Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Quoting Goldstein: Freedom of the Press

Regarding yet another violation of the freedom of the press regarding college publications, Dr. Jeff Goldstein says (emphasis added):

Control the message and you control all. And if the last few years have taught us anything, it is that free speech is appreciated far more in theory than in practice by those who have a vested interest in retaining control of a narrative—or in shaping new narratives to reinforce their agendas.

In the case of university administrators, they tend to be happiest when the perception of their campus is one of happy diversity—so long as the diversity is superficial, and the collegiality is a result of tepid, non-offensive messages.

We have entered the age of the Stepford Campus, I’m afraid. And we must either fight back, or else give up the old system as terminally ill and move on to something new.

Quite well said.

Although this would not be the best place to put this, this somewhat reminds me of a joke Our father told Us not too long ago. He was speaking with a member of the Pakistani press community who complained to Our father that in previous regimes the press was not allowed to speak freely. Now, under President Musharraf, that the press can speak freely, no one's listening to them.

We would rather media be free yet ignored than stifled and oppressed. We also find it to be the height of hypocrisy that institutions devoted to debate, higher education, higher learning, diversity, and dialogue would find it acceptable to stifle the freedom of the press. We also find it unacceptable and hypocritical that these same people accuse Republicans, conservatives, Bush, The Government, and other entities, of stifling debate and dialogue in a fascist manner. The fact they can air these views and can excoriate Bush and his administration, no matter how full of lies their statements may be, proves, indeed, that these claims of censorship are plainly wrong. Deplorable and untenable. And utterly ridiculous indeed.

innaa naHnu-l-a'lam. wa jiff gholdasteen innaa huwa-l-a'lam.


At 1:30 PM, Blogger Wickedpinto said...

The misrepresentations of, especially, the first ammendment in all ways is based on the idea that there is only one protected speech, that being "dissent" or whatever a small group of people define as "good speech."

The problem arises by the fact that if you have two people legaly present in the same area expressing themselves, one for the purpose of information, the other with the intent of insulting, denouncing and drowning out the first, who's rights are protected? Well actually truth is that the crazy mob screaming is actually acting criminal, not because the state disagree's with them, but because they are acting in violation of the 9th ammendment by suppressing the speech of the second party, buy the use of speech.

The rights, all of the rights, exist only in context that the excercise of those rights does not violate the rights of others. If one is excercising a right only for the purpose of limiting the rights of another, they are commiting a crime, though what they are doing is, in effect, a right guaranteed in the constitution (as long as it doesn't come in violation with the 9th ammendment.)

Like Ace likes to use "this word you use "unconstitutional" I don't think it means what you think it means." If you invoke the constitution, you have to invoke the WHOLE constitution.

This is a pet peeve peave whatever of mine.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home