Before 1987, it was the broadcasting corporations who chose not to air lopsided political arguments because it was cheaper and easier to avoid back and forth debate.
But, despite the use of the word "Treason" in his title, Mr Wynn never advocated putting conservative talk show hosts in prison.
However you choose to describe them, hate mongers do not belong on the air. They are the cretins of our species, dividing people, spewing animosity, raw hatred, ignorance, and everything the world doesn't need.
But, in the first comment on the article, written by Mr Geery himself, he specified:
I'm sure there are many laws -- the Patriot Act for one example -- under which this could be done.
But even if a good attorney couldn't find such a law, it is high time to write and pass one.
How are we to interpret this other than a stated desire to actually throw Sean "Hannity & his ilk" in prison? He can't even specify what crime Mr Hannity has committed, but he's sure there's got to be one, and if there isn't, what Mr Hannity says should be made illegal.
He had said the same thing, in a commentą on Mr Wynn's article:
Hannity should be locked up and the key thrown away. He actively works against every human value that every bona fide educator tries to instill in children. But last I heard and wrote about, after doing considerable homework on this nutcase earlier, he makes $5 million a year from ABC (that station that is DEF).
Who is Daniel Geery? You can follow the hyperlink to his author biography on OpEdnews, but that's self-written sarcasm; it doesn't tell you much. But it does lead you to an article he wrote which sort of suggests that Vice President Richard Cheney should be assassinated. He's careful enough to not advocate it directly -- and site editor Rob Kall did slightly edit the article -- because he'd probably rather not get a visit from the Secret Service.
I really don't know whether to laugh out loud, or shake my head at just how pathetic this is. Here we have a man, one who has written 26 Articles, 72 Quick Links, 731 Comments, and 123 Diaries in 2˝ years on OpEdNews, who has suggested that political assassination of the Vice President of the United States, though he carefully wrote:
Please note that even in my somnolence, I did realize that I was posing a question, not necessarily advocating the act. Also note that I was not "conspiring"-that requires at least two people planning, and I would never do THAT on a public website!-so much as thinking out loud to share my thoughts, and sincerely wanting to tap the brains of others who clearly feel some of my passions. Hey! It's still ok to THINK, and at least at the moment, even to think out loud.
Yet this self-same, educated man, who celebrates his own freedom of speech and of the press, who says that it's perfectly acceptable to "think out loud" about assassination, also thinks that we should put Sean Hannity and whomever he believes constitute Mr Hannity's "ilk" in prison (though, oddly enough, he never suggested anything radical like having an actual trial!) for unspecified crimes due to what Mr Hannity and his ilk have said.
To their credit, several OpEdNews readers have taken Messrs Wynn and Geery to task for their disdain for other people's freedom of speech. But it boggles my mind that people who publish on a website which, if it existed domestically in a lot of other countries would be labeled subversive (at the very least) and shut down, possibly with the writers being imprisoned, and who certainly believe that freedom of speech and the press cover whatever they have to say would so blithely throw the First Amendment in the trash when it comes to people whose speech they don't like.
I am always amazed at how when "rights" are spoken about, one side (in an always multi-sided discussion) will usually deny the self-same "right" that thay are advocating.
I strongly believe in the Freedom of Speech, even when I don't like what is being said (hatred being some of the most disgusting to me, from any party, person, or institution), but would not advocate taking this "right" from anybody.
Universalisms are usually things that do not occur.
Discussion by definition requires more than one view.
by
Jeremy Haumann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 33 comments)
on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 10:10:20 AM
spend their lives on the topic of free speech, which I am 100% in favor of, and there are libraries of law on it.
But here is a small starter of Hannity hate speech, distortion and lies, that cannot be rebutted in the MSM, since the MSM owns Hannity (another topic unto itself).
Mr Geery, you said that you are "100% in favor of" free speech, yet you have written an article (here) and made comments on another, favoring putting Sean Hannity "and his ilk" in jail for the things they have said. Those things are mutually exclusive.
If you are "100% in favor of" free speech, then you must tolerate speech you do not like, even if you believe it to be misinformed, deliberately wrong, even hateful.
by
Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 179 comments)
on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 6:16:18 PM
Mr Moffett, I have absolutely no problem with responding to someone else's speech with ridicule, mocking, hostile analysis or any other form of speech. If someone puts forth his opinion in the public media, he has absolutely no right to expect that everyone will agree.
But Mr Geery wrote an article, and had a comment on another, which suggested that people whose speech he doesn't like ought to be thrown in jail; that is an entirely different thing.
Am I "mostly Republican?" Yup, sure am, and proudly so. But you'll never see me here, or on my own site, or anywhere else, advocating government control of speech, or government penalty for speech. On that, I'd think that most liberals would agree.
by
Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 179 comments)
on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 6:03:27 PM
I support freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I also support the Fairness Doctrine. I also support breaking up the media monopolies. There must be strict limits to media ownership. There must also be strict penalties for the media peddling disinformation and misinformation, libel, slander, fraud and defamation of character.
Its important to recognize that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are individual rights not corporate rights no matter what any fascist judge says. We must also realize that with freedom comes responsibility.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments)
on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 4:20:21 PM
There must also be strict penalties for the media peddling disinformation and misinformation, libel, slander, fraud and defamation of character.
OK, Ty, then who decides what is "disinformation and misinformation?" By whose authority is "fraud and defamation of character" determined?
We just elected Barack Obama to be our next president, but you should remember that George Bush is still our president, and has been for the last eight years. If those things you dislike are to be determined for "strict penalties," -- and only the government has that authority -- then you might wish to ask just who is in the government to take such decisions.
Please, tell me why, if we were to restrict speech in the way you have suggested, an administration run by George Bush couldn't have determined that the articles published on OpEdNews constitute "disinformation and misinformation" or "fraud and defamation of character?" For most of the time that I have read this fine site, there have been individual articles calling for impeachment of the president and vice president, along with banner ads for such. Mr Geery publicly mused about assassination on this site.
Clearly, under the types of restrictions you have suggested, were the Bush Administration able and inclined to enforce them, OpEdNews would be among the first to go, and Rob Kall and Mr Geery would be in federal prison.
by
Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 179 comments)
on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 6:11:40 PM
and the standard is pretty tough to meet. Of course, the fairness doctrine mitigates any such issues by requiring an alternate viewpoint in real time. But, I understand why you conservative types are so afraid of it. You understand its danger to your hold on significant portions of your base. Without being spoonfed one-sided regressive rhetoric on a daily basis, you lose about 1/3rd of your base within a year.
Those of us on the Democratic/Progressive side of the house demand multiple viewpoints of the programming we watch and thus would not be similarly affected. Heck, Dana, I probably spend more time on right wing sites reading than you do, so determined am I to try to understand how that group thinks.
by
Steven Leser (232 articles, 49 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 1804 comments)
on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 12:12:13 AM
Mr Leser, we certainly do understand the purpose of the Fairness Doctrine: it is to force broadcasters to present alternative viewpoints which could not generate an audience -- think Air America here -- in response to programming which does generate an audience. The idea is that broadcasters who make money by broadcasting three hours of Rush Limbaugh will not want to lose money for broadcasting three hours to which no one will listen, and thus dump Mr Limbaugh instead. Nothe that in Radio Treason: Hannity Continues Radical Anti-Obama Fearmongering, Gustav Wynn's article which started this discussion, Mr Wynn wrote:
Before 1987, it was the broadcasting corporations who chose not to air lopsided political arguments because it was cheaper and easier to avoid back and forth debate.
You wrote:
Those of us on the Democratic/Progressive side of the house demand multiple viewpoints of the programming we watch and thus would not be similarly affected. Heck, Dana, I probably spend more time on right wing sites reading than you do, so determined am I to try to understand how that group thinks.
I would certainly hope that my humble site is one of your daily reads! And if you check my blogroll, you'll see a number of liberal sites there as well. But your statement, by itself, shows that there is no dearth of information from either the left or right wing sites; the existence of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity has not somehow inhibited your ability to find information on the subjects you like, from any perspectibe you wish. You wish to impose government regulation on speech to address a non-existent problem.
by
Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 179 comments)
on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 7:02:13 PM
p.s. I dont believe in absolute free speech and neither does
the US Constitution. You cannot yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre, as the oft mentioned exception goes.
If we are talking about Fire in a crowded theatre, what about creating fear in order to drum up support for an unjustified war where hundreds of thousands die as a result? In the case of the yelling of Fire in the theatre, if someone dies as a result, the yeller would be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide. Are Hannity, Limbaugh and various others not similarly guilty? Before you answer that question, answer me where are the weapons of mass destruction and the pilotless Iraqi drones that could magically reach US targets?
by
Steven Leser (232 articles, 49 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 1804 comments)
on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 12:21:45 AM
The Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. To me, it does seem as though the First Amendment was written in absolute terms, even though the Supreme Court disagrees. I find it difficult to see where "Congress shall make no law" actually means "Congress may make only limited laws."
The old maxim about yelling fire in a crowded theater does not address speech at all, but the consequences of irresponsible actions. If the aurience was warned, and someone then yelled "Fire!" with no panic ensuing, he'd have harmed no one and this could not be penalized.
In the case of the yelling of Fire in the theatre, if someone dies as a result, the yeller would be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide. Are Hannity, Limbaugh and various others not similarly guilty? Before you answer that question, answer me where are the weapons of mass destruction and the pilotless Iraqi drones that could magically reach US targets?
Messrs Hannity and Limbaugh were repeating the information that was provided by our various intelligence agencies to the president and the congress; it's kind of difficult to accuse them of lying deliberately.
I read, and reviewed, Valerie Plame Wilson's Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House. In it, Mrs Wilson, who has absolutely no reason to try to defend President Bush, wrote in chapter six that the CIA really had no doubt that Iraq was building and maintaining WMD. It's kind of difficult to blame Messrs Hannity and Limbaugh for using the information that was deemed credible by our intelligence agencies, even if not all of it turned out to be accurate.
So, what would you do? If you believe saying something false is harmful, would you lock up people who aren't always truthful?
by
Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 179 comments)
on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 7:15:54 PM
Freedom tends to include responsibility. Too often, even on OpEd, there are comments made in the extreme.
One writer wrote that we should kill Obama. That comment was flagged and removed. BUt similar comments about a number of individuals have continued to be written.
Under heated discussion, various writers accuse others of lack of intelligence, of negativity, or of numerous other failings. Multiple times the discussion returns to a question of how to curb comments. Just over a week ago there was a long string of comments on what OPED should do. There were many comments, suggestions, ideas -- intermixed with bashings of various individuals.
BUT there has been no action. I was wondering about the editorial decision on this issue.
We can bash any writer. We all make offensive comments at some time (excepting Margaret). We all get upset, stressed, hot headed. We all should be crippled from chewing out feet. But since we never quite get that respect idea down, what is the solution? What has been the "decision" of the editorial board???
by
sometimes blinded (2 articles, 81 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 308 comments)
on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 9:38:33 PM
Liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment. Despite the constitutional guarantee of free speech in the United States, legal systems have not treated freedom of speech as absolute. Among the more obvious restrictions on the freedom to say just what one likes where one likes are laws regulating incitement, sedition, defamation, slander and libel, blasphemy, the expression of racial hatred, and conspiracy. The liberal tradition has generally defended freedom of the sort of speech which does not violate others' rights or lead to predictable and avoidable harm, but it has been fierce in that defence because a free interchange of ideas is seen as an essential ingredient of democracy and resistance to tyranny, and as an important agent of improvement. The distinction between an action falling under the description of speech and one which does not is not clear cut, because many non-verbal actions can be seen as making a statement—for example, burning a flag or destroying a symbol. Again, valued freedom of speech embraces publication—writing, broadcasting, distributing recordings—as well as oral delivery of ideas. — Andrew Reeve
Dana: The highlighted parts are mine. This is from Answers.com. If you listen to Mr. Hannity a few times, you will find him guilty of all the bolded behaviors.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 81 quicklinks, 125 diaries, 776 comments)
on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 11:35:09 PM
Despite the constitutional guarantee of free speech in the United States, legal systems have not treated freedom of speech as absolute. Among the more obvious restrictions on the freedom to say just what one likes where one likes are laws regulating incitement, sedition, defamation, slander and libel, blasphemy, the expression of racial hatred, and conspiracy.
Is that what you want, Mr Geery? On this very site have been countless articles calling for the impeachment and removal of the President of the United States; tell me why a government which enforced the kinds of restrictions you have just advocated couldn't throw Rob Kall and many of the writers here in jail for sedition?
Blasphemy? Are you in favor of laws which would punish people who claim that there is no God? That, after all, would be blasphemy!
You wrote yourself an article musing about the assassination of Vice President Cheney; under the conditions of yours I quoted, why shouldn't you be in jail?
Let's take an obnoxious one. Let's say I wrote "I hate niggers" on my site. (Obviously, Mr Kall would not accept an article of mine for publication here which said that.) What legal punishment do you believe I should incur if I were to write something like that and publish it on an open blog?
by
Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 179 comments)
on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 7:25:03 PM
He has done none of those offenses. I got news for you: Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy have actually made remarks that could construed as violent: Assassinate Bush, drown some of his cabinet members, hang Matt Drudge, beat the crap out of pro-Bush bloggers, etc. Let's see you explore those examples and check if they meet the definitions you just highlighted.
By the way, KGO's Karel got fired ("F*** g**d*** Joe the g**d*** m*****f***ing plumber...I want Joe the plumber dead!"). But that was probably due as much to the f-bombs he dropped as the death fantasy.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 622 comments)
on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 12:00:20 AM
LOL, the only free speech issue for GOPers=Fairness Doctrine
God forbid that the rantings of people like Hannity and Limbaugh and Coulter be consistently subjected to equal time by someone with an opposing viewpoint.
Can you imagine what that would do to the political makeup of this country? This would OBVIOUSLY tilt the country to the left and it would happen rapidly. That is why people like Pico, Hannity, Limbaugh and all the rest are so deathly afraid of it. Regressivism cannot stand up to a rational alternate viewpoint.
If Progressives want to get behind something that could really make a rapid difference, the fairness doctrine is IT!
by
Steven Leser (232 articles, 49 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 1804 comments)
on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 12:08:29 AM
And wow did you twist Geery's article about Cheney...
You obviously only read the first 1/3rd of his article, because the entire last 2/3rds is a vigorous assertion that no human being should ever take another human beings life for any reason even in the case of a Hitler or a Cheney.
I've never used the f-bomb in an article or comment but your twisting of Geery's article almost got me to do it as a past participle and placed before the word 'up'.
by
Steven Leser (232 articles, 49 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 1804 comments)
on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 12:27:24 AM
Dana, in my "Radio Treason" article linked above, I did not argue for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. My article stated that I am against the Fairness Doctrine as it existed because it would too unwieldly to enforce. I also noted that the Fairness Doctrine actually had no provision looking to censor free speech, rather tried to mandate "reasonable" self-regulated balance. If Hannity was keeping this professional and moral obligation to the public voluntarily, there would be no debate here.
Sean Hannity read portions of my article on the air, omitting those that challenged him to provide facts in reasonable balance so his listeners can make informed decisions. On the same day, he began calling the Fairness Doctrine the "Censorship" Doctrine in an effort to confuse his listeners into thinking the law calls for censorship and the current debate targets him.
We can see that Hannity was successful in confusing his listeners, however anyone can read the original article [click here] to see what I said and how you misrepresented it above.
by
Gustav Wynn (70 articles, 49 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 337 comments)
on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 11:27:04 AM
19 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (