[Muncle]

Under the probably unwarranted assumption that there is no legal responsibility to do so, the ownership of VNN could provide Closed Captioning and it would be a real nice, friendly, charitable thing to do, but in my opinion, they have absolutely no moral responsibility to do so. Similarly, the Morse Family, as a unit or as individuals, could fund such an action. It would be nice, charitable, friendly (as above), they’d get a nice tax write-off, and maybe rack up a nice plenary indulgence. Connie Duff Wise or Cindy the Chevrolet lady could do the same. All these people can readily afford to provide CC to VNN, likely with little impact on their net worth if one can believe the prices quoted in the Slantenal, and it would be real sweet of them to do so. But none of these people have a moral obligation to provide closed captioning to VNN.

Red, many people tie the moral responsibility of the station owners to their financial status. Witness the inane inclusion of the Morse family’s ownership of a yacht and plane in the original column, as well as Morse‘s Republican contributions and connections. That is class warfare at its lowest, but it fits with the general tone. No one claims that you or I have this responsibility, but if they could swing the logistics, all the moral responsibility police would likely favor a tax on Bridgeport residents to fund their pet cause.

Like all else, it’s a personal opinion, but I don’t think that anyone is entitled to anything other than what they earn. An individual may be given something, be it via charity, inheritance, or whatever, but they have no moral right to it. As that old essay stated, everyone has a God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No more. Anything else is gravy, either earned or given to us. And since we have no moral right to anything else, no one has a moral obligation to provide it. They can do so, but it should be of their own volition.