Blissful lie #2:  Your freedom of speech is being vigorously defended for you.

Truth be told, well, not by the people who keep shrieking about it.

Today’s free-speech activists are frauds.

The aforementioned Donovan McNabb controversy began when political commentator Rush Limbaugh suggested the quarterback has been treated favorably by a media looking to promote a feel-good story and praise itself for its open-mindedness and moral authority.

The press, self-proclaimed champions of free speech that they are, demanded he be fired for speaking his opinion. 

The response?  A number of NFL players, civil-rights activists, Democratic politicians, and a vast number of journalists (self-proclaimed champions of free speech that they all are), called for Rush Limbaugh to be fired.

Here is the critical point of this controversy:  Mr. Limbaugh did not say, or insinuate, that Donovan McNabb was unable to perform because of his color.  He did not say, or insinuate, that he had attained his position because of his color.  Rather, his statement was pointed directly at the media - which, to them is a sin tantamount to blasphemy in the presence of the Pope.  Journalists have resorted to misrepresentation of the facts, by distorting Limbaugh’s comments (I believe intentionally), in a disingenuous and unethical attempt to make themselves appear virtuous.

A lot of people today are so brainwashed by political correctness that they no longer recognize true racism.  Simply recognizing the possibility that a hypersensitive media could perpetuate an affirmative-action attitude does not at all embody a racist statement.  There is no sin in observing the distortion and bias of others.  The distortion itself is the sin, and a reaction marked by malevolent accusation by those at fault reveals their true nature.

In the days following the Rush controversy, reporters fell over themselves getting to the front of the line to be counted as non-racists - simply by calling Rush Limbaugh a racist.  Among journalists, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that calling someone the “R” word serves as a shield against being called the “R” word oneself.  “Hey, I’m not racist, I mean, I called Rush Limbaugh a racist!” These controversies provide the perfect opportunity to join the club of finger-pointers, lest the finger be pointed at thee.  The accusation itself need not have merit to be taken as fact - which is exactly why reporters act so cowardly whenever the topic comes up.

And speaking of cowardice, let’s not forget Rush’s co-commentators on ESPN’s NFL pre-game show.  When Rush made his comments, none of the other commentators responded.  Wasn’t that the perfect time and place to challenge the comments if they disagreed or felt they were inappropriate?  They were silent.  That is, until one week later, with Rush removed, and they were armed with the knowledge that the media were on their side.  Then they responded, knowing full well they would not be challenged on their statements.  This is shameful behavior - hiding behind an auspicious and sycophantic media to make pointed statements, and avoiding accountability.  Howie Long and Tom Jackson in particular should be ashamed of themselves, but no one in the media will dare call them out.  Truly, we are witnessing the mutual-admiration society here.

Long actually referred to the NFL as a “sanctuary” that is free of color issues, and joined the rest of the media in brazenly contorting Limbaugh’s words.  Tom Jackson claimed that as he listened to Rush’s comments, he was “very uncomfortable at the time, although the depth and the insensitive nature [of the comments] weren’t fully felt until it seemed too late to reply.”  Translation: I wanted to wait to see if the media would jump first in full force, and then make my retort when Rush wasn’t present to debate me.  But obviously Jackson didn’t feel it was too late to reply a full week later.  Is it possible that he didn’t think the comments were all that inciting at the time, but then decided to jump on the “R”-word bandwagon once it got rolling?

Even Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean chimed in, claiming that Limbaugh’s “voice has no place in broadcasting,” and calling for his firing.  This, from the political party of tolerance and open discussion.

Let’s recall for a moment an event from this past winter.  The lead singer of a certain trio of musicians (of questionable talent, if I can assert a personal opinion) launched some rather “insensitive” criticisms towards the President of our country during a concert in London.  Many people were displeased by this, and decided not to support them and their music.  In accordance, many radio stations decided not to play their music. 

At this reaction, the Dixie Chicks and free-speech advocates were furious, and claimed that their free speech was being violated.  They were flat-out wrong.  There was no government censorship, and nobody was even fired.  People simply exercised their right to choose who they wish to be entertained by.

So why then, would these same people advocate squelching someone else’s speech, and call for their firing, simply because they don’t agree with him?  Let’s recall what Mr. Dean had to say last winter:  “...when the Dixie Chicks were kicked off the air … I suddenly realized that this was a corporation who was censoring our ability to get information on our airwaves."   Precious!  For fun, I’ll stop and let you read that sentence again.  Maybe Mr. Dean needs someone to censor his speech, so nobody sees him put his foot in his mouth again.

The recent election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California raised some free-speech issues as well.  Democrats claimed free-speech as they chastised Schwarzenegger for allegedly being a womanizer in his past.  Yet these are the same people, for the past decade, diligently defended Bill Clinton’s “right to privacy” under the exact same guise – amidst far worse and more credible charges.

The whole intent of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech.  Bandwagon speech needs no protection.  Truly, there’s something to be said about free-speech advocates who advocate the silencing of others’ opinions.


(Next)
Viewpoint:
Truth Be Told