Free Speach and Political Mudslinging

I am strong supporter of Free Speech! I may not agree with your comments but I would never advocate censorship. However, we do need to understand a few basic facts. Censorship is done by the Government not by a television station, newspaper or citizens reacting to a person's remarks. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines Censor as :

Main Entry: 2censorFunction: transitive verbInflected Form(s): cen~sored; cen~sor~ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

This action can only be taken by a Government. To Censor something is to make it illegal to read, show, say etc.... So let me restate for the record, I am opposed to Censorship. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees us the right to Free Speech. It does not however guarantee us the right to be heard or the right to not be offended. It also does not mean that the "Speaker" will not suffer consequences for his or her words. I am incapable of "Censoring" the Dixie Chicks but you can bet your bottom dollar that I will NEVER buy another one of their albums. They have made their political statement opposing the war in Iraq and I am making my political statement by refusing to give them any of my money. Let's discuss three specific examples of Free Speech.

All over Europe and the Middle East, Islamic Militants are burning down buildings, burning cars, rioting and killing people because they were offended by a cartoon! Over the years I have been offended by lots of political cartoons, the recent cartoon depicting a soldier that has had his arms and legs amputated being diagnosed as "Battle Hardened" by a character labeled as "Dr Rumsfield" jumps to mind. In spite of the fact that this cartoon showed a complete lack of respect for the brave men and women who are risking their lives and, in some cases, being terribly maimed defending our nation, I was not moved to go out and set a car on fire or start a riot. There are two reasons for this 1) I understand this subversive cartoonist has the right to draw anything he desires, no matter how insulting or degrading it is. 2) I am a civilized person, not prone to wanton and needless destruction of private property just because my feelings are hurt. The Islamic Militants are reacting to a cartoon that portrayed "The Prophet Mohammed" wearing a Turban that contained a Bomb, and several other cartoons that portrayed "The Prophet Mohammed" in less than a flattering light. The facts are that the Islamic religion not only condones militant terrorism (as shown in the cartoon) but in the cases of many, Clerics actually encourage it. Don't forget when the Islamic Fanatics attacked us on 911, there was dancing in the streets of Palestine. Don't forget that large segments of the world's Islamic population support the actions of Osama Bin Laden. The cartoons were offensive but there was more than just a kernel of the truth in them.

Recently we lost one of the Icons of the Civil Rights movement, Coretta Scott King, the widow of Reverend Martin Luther King. No matter your opinion on Reverend King's politics or his wives politics, you can't deny the fact that this lady was an extremely important person in American History. Four Presidents attended her funeral, President Carter, President George H. W. Bush, President Clinton and President George W. Bush. Three of the four Presidents paid homage to the accomplishments of Ms King. The Fourth, former President Jimmy Carter, used this solemn occasion to make a purely political and factually false attack on President George W Bush. Allow me to quote President Carter "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." President Carter for "Some Reason" neglected to mention that the wire taps were order by Attorney General Robert F Kennedy and approved by President John F Kennedy. He also fails to point out that taps did not involve the tapping of phone calls from KNOWN Al Quada operatives. Funny how those facts slipped his mind. Could it be that he left out those facts because they would have illustrated just how foolish his comments were? Personally, I dont care if the former President wishes to speak out against President Bush for defending the United States, but a funeral is hardly the place for this type of political slander.

The third thing I would like to discuss with you is Political Campaigning. We are currently in the midst of the political season. Candidates are clamoring for our attention and trying their hardest to convince us that they are the best man for the job they are seeking. I applaud this, even if it does get a bit "irritating" at times. What I object to is candidates speaking half truths and outright lies about their opponents. I have been told that this mudslinging and negative campaigning works, I sincerely hope not. I want to know what the candidates think, I want to know their positions on the issues that define their race. However for the record let me state this FACT. I have no desire to know if a candidate's son or daughter has broken some law, drinks to excess or is involved in a divorce. I have no desire to know if a candidate lost his temper twenty or thirty years ago and said something stupid that he regretted. Since this is a primary election I feel that it is fair game to point out that your opponent just switched parties. However, I don't think that this automatically disqualifies them from seeking an office in their new party. Perhaps I am too naive but I would like the candidates to tell us what they will DO not what their opponent did not do or what his kids did. The bottom line is that I will (just one voter) NOT vote for a candidate that resorts to the tactics of mudslinging and negative campaigning and I urge every other voter to adopt the same philosophy.
Disagree or Agree feel free to add your own comments.

Please send any feedback to UnkHiram@BHocutt.com