FOX News Calls White Supremacist, Holocaust Denier and Anti-Semite a 'Free Speech Activist'

[Heracles 417]

Quite right, you don't have to take anything I write seriously. Whether you do or you don't is entirely within your hands. I have the freedom to write anything at all - well, in this instance so long as I remain within the TOS. I think you have got it now.

You must have been educated at this school.

[Peikko 1,575]

...getting back to the OP - is there anyone here who is openly defending Fox News for interviewing Mr. Fromm as an expert of free speech, given the man's background? Seriously... and who gives a flying f##k if it's CNN, CBN, or Fox. There's never a shortage of criticism aimed at other news organization over a myriad of issues and nobody calls them CNN haters...geezuz some people need to get a grip.

Would you say you are an American liberal or not? yes or no.

Warning! the next part will be seen as a tangent / offtopic.

I find it funny I expected that fox would get condemned for interviewing / showing this guy whatever.

Now on a subtopic, Jon Voight recently voiced his conservative views in the open. Look at the freakin response he got from so many libs. Gezz.. The responses to his views just reinforces my belief that freedom of speech in America is no longer about the intended, the original, definition of the Amendment. That is, Freedom of political speech. Freedom to voice political views. But is now about the bastardized version of freedom to do as one pleases. Such as ####### like run around naked while ridiculing the intelligence of someone religious etc. Or freedom of gay members to dress up as the 12 apostles and mock the last super. Yet how dare! Jon Voight have his own political opinion. Who does he think he is.. Does he not realize he is in Hollywood..

This sort of ####### is the reason that America is losing face overseas. Where someone voicing their political views is banished and castrated. Yet someone ridiculing and mocking, for example, the 4 billion people who are religious is cheered on. Which raises to questions. Does freedom of speech apply to all? and should we draw a line in the sand of what is acceptable and what is not, like most other countries have done on topics such as hate?

So, your point of view is that the only freedom of speach that should be allowed is in the political context and that when someone makes a political speach no one is allowed to critisize it? Are you sure you're not a closet commie?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well to call this a "liberal" thing would be yet another simplification - given the media assault that Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Tom Cruise and Rosie O'Donnell etc received for their exercise of free speech.

What I really don't understand about all this is the tribal mentality that comes out whenever a particular network (or indeed a celebrity) is subjected to legitimate criticism. It seems we can't even criticise Fox in relation to its handling of a specific story (i.e. the OP post) without it being necessary for someone to to turn it around and say "so what - CNN, MSNBC, NPR... blahdeblahdeblah".

If you don't have any emotional attachment or indeed any loyalty to any of those networks (and to be honest I really don't) this sort of ####### for tat assumption and tearing down of things that other people are assuming you have some sort of attachment to is... well.. bizarre.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Certainly the selection of Fromm. to serve in that capacity is a little strange to say the least.

Calling Fromm an expert on free speech is like calling John Gotti an expert on law-enforcement.

Exactly. And this certainly speaks to the quality of editorial decision-making.

[Heracles 417]

So, your point of view is that the only freedom of speach that should be allowed is in the political context and that when someone makes a political speach no one is allowed to critisize it? Are you sure you're not a closet commie?

No for both.

Freedom of speech refers to freedom to express political views. As is the case in most free and democratic nations. Anyone who has studied history and considered where the founding fathers were from would assume that this was a given back then. They never contemplated a few hundred years later you would have people abusing this amendment to protect ####### like porn. Yes people should be free to do and say as they please but in a civilized way, with some sort of limits. I don't agree with the bastardized version of permission to do absolutely anything you want.

You will not find too many countries that have a ALCU equivalents who defend child molesters. Or place where pure hatred is protected by freedom of speech laws. A no holds barred, anything goes, approach to speech is why you have clowns like David Ernest Duke out there. At some point common sense should kick in.

Left wing, right wing whatever. For me it is a matter of principle. A matter of common sense. Something many obviously lack in 2008.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Aficionado

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Clearly common sense was not present when an extremist was cited as a "Free Speech Activist".

[Peikko 1,575]

So, your point of view is that the only freedom of speach that should be allowed is in the political context and that when someone makes a political speach no one is allowed to critisize it? Are you sure you're not a closet commie?

No for both.

Freedom of speech refers to freedom to express political views. As is the case in most free and democratic nations. Anyone who has studied history and considered where the founding fathers were from would assume that this was a given back then. They never contemplated a few hundred years later you would have people abusing this amendment to protect ####### like porn. Yes people should be free to do and say as they please but in a civilized way, with some sort of limits. I don't agree with the bastardized version of permission to do absolutely anything you want.

You will not find too many countries that have a ALCU equivalents who defend child molesters. Or place where pure hatred is protected by freedom of speech laws. A no holds barred, anything goes, approach to speech is why you have clowns like David Ernest Duke out there. At some point common sense should kick in.

Left wing, right wing whatever. For me it is a matter of principle. A matter of common sense. Something many obviously lack in 2008.

Ok let's say common sense should kick in, but exactly where? Excatly where you think it should? Let's take porn for instance, seeing as you brought it up. When you say 'porn' is proteced, what exactly do you mean? As far as I am aware there are restrictions on pornography. It's not a no holds barred all porn is allowed everywhere situation. Of course, like with everything there are people who don't hold with the rules that are in place but, in place they are and for the most part I would suggest that unless you are some religious fundamentalist the rules/restrictions are fairly sensible.

What you can't do is impose regulations on the entire population based on your personal prejudices - well, you can try of course, but why you would be surprised that everyone doesn't go along with it beats me.