Punishing speech is Unamerican
October 14, 2009
This evening my business partner confronted me about this blog. He was concerned that my political speech in this blog was bad for business. Several of his associates expressed to him their concern about my positions on various issues including health care, immigration reform, tax reform, environment and energy, right to bear arms, capital punishment and church and state. Several weeks ago I had a conference call with one of his more liberal friends who counseled me to use a pseudonym for my political speech. He tried to help me understand by offering an analogy suggesting that if one of my employees maintained a blog advocating sadism I would terminate his employment. He really viewed my speech as sadistic and recommended I hide behind a nom de plume.
Earlier today Rush Limbaugh’s business partner ended their relationship over a statement he made in 2006. It is troubling that the Left is working very hard to punish speech. This summer everyday Americans attended townhall meetings and when they expressed their opinions they were met by harsh rebukes by their Congressmen. Called everything from liars to brownshirts by their Senators and Representatives Americans were punished for speech. The Left won – they control the House, the Senate and the White House – why are they scared of dissent? Isn’t the Left supposed to be the guardian of speech?
The truth of the matter is that the Left DOES punish speech. My business partner is right – sharing my opinion in this blog IS bad for business. But I really believe what I write. I honestly believe that “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (thanks Edmund Burke) Too many conservatives sit quietly by as our liberal friends yell and scream. There is a place for political speech and frankly I don’t want to do business with anyone who wouldn’t do business with me if they knew my true character.
9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This is not about Rush’s opinions on health care, taxes etc.
It is about his use of incendiary, race-baiting remarks on the public airwaves. He is free to do it, but if his business partners feel it is harmful to their economic interests they are also free to disassociate from him. This is called capitalism.
Comment by Jeff Sontag — October 14, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
The First Amendment..
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances……..
Capitalism..
Capitalism can be based on the premise of laissez faire, where private individuals and businesses may freely use means of production to make profits through the exchange goods and services without intervention from the State– hence the terms “unfettered capitalism” or “free market.” The extent to which different markets are “free”, as well as the rules determining what may and may not be private property, is a matter of politics and policy and many states have what are termed “mixed economies.” Mixed economies refer to capitalism being mixed with economic planning or statism, with some considering statism the ideological opposite of capitalism[3] and others, such as anarcho-syndicalists, considering both, capitalism and statism ideologically similar and historically hard to discern.
Personal Feelings…
If the “left” had their way the First Amendment would have ” My Way or the Highway” written into it. That might apply to the subject of capitalism, but certainly not to Free Speech. When I owned my dealerships, after ample consideration it was always
“My Way or the Highway.” Now I dont have a dog in the race, but I do know I would rather have partners and customers who look me in the eye, tell it like it is, and let me and others know where they stand, than some weak sucks always pandering to public opinion.
If it cost me business, perhaps I should look closer at my business. If I am providing top knotch service at a competitive price, it really shouldn’t matter that much..
I have employed a Jewish lawfirm for over 25 years, have a Mexican national that provides home lawn service for 10 years, a VERY conservative CPA for 20 years, a dentist who is reworking my mouth who is a Muslim, and one of my best friends is a bleeding heart left winger, and to top it off, Im a redneck who married a beauty queen who would rather go to a Beauty Pagent than a Cowboy game. They all know where I stand, we continue to do business together, live together and mostly respect each other views..
As I said, dont have a dog in the race, maybe my mouth is one of the reasons, but I sleep real damn good, when I sleep…
Comment by Robert L. Guenther — October 14, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Alexander, this is the first time I’ve responded to you about an opinion, but I think your contention that the left punishes free speech is bizarre. I can’t follow your example at all. Who was punished for attending town hall? What was the punishment? If there was a single example, I haven’t heard about it.
I did, however, see a lot of people on the RIGHT engaged in organized efforts to shout down their representatives, which is about as unAmerican as you can get, and certainly doesn’t fit into my definition of “free speech.”
Comment by Hank Mishkoff — October 14, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
Alexander,
I second Hank’s statement. Bizarre is an accurate descriptor.
Comment by Ryan — October 15, 2009 @ 12:51 am
Alexander: Did you delete your Facebook account? Or is yet another infamous FB glitch? Hope it’s the latter.
Comment by Hank Mishkoff — October 15, 2009 @ 6:43 am
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…….
So has Congress made a law abridging Rush’s right to exercise free speech? I didn’t think so.
If you don’t think people are sometimes made to pay in the private sector because others don’t like the things they’ve said, ask a Dixie Chick. They’re from Dallas.
Comment by Pug — October 15, 2009 @ 8:16 am
It should let you know – how marginal ‘we’ are.
Comment by S. Wesley Mcgranor — October 15, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
So you’re saying we should enact legislation in order to make sure people don’t let their personal feelings about someone’s political blog affect their free choice in how they spend their money?
Your business partner isn’t wrong, btw. This blog gives me an insight into your personality and your ability to construct logical arguments. Also? You’re tweeting new posts from an account linked to your business. It does affect my thinking about your products, as I’m sure it does many others.
Comment by nostrum — October 15, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Alexander, let’s agree, I never suggested you fire the hypothetical employee with the hypothetical “sadist” blog. I asked you what you would do if confronted with the situation. You said, “I would fire them.” I asked why and you replied, “it’s my company…my prerogative…”
Fair enough.
I never compared your political views to those of a sadist. I never judged the views of the hypothetical employee with the sadist blog. As far as I knew, we were having a discussion about branding and social media. In that context, I did advise a nom de plume, but not to hide behind.
My advice was professionally, not politically, driven. I respect your passion and engagement in the conversation of our politic. America is better when we are involved, regardless the differences of our opinions.
As it goes with my advice, I stand by it. I think the current events relating to Mister Limbaugh and the NFL put my advice in stark relief. This is not about speech. Mister Limbaugh has one of the biggest microphones on the planet. No one is stopping him from saying whatever he wishes. The more poignant point, I believe, is: what are the consequences of said speech?
With Mister Limbaugh we now know. The commissioner and owners rejected him.
When markets make up their minds, politics are irrelevant.
Your dilemma, like Limbaugh’s, is an emerging issue in the world of web 2.0. More and more, brands are being held accountable in ways they historically are not accustomed to. Given the customers access to a brand’s vector, via twitter, facebook and the rest, smart brands are listening, conversing topically, not hyperbolically.
Best,
Steven Fowler
Comment by steven fowler — October 15, 2009 @ 7:10 pm