DOWNLOADS: (327)

PLAYS: (1447)

Embed

During his Fox Business special, Bad Speech which reaired on their sister network, Fox News this Saturday, John Stossel highlighted several incidences which he called "assaults on speech," the first of which was the firing of Pat Buchanan from MSNBC.

Apparently both Buchanan and Stossel are terribly upset with Van Jones' organization, Color of Change, for exercising their own free speech in protesting the kind of hatred Pat Buchanan had been peddling for ages now. Here's their petition which Stossel read part of to Buchanan:

Below is the message we'll send to MSNBC President Phil Griffin and NBC News President Steve Capus on your behalf. You can add a personal message using the box on the right.

I'm writing to demand that you fire Pat Buchanan immediately. Buchanan has a long and consistent history of peddling white supremacist ideology as legitimate political commentary, on your network and elsewhere. He recently went on a white supremacist radio show to promote his new book -- which argues that increasing racial diversity is a threat to this country and will mean the "End of White America."

Pat Buchanan has the right to express his views, but he's not entitled to a platform that lets him broadcast bigotry and hate to millions. If MSNBC and NBC want to be seen as trusted, mainstream sources of news and commentary, you need to fire Buchanan now.

Stossel only read the portion where they said he peddled white supremacist ideology and his response was to say he didn't know what that means. Stossel also read part of the list from this post by Think Progress: Why MSNBC Dumped Pat Buchanan: His 10 Most Outrageous Statements:

3. Claimed Jerry Sandusky’s atrocities are because of “Homosexual marriage.” Buchanan appeared on a right-wing radio show on November 15 to make some convoluted comparisons: “Let’s take this Penn State thing…these horrors, there’s an organization that marches in the gay pride parade in New York called—used to—called the North American Man Boy Love Association, which advocated voluntary sex along the lines of exactly what was going on at Penn State. Many of our political icons have marched in that parade right behind that NAMBLA float […] This is now, homosexual marriage is now the civil rights cause of the decade.”

Buchanan's response was to just start laughing and deny he made the statement. Stossel didn't bother to point out that the link goes to a Media Matters post with the audio of the interview, so people could go listen for themselves and hear what he said.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (141)

PLAYS: (436)

Embed

From this Monday's The Young Turks, host Cenk Uygur, David Sirota and our own managing editor here at Crooks & Liars, Tina Dupuy discussed the recent boycott of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors, Bill Maher's defense of Rush Limbaugh, concerns over those boycotts leading to censorship and where freedom of speech begins and ends versus the right to having your voice heard over the public airways.

DOWNLOADS: (639)

PLAYS: (9467)

Embed

As we've already discussed here, Bill Maher has become somewhat of a punching bag from both sides of the aisle over the last week or so, both for saying that liberals looked bad for not accepting Rush Limbaugh's "apology" and with the false equivalencies by the right, screaming that what he said about Sarah Palin is somehow the equivalent of what Rush Limbaugh did with his attack on Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke.

On this Friday night's Real Time on HBO, Maher addressed both, starting with his criticism from the left.

MAHER: Let me tell you something. I got crap from both the left and the right this week because... okay... let me address the left first, because I found this more disheartening. They were very mad at me because I tweeted that people like Rush Limbaugh, who I absolutely disagree with, I've never said a good word about him. I did a whole monologue on what an asshole he was only a week ago. But I said, I don't like it that people are made to disappear when they say something, or people try to make them disappear when they say something you don't like.

That's America. Sometimes you're made to feel uncomfortable, okay? I mean, can we put this in perspective? No one died. A guy made a bad joke, a bad joke because a., it was a disgusting sentiment that he was evoking and also because it wasn't even a joke. He's a stupid fat f**k whose not funny and it annoys me that... it annoys me that people people who cannot keep two disparate thoughts in their own mind, lump me in together with him and say I'm defending him. I'm not defending him. I'm defending living in a country where people don't have to be afraid that they might go out of the boundaries for one minute. Do we all want to be talking like White House spokesman?

Okay, fair enough on a few points like defending free speech and the fact that it's unfair to lump the two of you together. But I'll make a few points in rebuttal. First of all, you did not just say that you didn't like the idea of people pushing to get Limbaugh off the air. You said liberals looked bad for not accepting his apology. What Rush Limbaugh did was not an apology.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (188)

PLAYS: (1043)

Embed

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Monday complained that Occupy Wall Street protesters were "blocking" his right to free speech.

The former House Speaker told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he had canceled an event at his campaign headquarters, where protesters were waiting outside the front and back entrances.

"Some of the Occupy Wall Street people, frankly, have a touch of anarchism in them," Gingrich declared. "I think, ultimately, the society’s going to have to say there are limits to those kind of folks blocking people from having their right to free speech. But we decided it wasn't worth risking some kind of big confrontation and so we, frankly, decided to skip past that particular event."

"I do think we can't be held hostage by those kind of people," he added.

The Georgia Republican said that Ron Paul supporters, on the other hand, were "pretty civil and pretty decent."

At the same time Gingrich was accusing Occupy Wall Street demonstrators of infringing on his free speech, police in Manchester, New Hampshire were investigating allegations that one of his staffers assaulted a protester.

"He pushed me roughly, and he said, 'Get out. We don't want you here,'" Rebecca Burton, who was holding a protest sign at a Gingrich event, recalled to Hartford Courant.

"He grabbed me and shoved me with absolutely no provocation. I said I wanted an apology. ... It was completely out of the blue. I had my back to him," she explained. "I was assaulted without an injury."

(H/T: Politicker NY)

DOWNLOADS: (543)

PLAYS: (360)

Embed

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Tuesday that he was a "big believer" in free speech, but the "court has gotten it wrong" on pornography.

At a town hall-style campaign event in Belle Plaine, Iowa, a woman asked the Pennsylvania Republican what he would do about the Occupy Wall Street protests as president.

"In all due respect, nothing because that's not really the role of the president," Santorum replied. "This is a First Amendment right, but a First Amendment right isn't an absolute right."

He added: "I'm a big believer in the First Amendment. I think the court has gotten it wrong on some cases, particularly with respect to pornography and their rulings on that."

"But with respect to the Occupy Wall Street people, they have the right to protest. But they don't have the right to take over a community and terrorize it."

In their 1969 Stanley v. Georgia ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated all state laws that prevented the private possession of "obscene" materials.

However, the court ruled in 1973 that obscene material was not protected by the First Amendment if it appealed "to a prurient interest," showed "patently offensive sexual conduct, and "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value."

DOWNLOADS: (205)

PLAYS: (2646)

Embed

The mainstream media in Ohio (specifically around Cincinnati) seem to have latched onto the story that ThinkProgress broke by showing the lengths some Congressmen will go to avoid looking bad on YouTube. Well, Steve Chabot just made himself look a whole lot worse with these sleazy tactics. They seized citizen journalists' cameras in front of news cameras.

Now Chabot is accusing ThinkProgress of having organized the protest to make him look bad. TP has found an unlikely defender in the form of that other TP, the tea party.

Chabot didn’t just take flak for his filming crackdown from the left. Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips discussed the matter in an article entitled “America’s dumbest Republican Congressman“:

I don’t know any other way to put this. Chabot is a moron. First, you cannot confiscate the property of a private citizen without a warrant or some other due process. Second, and I will type this slowly just in case Chabot is reading this so he will understand this. PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME.

If you go in public, you can expect to be photographed and recorded on video. Perhaps Chabot should go back and read the Constitution.

Here is the report and video from WLWT in Cincinnati. Below the fold are the original YouTube videos by ThinkProgress and ProgressOhio which have caused this commotion, and that Chabot will likely regret.

(WLWT) NORTH AVONDALE -- A meeting between Rep. Steve Chabot and constituents on Monday included confrontations over cameras at the event.

Two protesters had their cameras taken from them by a Cincinnati police officer at the event at the North Avondale Recreation Center. When one pulled out a camera phone to shoot a photo, he was escorted to the back of the room.

The officer pointed out that a sign had been placed at the door to the meeting stating that cameras weren't allowed, while the protesters said that it was a public meeting space and they had a right to use cameras.

Protesters complained that unlike previous Chabot events, the public was not allowed to speak, but had to submit questions in writing that Chabot would answer.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (3212)

PLAYS: (3285)

Embed

For the second night in a row Dr. Laura Schlessinger came on CNN to carp about Media Matters trying to "silence" her. So a right wing radio talk show host goes in the air and says some things that would offend most of America that doesn't listen to right wing hate talk or watch the Fox propaganda channel and when her advertisers start dropping her, she claims her right to free speech has been violated.

Sorry honey but you're free to say whatever you want on the air as long as it doesn't violate FCC rules, but if you say something offensive, others are free to exercise their right to free speech as well and let everyone know what they think about it and to ask your advertisers not to support your racism and bigotry.

I would expect Dr. Laura to be finding a cozy home over at ClusterFox some time in the near future where they welcome her ilk. John King actually did a pretty good job in this interview with her and even though she wasn't happy about it, stopped her in her tracks when she tried to distort what she said during her radio interview and some remarks by Nancy Pelosi about the Islamic center near ground zero that has the right wing going crazy.

Here is some of Media Matters' response after her appearance on Larry King's show.

In an interview this evening on CNN's Larry King Live, Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced that when her radio contract expires at the end of the year, she will not seek to renew it. Schlessinger said that she was ending her show in order to "regain my First Amendment rights." According to Schlessinger, in the wake of her racial screed last week, highlighted by Media Matters, "my First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups." [...]

On August 16, Media Matters released a joint statement with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Women's Media Center, and UNITY Journalists of Color, condemning Schlessingers comments and stating that "This week, we will hold these advertisers accountable and find out exactly where they stand." Today, Motel 6 announced that in the wake of her comments, it would be severing its relationship with the radio host. [...]

Asked how her freedom of speech was being denied by criticism of her comments, Schlessinger explained that "I don't have the right to say what I need to say. My First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don't want to debate, they want to eliminate. So, that's why I decided it was time to move on to other venues where I could say my piece and not have to live in fear anymore that sponsors and their families are going to be upset, radio stations are going to be upset, my peeps, as I call them, are going to be upset."

Schlessinger went on to criticize Media Matters directly. After King referenced "this group that was after you, Media Matters," Schlessinger said, "well, that's their job in life." She also said that a list of advertisers contacted by Media Matters who distanced themselves from Schlessinger due to her comments "proves my point." She also called Media Matters a "special interest group" that "decide[d] I should be silenced because they disagree with my point of view."

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »

Timothy Karr has a nice summation of Sen. Al Franken's keynote speech at Netroots Nation this year.

Sen. Franken to the Netroots: Only You Can Stop the Corporate Takeover of Free Speech:

Over the weekend, Sen. Al Franken (D.-Minn.) made the corporate takeover of our media, and the government's acquiescence to these corporations, frighteningly clear. Franken told more than 2,000 bloggers and organizers attending the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas that our media system is at risk everywhere we turn - from our free speech online to the growing power of companies who own a massive number of media outlets. Read on...

Al did a fantastic job. Part one is above. Parts two, three and four are below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (335)

PLAYS: (259)

Embed

Surprise, surprise, former Bushie Fran Townsend thinks this ruling by the Supreme Court is just wonderful. Common Dreams issued this press release which countered Townsend's praise of the decision.

Supreme Court Criminalizes Speech in Ruling in Patriot Act Case:

NEW YORK and WASHINGTON - June 21 - Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to criminalize speech in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the first case to challenge the Patriot Act before the highest court in the land, and the first post-9/11 case to pit free speech guarantees against national security claims. Attorneys say that under the Court’s ruling, many groups and individuals providing peaceful advocacy could be prosecuted, including President Carter for training all parties in fair election practices in Lebanon. President Carter submitted an amicus brief in the case.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case back to the lower court for review; Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. The Court held that the statute's prohibitions on "expert advice," "training," "service," and "personnel" were not vague, and did not violate speech or associational rights as applied to plaintiffs' intended activities. Plaintiffs sought to provide assistance and education on human rights advocacy and peacemaking to the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey, a designated terrorist organization. Multiple lower court rulings had found the statute unconstitutionally vague.

...Said CCR Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal, “The Court’s decision confirms the extraordinary scope of the material support statute’s criminalization of speech. But it also notes that the scope of the prohibitions may not be clear in every application, and that remains the case for the many difficult questions raised at argument but dodged by today’s opinion, including whether publishing an op-ed or submitting an amicus brief in court arguing that a group does not belong on the list is a criminal act. The onus is now on Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that humanitarian groups may engage in human rights advocacy, training in non-violent conflict resolution, and humanitarian assistance in crisis zones without fearing criminal prosecution.”

Contrary to that opinion, former Bushie Fran Townsend thought this was "tremendous win for not only the United States but for the current administration". Never mind those pesky legal implications where those doing humanitarian work could get sucked in by this as well. As the Common Dreams article noted, President Carter could now be prosecuted for monitoring free elections in Lebanon.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (895)

PLAYS: (3817)

Embed

Keith talks to Rep. Alan Grayson who has introduced five bills in anticipation of this Supreme Court ruling which gives corporations the same rights as citizens in regard to free speech and 1st Amendment rights. You can also go sign Grayson's petition Save Democracy here.

OLBERMANN: In anticipation of today`s ruling, one Democratic in Congress, Alan Grayson of Florida, having introduced five bills last week, in an effort to prevent the expected flood of corporate cash. By title, they are: the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act, the Public Company Responsibility Act, the End Political Kickbacks Act, the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, and last but certainly not least, the Ending Corporate Collusion Act.

Congressman Grayson joins us now.

Thank you once again for your time tonight, sir.

GRAYSON: Thank you.

OLBERMANN: You were in the courtroom when the Supreme Court announced this decision. What`s your reaction to the decision? What has the reaction been to your five bills?

GRAYSON: I`m shocked. I`m shocked by the decision. This is the most irresponsible decision by the Supreme Court since the Dred Scott decision.

OLBERMANN: Agreed.

GRAYSON: . over 100 years ago. The one that you referred to, the Dred Scott decision has some analogy to it. In the Dred Scott decision, the court decided that slaves and their free born children do not have any constitutional rights.

Today, the court, in effect, decided only corporations have constitutional rights. This will lead to a drowning flood of money from corporations in exchange for favors. And it basically institutionalizes and legalizes bribery on the largest scale imaginable. Corporations will now be able to reward the politicians that play ball with them and will be able -- they will be able to beat to death the politicians that don`t.

Continue reading »