There is no question Bill Bennett had the right to say that, but is someone who is stupid enough and insensitive enough to say that on the radio a person you want as a radio host?
I suspect that anyone who even remotely shares any kind of ideological connection with Mr. Bennett would want him off the air pronto, lest enterprising opponents of that world view manage to tar them with the same brush as Mr. Bennett.
Mr. Conyers move would appear to be tactically misguided, not to mention the first amendment implications.
There is no question Bill Bennett had the right to say that, but is someone who is stupid enough and insensitive enough to say that on the radio a person you want as a radio host?
Insensitive maybe but stupid? Spare me. What was stupid the part where he called the suggestion “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do”?
mikeca: To me the key issue is whether a government official ought to get someone booted off the air as opposed to just letting viewer’s decide. Presumably if Mr. Bennett’s ratings plummeted then he would eventually be forced off.
If I understand properly, Bill Bennett’s statement was in response to the notion that legal abortion reduces crime. In other words, he was expressing hostility to that notion.
One can take principles too far. IIRC, “[t]he first thing a principle does is kill somebody.” – Lord Peter Wimsey
I think that is what Mr. Bennett was saying. It was a tad foolish to take an example that an ancient race-based politician like John Conyers could use to continue his sideshow. But the intent was not racist.
Funny, Jeff Goldstien was posting on something like this last weekend with regard to something Capt. Ed said that Oliver Willis took out of context. Jeff was very much against the orator/author surrendering control of meaning to the listener. If I understood correctly, then speech has no meaning because the listener/reader will control the dialog, which is an argument for chaos, and certain listeners, such as Mr. Conyers and Mr. Willis, will automatically assign the worst meaning to any utterance in a desire for power – the power to control the conversation and censor opponents of any kind from speaking.
Which is what Mr. Conyers is doing here. And he should be ashamed of himself. But he can’t because he has no shame left.
Fortunately, his shtick is old and he’s older and neither will be long for this whirl or world.
Well, I wouldn’t say this is an attempt to block freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protects us from punishment from our government for the things we say. It dosen’t however, protect us from the repercussions from saying such a statement. If you worked for say… SBC, and you had anti-SBC posters all over your work area, chances are they would tell you to stop posting that material. If you continued, heck let’s say you said “I hate SBC let’s strike” all of the time. You would probably be terminated.
Let’s say an executive said “We could cut down on unnescessary truck rolls if *insert race here* people stopped subscribing to SBC’s services. That’s an impossibly absurd notion, even if it is true.” His comment would probably slam SBC with public pressure, and he would probably be terminated. That would be SBC’s decision and the first amendment does not protect him from that repercussion.
If Mr. Conyers were to try and pass a bill saying that these kinds of statements are against federal law, and levy a huge fine or something, then it would be against the First Amendment. Rallying public pressure against a radio show host to get him fired because he said a racially insensitive thing is his right to free speech and protest. He is acting within the public realm. Even though I don’t agree with this, he has every right to do so. Just as we have the right to rally support for Mr. Bennett for being attacked somewhat unjustly. Mr. Conyers may be a weasel, but he isn’t acting out of line with the first amendment… yet.
{ 10 comments }
There is no question Bill Bennett had the right to say that, but is someone who is stupid enough and insensitive enough to say that on the radio a person you want as a radio host?
I suspect that anyone who even remotely shares any kind of ideological connection with Mr. Bennett would want him off the air pronto, lest enterprising opponents of that world view manage to tar them with the same brush as Mr. Bennett.
Mr. Conyers move would appear to be tactically misguided, not to mention the first amendment implications.
There is no question Bill Bennett had the right to say that, but is someone who is stupid enough and insensitive enough to say that on the radio a person you want as a radio host?
Insensitive maybe but stupid? Spare me. What was stupid the part where he called the suggestion “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do”?
mikeca: To me the key issue is whether a government official ought to get someone booted off the air as opposed to just letting viewer’s decide. Presumably if Mr. Bennett’s ratings plummeted then he would eventually be forced off.
If I understand properly, Bill Bennett’s statement was in response to the notion that legal abortion reduces crime. In other words, he was expressing hostility to that notion.
Context in these things does matter.
Hail to the Queen.
I read it as saying that even if it were true, then it’s still stupid and morally reprehensible.
He’s making the case against strictly utiliarian arguements.
Eliminating the entire human race will eliminate the number of DUIs, but that doesn’t make it a smart plan.
BK
One can take principles too far. IIRC, “[t]he first thing a principle does is kill somebody.” – Lord Peter Wimsey
I think that is what Mr. Bennett was saying. It was a tad foolish to take an example that an ancient race-based politician like John Conyers could use to continue his sideshow. But the intent was not racist.
Funny, Jeff Goldstien was posting on something like this last weekend with regard to something Capt. Ed said that Oliver Willis took out of context. Jeff was very much against the orator/author surrendering control of meaning to the listener. If I understood correctly, then speech has no meaning because the listener/reader will control the dialog, which is an argument for chaos, and certain listeners, such as Mr. Conyers and Mr. Willis, will automatically assign the worst meaning to any utterance in a desire for power – the power to control the conversation and censor opponents of any kind from speaking.
Which is what Mr. Conyers is doing here. And he should be ashamed of himself. But he can’t because he has no shame left.
Fortunately, his shtick is old and he’s older and neither will be long for this whirl or world.
Dang, did I get long-winded or what?
Well, I wouldn’t say this is an attempt to block freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protects us from punishment from our government for the things we say. It dosen’t however, protect us from the repercussions from saying such a statement. If you worked for say… SBC, and you had anti-SBC posters all over your work area, chances are they would tell you to stop posting that material. If you continued, heck let’s say you said “I hate SBC let’s strike” all of the time. You would probably be terminated.
Let’s say an executive said “We could cut down on unnescessary truck rolls if *insert race here* people stopped subscribing to SBC’s services. That’s an impossibly absurd notion, even if it is true.” His comment would probably slam SBC with public pressure, and he would probably be terminated. That would be SBC’s decision and the first amendment does not protect him from that repercussion.
If Mr. Conyers were to try and pass a bill saying that these kinds of statements are against federal law, and levy a huge fine or something, then it would be against the First Amendment. Rallying public pressure against a radio show host to get him fired because he said a racially insensitive thing is his right to free speech and protest. He is acting within the public realm. Even though I don’t agree with this, he has every right to do so. Just as we have the right to rally support for Mr. Bennett for being attacked somewhat unjustly. Mr. Conyers may be a weasel, but he isn’t acting out of line with the first amendment… yet.
BTW, Jeff Goldstein is discussing this over at Protein Wisdom, which will explain better than I can what I was babbling about supra.
Comments on this entry are closed.