Tuesday, April 10, 2007
How Sorry is Don Imus?
There has been National media coverage on the racial remarks that radio host Don Imus made about Rutgers University women's basketball team but is this becoming junk news like mostly everything else in the media nowadays?
I don't know if I agree that Imus's freedom of speech has been denied but I do know that the comments he made were not called for. Racists or not, I don't know but the thing about it is the whole shutting him up for two weeks, but what NBC has failed to realize is that he is taking an apology tour and those basketball players will have to hear this story and those comments repeated over and over again, so where is the true apology?
The whole story is a perfect example of how a person can take the idea of freedom of speech to another level and abuse it.
Rosie O'Donnell said best: "Radio is not a right, it's a privilege."
There are a lot of good YouTube postings and I wish I could show you all of them but here is one that I thought covered the story better than some.
Let me know what you think!!
I don't know if I agree that Imus's freedom of speech has been denied but I do know that the comments he made were not called for. Racists or not, I don't know but the thing about it is the whole shutting him up for two weeks, but what NBC has failed to realize is that he is taking an apology tour and those basketball players will have to hear this story and those comments repeated over and over again, so where is the true apology?
The whole story is a perfect example of how a person can take the idea of freedom of speech to another level and abuse it.
Rosie O'Donnell said best: "Radio is not a right, it's a privilege."
There are a lot of good YouTube postings and I wish I could show you all of them but here is one that I thought covered the story better than some.
Let me know what you think!!
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Check it Out

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/index.html
The above website sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, has dedicated this website to free speech and National cases invovlig free speech. This organiztion is also dedicated to protecting free speech. People who search these sites are able take actionand write their own comments and participate in the cause.
The above website sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, has dedicated this website to free speech and National cases invovlig free speech. This organiztion is also dedicated to protecting free speech. People who search these sites are able take actionand write their own comments and participate in the cause.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Donald Trump attacks the Bush Administration!
Somebody please let me know should Donald Trump fear for his life??!!
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Not Such an April's Fools for Indiana Teacher and Correctional Officer
Two women, one a journalism teacher, and one a correctional officer, were facing termination from their jobs because of Free Speech.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/17005912.htm
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14265704&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416045&rfi=6
The teacher was suspended because she let one of her high school students put out a report supporting homosexuals, and the correctional officer was suspended because she told the press the truth about how bad the conditions in the prison were.
Both women claim that their right of Freedom of Speech was violated. I agree with both cases. Their Freedom of Speech has been restricted, because in both cases because their superiors have set certain rules for conduct they felt that those rules were broken.
In the teacher's case the school board felt that administration should have agreed and authorized for the article to be published in the school paper.
And in the lieutenant's case the correctional facility board felt that because she was a non-union employee she was an at will employee meaning she had to follow the guidelines to whatever the prison set forth; even if she did not agree with it.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/17005912.htm
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14265704&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416045&rfi=6
The teacher was suspended because she let one of her high school students put out a report supporting homosexuals, and the correctional officer was suspended because she told the press the truth about how bad the conditions in the prison were.
Both women claim that their right of Freedom of Speech was violated. I agree with both cases. Their Freedom of Speech has been restricted, because in both cases because their superiors have set certain rules for conduct they felt that those rules were broken.
In the teacher's case the school board felt that administration should have agreed and authorized for the article to be published in the school paper.
And in the lieutenant's case the correctional facility board felt that because she was a non-union employee she was an at will employee meaning she had to follow the guidelines to whatever the prison set forth; even if she did not agree with it.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Glorification Is Not Free Speech
A House of Commons is proposing that glorifying terrorism should be considered a crime. A proposal critics fear would erode freedom of speech and alienate Muslims.
http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=20314
An expert in national-security law at the University of Ottawa,Craig Forcese, states:
But individuals charged under such a provision could argue it violates
their freedom of speech under the Constitution.
"I'd be shocked if it weren't a violation of free speech."
Forcese warned the provision could ensnare individuals in Canada with tenuous links to terrorism, such as people expressing support for an aboriginal protest.
But Conservative MP Gord Brown, who chaired the subcommittee that reviewed the act, played down the risks of such abuses.
"Nobody's talking about using it for that type of charge," he said.
"This is to deal with terrorist activity."
Some Muslim groups are worried that anti-glorification measures could unfairly target their community.
http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=20314
An expert in national-security law at the University of Ottawa,Craig Forcese, states:
But individuals charged under such a provision could argue it violates
their freedom of speech under the Constitution.
"I'd be shocked if it weren't a violation of free speech."
Forcese warned the provision could ensnare individuals in Canada with tenuous links to terrorism, such as people expressing support for an aboriginal protest.
But Conservative MP Gord Brown, who chaired the subcommittee that reviewed the act, played down the risks of such abuses.
"Nobody's talking about using it for that type of charge," he said.
"This is to deal with terrorist activity."
Some Muslim groups are worried that anti-glorification measures could unfairly target their community.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)