
Anyway, back to speech:
It's just talking. It can't HURT you--and we often LEARN from it.