In Reply to: The U.S. vs. John Lennon posted by Duilawyer on March 30, 2007 at 08:38:55:
I'm not sure whose thinking you find convoluted. To my mind, it's Rosy's. But, based on your reasoning, I guess you would also defend Joe McCarthy's right to brand people "communists" and ruin their lives?Rosy DESERVES to be fired. If we can't see that, then we have truly lost our way. People, particulary those on television, do have the right of free speech. But they have a duty and obligation, by virtue of using the "public's airwaves," to speak responsibly.
Free speech has it limits. Drug manufacturer's can't promote cures that their medicines can't deliver. Advertiser's cannot mislead or deceive the public. Rosy O'Donnell cannot go around pretending that things that are demonstrably FALSE are the gospel truth.
Whatever free speech means, even if it gives a person the license to completely disregard the simple groundrules of public discourse (like, for instance, knowing what the f___ you're talking about before you open your big mouth on national television), it certainly does not prevent ABC (is that the network?) from exercising it's own free speech and showing this moron the door.
You know, we have really come to a very sorry state of affairs when so many people in this country base their opinions and political decisions on mere heresay, and when newspapers and politicians are only too willing to exploit it for their own agendas. It makes me sick. And Rosy O'Donnell, and people like her, make me even sicker.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Rosy's right to say ... - halfnote 23:05:46 03/30/07 (2)
- I do not even know WHAT Rosy said. That is the point/ - Duilawyer 09:22:29 03/31/07 (1)
- Re: Naziism - halfnote 10:14:05 03/31/07 (0)