Quote:
Originally Posted by Muncle
And then there is the standard reply to spee4ch with which one disagrees. You may have the right to say it, but I do not have to listen nor does society owe you a platform for that speech. Case in point were the rantings of Ward Churchill. I firmly believe that he had a right to say what he said, whether he actually believed all his polemics, but I was sorry the press publicized him so much, and I fault the Colorado university system for providing his platform. The same applies to Ann Coulter. Whether you agree with her or not, she has a right to her views and her writings. However, no publisher has a duty to print her books, certainly no one has to buy the or read her columns, and no television or radio show must give Ann her platform. In both cases above, when their expected platforms were denied, both cried "Freedom of Speech." Both were wrong.
|
I am in full agreement about Churchill and Coulter that "both were wrong" in crying about denial of freedom of speech. "Crying" is an apt word in this case! Ironic to see these two names mentioned in the same context. I have long been of the thinking that so-called funnies like "Doonesbury" and "Mallard Fillmore" belong not on the funnies page but rather on the editorial page. The first (and I might add 'only') time I ever read Ward Churchill and Ann Coulter, it crossed my mind that writings like these belong not on the editorial page but on the funnies page....