It is being reported at the moment on the Drudge Report that in an upcoming interview President Bush said the following:
As a free speech advocate, I often told parents who were complaining about content, you're the first line of responsibility; they put an off button on the TV for a reason. Turn it off... Government can, at times, not censor, but call to account programming that gets over the line. The problem , of course, is the definition of 'over the line'
I know people don't think so, but as far as I'm concerned that's the "conservative" (in the small-government, Goldwater sense) view on freedom of speech. That's part of why my conservatism led me to become a libertarian. I know there are some on the left (and other places of the "spectrum" that might not be described as right or left but most vocally not right) who think conservatism has a totalitarian view toward freedom of speech, and I know there are some on the right who seem to think so, too, and evidence such an attitude. But in my view, that's not what conservatism stands for.
Since the Drudge report is not a static site, here's a link to the story on someone's independent archives.
Err, I've got to clarify, I don't think the government properly has a role even in calling to account abuse of freedom of speech. I do believe that government officials in their role as citizens have such a role. I don't believe they should be prohibited from holding their personal opinions.
We complicate things because of the belief that in order to be utilized the radio spectrum must be publicly held and regulated by the government through such means as the FCC, which then gives some credence to the idea that this public resource must not be used in ways unapproved by its collective owners. I'm not yet sure how I feel about all of this, and would much prefer an alternative that makes the spectrum usable without any government intervention.
What makes me happy and, I hope, piques some interest, is that in the beginning of the quote, when the President says people with a problem with programming should turn it off, he doesn't sound any different from leftists who hate him and decry censorship and attribute it to him.
It's showing up elsewhere in the news, now. And I like this one, which begins, "It seems that President Bush and Howard Stern have something in common -- both feel the first line of defense for protecting against indecent material reaching children starts with good parenting." That's the point I'm trying to get at.
I can only hope that he fixes the FCC...in either sense of the word.
Re:No, Bush believes in FREER speech than you do
jdavidb on 2005-01-31T03:15:30
I believe that morally speech needs to be honest. I do not believe in using government to enforce my morality. Those are two separate issues.
Re:No, Bush believes in FREER speech than you do
yudel on 2005-01-31T06:58:19
And that's just what's so wonderful!
You believe in honesty, and the government doesn't.
You believe the government shouldn't enforce morality, and the government does!Re:No, Bush believes in FREER speech than you do
yudel on 2005-01-31T21:15:13
I'm sorry. On re-reading, I may not have made clear that I am speaking with bitter sarcasm and deep anger.
I see a cabinet official practicing politics of anti-tolerance and hatred, I see a united Party controlling all branches of the government and dominating the Media, and I fear that my safety in this country is dependent on the good will of folks like Jerry Fallwell and James Dobson.
Sometimes, my fear and anger and sorrow gets the better of my clarity.Re:No, Bush believes in FREER speech than you do
jdavidb on 2005-01-31T22:30:37
I see a cabinet official practicing politics of anti-tolerance and hatred
Perhaps I could more easily see what you saw if you made less assumptions about what framework we share. Who, exactly, is practicing anti-tolerance and hatred?
Jerry Falwell scares me to death, but if we are dependent on James Dobson, I'd say we are in good hands. His books and broadcasts have done some great things for my marriage. You're not anti-tolerant and hating of him, are you?
Dobson
yudel on 2005-02-01T23:20:01
I can't speak to the quality of Dobson's family work. Here's a site that seems to speak highly of that aspect of his ministry, while voicing my concerns about his role as a political player:
When we began Focus, in 1977, the seven founders had only two objectives: (1) To help Americans raise their children and (2) to help us maintain our marriages. Millions of Americans would say that James Dobson has made a tremendous contribution in those two areas. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding his harmful foray into big-time politics.
I believe Dobson-style politics have been inept, simplistic, exclusionary, divisive and alarmingly sectarian. Mr. Dobson has shown little respect for our pluralistic system, for differing views or for the core skill of compromise and consensus building. That is un-American.
James Dobson's political style has been one of relentlessly demonizing his adversaries. And he has created the impression that the pathway to national moral reform leads through the legislative machinery of Washington. That is unchristian.Re:Dobson
jdavidb on 2005-02-02T22:43:20
Very, very interesting, but I have trouble accepting that speech as serious when it states, "I apologize to African Americans and other ethnic minorities who are concerned by the continuing vestiges of intolerance in the land and by the dangerous role James Dobson, a wealthy, powerful, white, heterosexual male, plays in promoting intolerance." I can accept that Dobson portrays attitudes that some might deem intolerant of women, gays, and non-Christians. I cannot accept that he portrays an attitude of intolerance toward African Americans. I have never seen this. If it exists, I would be most interested to know.
It sounds instead to me like a liberal woman who automatically assumes that political conservatism is oppressive to African Americans and many other social groups.
I admit that religion does not give anyone rights of coercion over another through politics, and that the commandment in the New Testament is to NOT judge those who are outside. But the best route to eliminating that kind of control is to prohibit the government from having those powers, anyway. And I don't see any current instances where religion in the United States is having any monstrously outrageous oppressive effects against United States citizens, although I admit there are still some things that need to be fixed.
