Free Speech: The Two Way Street
Bravo, Mark Davis. You have absolutely nailed it:
What do the following three people have in common?
1) Pitcher John Rocker, who said some ugly things about New Yorkers and earned a suspension without pay;
2) Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines, who said a hateful thing and earned vast public scorn;
3) Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who absurdly agreed to market an insane 9/11 conspiracy movie, earning waves of negative reaction.
The answer is: all three believe they were involved in a free speech controversy, and all three are wrong.
There are even some talk show hosts who believe they are involved in a free speech exercise each day. While that is the freedom enjoyed by anyone who pontificates for a living, broadcasters (and athletes and singers and billionaires) hardly ever actually find themselves in a first amendment issue.
Most things that we paint as free-speech issues are really issues of marketplace speech followed by even more speech in the form of reaction. The first amendment says government will not outlaw our freedom of expression. In no way does it guarantee that we can express ourselves without consequences.
A little over seven years ago, Rocker made some blunt comments about New Yorkers. While there was some support for his rant against the tricky human tapestry of the Big Apple, there was a flavor of intolerance around his remarks that alienated many and brought embarrassment to his employer, the Atlanta Braves. He was suspended without pay and asserted that his free speech rights were violated.
Nonsense. He got to say exactly what he wished. The Braves, meanwhile, mortified at his clumsy blathering, did what they had a right to do, and punished him.
Natalie Maines is now famous for two things: her incredible talent as a singer and her stunning stupidity for telling a London crowd in 2004 that she and her fellow Dixie Chicks were “ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”
Country radio all but disowned them and countless fans registered profound disgust. She asserted that her free speech rights were violated.
Again, nonsense. She got to say exactly what she wished. Country stations and fans then did exactly what they wished as well. Isn’t freedom grand?
Then, mere days ago, we learned that otherwise lovable Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has a massive moral blind spot. His decision to allow his movie company to distribute a 9/11 “inside job” conspiracy film is a massive lapse in judgment. He thus places himself in bed with the hateful psychopaths who believe America killed its own people to justify the war.
He reacted to the understandable public revulsion by arguing that the film had a right to be seen, and that he was part of a noble tradition of standing up for the first amendment rights of unpopular material.
Except that there’s no free speech issue here, either. No one said the filmmakers should be barred from creating such garbage, or that some sorry outfit could not distribute it. The issue was always about what people thought about his sad lapse in judgment.
Just as John Rocker learned what people thought of his free speech, and Natalie maines learned what people thought of hers.
The first amendment arises only when government seeks to curb certain expression. Your constitutional rights are violated only if government seeks to shut down things you have a right to express.
Clip the following paragraph and place it where you can retrieve it easily:
Free speech does not guarantee the right to speak out without consequences. If you speak out and feel the blister of rebuke in return, you have seen free speech travel both ways."
I listen to Mark fairly often. He done good on this one.
What do the following three people have in common?
1) Pitcher John Rocker, who said some ugly things about New Yorkers and earned a suspension without pay;
2) Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines, who said a hateful thing and earned vast public scorn;
3) Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who absurdly agreed to market an insane 9/11 conspiracy movie, earning waves of negative reaction.
The answer is: all three believe they were involved in a free speech controversy, and all three are wrong.
There are even some talk show hosts who believe they are involved in a free speech exercise each day. While that is the freedom enjoyed by anyone who pontificates for a living, broadcasters (and athletes and singers and billionaires) hardly ever actually find themselves in a first amendment issue.
Most things that we paint as free-speech issues are really issues of marketplace speech followed by even more speech in the form of reaction. The first amendment says government will not outlaw our freedom of expression. In no way does it guarantee that we can express ourselves without consequences.
A little over seven years ago, Rocker made some blunt comments about New Yorkers. While there was some support for his rant against the tricky human tapestry of the Big Apple, there was a flavor of intolerance around his remarks that alienated many and brought embarrassment to his employer, the Atlanta Braves. He was suspended without pay and asserted that his free speech rights were violated.
Nonsense. He got to say exactly what he wished. The Braves, meanwhile, mortified at his clumsy blathering, did what they had a right to do, and punished him.
Natalie Maines is now famous for two things: her incredible talent as a singer and her stunning stupidity for telling a London crowd in 2004 that she and her fellow Dixie Chicks were “ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”
Country radio all but disowned them and countless fans registered profound disgust. She asserted that her free speech rights were violated.
Again, nonsense. She got to say exactly what she wished. Country stations and fans then did exactly what they wished as well. Isn’t freedom grand?
Then, mere days ago, we learned that otherwise lovable Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has a massive moral blind spot. His decision to allow his movie company to distribute a 9/11 “inside job” conspiracy film is a massive lapse in judgment. He thus places himself in bed with the hateful psychopaths who believe America killed its own people to justify the war.
He reacted to the understandable public revulsion by arguing that the film had a right to be seen, and that he was part of a noble tradition of standing up for the first amendment rights of unpopular material.
Except that there’s no free speech issue here, either. No one said the filmmakers should be barred from creating such garbage, or that some sorry outfit could not distribute it. The issue was always about what people thought about his sad lapse in judgment.
Just as John Rocker learned what people thought of his free speech, and Natalie maines learned what people thought of hers.
The first amendment arises only when government seeks to curb certain expression. Your constitutional rights are violated only if government seeks to shut down things you have a right to express.
Clip the following paragraph and place it where you can retrieve it easily:
Free speech does not guarantee the right to speak out without consequences. If you speak out and feel the blister of rebuke in return, you have seen free speech travel both ways."
I listen to Mark fairly often. He done good on this one.
posted by David Burrow at 4:53 PM
1 Comments:
Absolutely! Since I live in a country (Britain) where we don't have a constitution like yours, just a lot of bleating about what is or isn't a basic human right - it's good to see a healthy dose of common sense coming across the pond.
Post a Comment
<< Home