Aspie with Attitude

Sure, I'm just another Southern Recovering Alcoholic NPR- and Sweet-Tea Addicted Comic Mom with Asperger's in the SFV, but I can tell you now that I don't necessarily fit the stereotype.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Whatever Happened to Free Speech?

What’s the scariest thing to me about this whole Don Imus affair? While I was driving my brood today, I listened for a few moments to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) affiliate. I’ll admit that the reason I listened is because my over-educated friend told me that she listens to NPR “all the time.” I used to do the same; it’s the radio show of choice for those of us who have too much education, with children in tow. Recently realizing NPR's own globalist and anti-freedom biases, however, I have learned to love silence. Or a Thomas the Tank Engine c.d. Yet today, I listened to NPR, for a moment.

Within a few seconds, I heard a woman talking about how terrible Don Imus’s remarks had been, how she thought that rap artists’ remarks about women were just as bad. Perhaps. But the clincher here was her solution: They should both be silenced. By whom, I wondered—a government entity?

Granted, the woman part of me should be offended, according to the politically correct, for using “ho,” one-half of Imus’ description of the “nappy-headed hos.”. Would I have wanted to use this rude phrase myself? No, but I’m not offended by those who may want to use it.

During the 80s, I lived in Manhattan for a summer and heard all about Don Imus and Howard Stern. Guess what? They were racist and sexist. Even then. You know something? It was called shock radio in those halcyon days; now, it’s called politically incorrect and banned by corporate sponsors. The woman I heard today on NPR stated, with a straight face evidently, that some speech should be “silenced.” The silencing of speech offends me much more than the idea that a remark is anti-feminist. Some remarks should be anti-feminist, and anti-whatever. Why? Because that’s what a free society calls for: freedom of speech.

What freedom of speech really means is that you have the right to offend me; I have the right to offend you. We can all offend each other. We should be polite and nice, in my humble opinion; although Imus’ remarks did rest in the polite realm, in a free society, remarks do not have to be either polite or nice.

Al Sharpton, (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/09/sitroom.01.html)however, has a different take on the subject:

"There's no way the airwaves should be used to allow people to call people nappy-headed hos. That's what he called these people. And, for him to say that, and just to walk away like, "I'm just sorry; I made a mistake," would then mean that the FCC, who regulates everything on the airways, and who sanctioned people, as far as Janet Jackson, with a wardrobe malfunction, has no purpose at all."

Personally, I’m all for the FCC having “no purpose at all.” What could be better for free speech than having no governmental restrictions on speech? And no federal agency that watches speech?

But, but, but, I already hear the brainwashed masses say, what about protecting my children from ugly, nasty, rude speech? Who’s going to do that if not the government?
I know it’s hard to believe, but there is an off button on radios and televisions. I use it frequently.

With media exposure such as Aaron Russo’s From Freedom to Facism questioning the legality of the IRS agents forcibly taking our money this time of year, it’s no wonder that the power elite need more bread and a new circus to pacify the masses. This Don Imus deal seems to be just the ticket.

1 comment:

SiD said...

hi,

can we exchange links?

My blogs address is http://latest-celebritynews.blogspot.com/

If you are interested then pls add my link under "Celebrity News" and post a comment on my blog informing me about that, so that I may reciprocate.

Thanks

SiD