Salon.com Mobile"Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm?"
U.S.A. no longer is able to pass this test. Remember protesters during the campaign being moved to the "free speech zone" which was three miles away from W's motorcade and fenced-in? That's not exactly the town square.
"In a free society, political parties must be able to function without harassment. Candidates must be able to seek resources and votes in a spirit of competition, not a climate of anxiety. There must be an active, independent news media to keep citizens informed, and to make possible the free exchange of ideas and debate. And election results must yield the voluntary and orderly transfer of power."
"...the only way for an economy to consistently attract commerce and investment is to root out corruption at every level, and to require openness, transparency, and accountability in the systems of business and government."
"No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation. And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements."
Why my head still hasn't exploded from all the irony, I'll never know.
Charged with a felony and possible 6 months in jail!
Don't forget the Republican senator who proposed a resolution stating the national anthem could only be sung in english...signed on by at least 7 other GOP senators.
I think that the Clash summed it up best (ironically on their worst album):
"You have the right to free speech. As long as you aren't dumb enough to acutally try it"
Reading this entry made me think of a matchbook I picked up at a convenience store a couple of days ago. It has an American flag emblazoned across it, and the word "Freedom" printed under it. The store it came from is run by middle eastern immigrants, who have patriotic signs posted everywhere, a relic from the days after 9/11 when they lived their lives in fear of retaliation for the actions of others. "Freedom" has also become a catchphrase of this administration, and a word that is often used by the far right wing, to rally the base around actions that in reality undermine our freedom. "Iraqi freedom" equals occupation, "preserving our freedom" necessitates stripping away civil liberties, wiretapping American citizens, detaining people for years without charges being filed and without access to a lawyer. In the name of "freedom" they attack the Judiciary, the only branch of government that is supposed to be free of partisanship. Under the banner of "freedom" they've dismantled democracy to the point where elections are no longer indicative of the will of the people, but rather the business interests of corporations. The candidate who can raise the most money and can pander the hardest to the most influential special interest group (the NRA, the Christian Right, oil companies, major corporations) wins. This country is no longer governed by the will of the people. They lecture other countries on freedom of speech, and then work to prosecute whistleblowers (while protecting members of their own administration who leaked a CIA operative's identity to the press).
I'm grateful to live in a country where someone like Colbert can do what he did, but I'm not convinced there won't be repercussions for his act of free speech. I'm relieved that his show is on Comedy Central, and not on a major network, because I suspect otherwise we'd quickly learn that his show had been cancelled. Even Comedy Central has recently censored one of its own shows (Southpark - the brilliant Tom Cruise/Scientology episode), but I hope Colbert's popularity keeps his show safe.
If it's so easy to be blunt with our president, how come no one does it? Why is reasoned criticism equated with "Bush bashing," without anyone deigning to give it a reasoned response? What part of Colbert's accusations of media complicity and presidential imperiousness don't these people get? And why is the first response to objectors today to call them names like "bashers" and "bullies," and treat painful questions like they've already been answered when they never have?
The answer to all the above is that the real bullies know how bullies work: they intimidate, rather than respond. Until they change their tune, I see no reason to stop speaking with a candor that might at other times seem rude. As far as I'm concerned, Colbert's action took a lot of guts, and was hardly the sucker punch of a bully.
One other thing: anyone who has studied history even a little bit knows that the president of the United States is a powerful official, who can hurt you a hundred ways to Sunday without resorting to crudities like jail. I think what Colbert did is not just socially brave, but politically brave, and anyone who can imagine a citizen talking back so frankly to the president as a fully protected act is utterly naive--or simply too privileged himself to realize the degree to which even our system (of which I'm relatively proud) has plenty of loopholes for unchecked executive authority, especially now.
Amazingly, this example is used to advance the notion that we dont have free speech in America.
Cohen says that "anyone can insult the president of the United States" without fear of any consequences. Tell it to the Dixie Chicks, who were subjected to a nationwide radio boycott after singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed that Bush was from her home state of Texas.
Last time I checked people criticizing the Dixie Chicks is a quintessential example of Americans EXERCISING THEIR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. Just because you don't like what they have to say, doesn't nullify their right to criticize the Dixie Chicks and urge that they be boycotted.
To criticize that or compare it to un-free society is nothing less than absurd. Last time I checked, free speech is a two-way street,
