well said.

tk

Once again Allan, you have very eloquently stated the obvious. Of course we have the right to speak, believe, worship, et al in the manner in which we see fit--that is one of the core principles upon which this country rests.

When I read your essay on the first amendment, I find myself agreeing completely. Take it to the next level for me. Tell me what YOU think about Mr. Sheen's and The Dippie Chicks views.

You spoke very effectively about consequences. How each action we take (or refrain from taking) results in consequences. While those consequences may be significant, they also may be trivial. (e.g. If you decide to flush before you wipe, you may have to flush twice, but little else besides a bit of water and time is wasted)

I was quite disappointed that you did not extend the concept of the penalty of consequences from action (or inaction) as it relates to the decision of our government to take pro-active measures against the Iraqi government.

On the one hand, it can be argued that by pre-emptively striking Iraq we may cause the acceleration of the consequences we seek to prevent through this action. On the other hand, perhaps doing nothing is tantamount to "burying our head in the sand" as it were, and only provides the forces aligning against us the time and breathing room necessary to gather the resources and resolve to strike a more devastating blow against us--albeit perhaps not as soon.

It is a complicated question: do we initiate conflict with a largely insignificant country, not disparate from many other developing countries in that it is ruled by less-than-savory personalities, or do we stand idly by and hope for the best? Are Martin Sheen and the cavalcade of entertainment icons correct when they espouse their idealogy from decades gone by of peace, love and understanding? Why can we not give peace a chance?

Being an American, I default to the libertarian value of non-interference with those whose actions to not violate my own rights to peaceably engage in the activities that comprise my life. But, as a matter of policy, the concerns of the world community, United Nations resolutions, peace treatries, international posturing and all the myriad intracacies that are as the many ingredients in some great dish prepared by a master chef, I opt to defer to the wisdom and authority of the people elected by the constitutional processes that have sustained our society for over 200 years.

In short, when the people who are in the know believe that action is warranted, it is my duty as an American to support that decision while it is being carried out. My responsibility--my duty--as an American is to determine whether or not I wish to allow the steering wheel of my nation to be controlled by the same driver when the time comes for that decision to be made.

The only time in our country's history when we have lost a military action is when the population decided that they were unwilling to support the actions of it's government.

Whatever our feelings on the impending invasion and deposition of the Iraqi government, it is outside the purview of the citizenry to embolden our enemies by rallying behind the battle cry of the few.

And just to set the record straight: I hope they burn Saddam's carcass in public view. I smell pay-per-view.

Maybe we could get Osama to join in, and make it a double-header.

---Travis Leake

I think you may have missed the point a little on McCarthyism. The blacklists were not maintained or enforced by the government. As I understand it, people who exercised their rights to not cooperate with the McCarthy committee (by maintaining their innocence or not naming people they associated with) were subsequently discriminated against. In general, if someone says "I disagree with the government on ______" and is fired, that does not seem to be good for democracy. Although, I see your point that companies want their spokespeople to not be controversial, the larger issue may not be as black and white as you argue.

Travis and Philip, you have both brought up excellent points. Stay tuned for a thoughtful reply in an upcoming essay. :-)

--Allan

PS: ...And, thanks to everyone else who has responded, both publicly (Hi, Tony) and privately (Hi,

+ An advertiser's aversion to controversy is not the same as McCarthyism. And while Sheen's rights should not be abridged, nor should his responsibility. +

Excellent thought provoking article. I worry very much that the free exchange of ideas in America will be curtailed, more by the operation of private enterprise than by the machinations of government. While advertisers driving Bill Maher off the air for saying something controversial is perfectly legal, our nation is the poorer for the lack of access to different perspectives.

Censorship, like leadership, depends on the consent of the governed. I'd prefer that we, the governed, err on the side of having too many voices in the national debate, rather than too few.

Jonathan

PS Why do the advertisers continue to line up to be on Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy's shows? I guess some flavors of controversy sell more orange juice than others.

A thought provoking piece Allan. I’ve been thinking through my response for a while so let me commit something to paper (or the web as it were) and I’ll try to keep an open mind to listen to any responses.

First, I'll take issue with the idea that we must live with the consequences of what we do or don't do. It comes down to your definition of consequences and the type of decision you are making.

Let's take Pres. Bush's decision to invade Iraq and the two possibilities that Travis points out. If this causes radical terrorist groups to gain more members and ten years from now we are hit with another large terrorist attack, does then former Pres. Bush have to pay the consequences? I'm not so sure that he does.

Or lets take the case of a slightly different world. If Pres. Bush decided to ignore Iraq and, because of that decision, ten years from now terrorists used biological weapons created in Iraq to attack America, does then former Pres. Bush have to pay the consequences for not invading Iraq? Again, I don’t think that he does.

I would argue that those with power over others such as CEOs, elected officials, judges or other positions of responsibility often get to make decisions which they do not have to pay the full consequences for. They can affect the lives of others by laying them off, ordering them to war, sentencing them to death or freeing them. Yet any consequences to those making the decision with power are relatively small compared to the consequences to others.

On to free speech, I think the issues cited are concerning (assuming Visa pulled its ads for political reasons, not because it doesn’t have the money which is uncertain). If the Dixie Chicks had a song against the war, stations would have the right to decide whether to play it or not. Or if Martin Sheen used his show to express his opinion, then again I think sponsors would have the right to pull their advertising. But for people who express their opinions in one arena being denied their ability to do other things starts getting very close to black-listing. To bring up some other possibilities – could a radio station decide not to play an artist because he said he was a Christian and believed in Christ? Or decide not to cast someone in a movie because she had spoken at pro-life rallies? Now if Martin Sheen was the spokesperson in an ad for Visa I would hold that to a different standard, as he would be the face of Visa and they should be free to pick someone who represents their values (just as shoe companies can pick athletes that express their values).

Like Jonathan I am quite concerned about the free exchange of ideas in this country. We have become quite polarized and many issues have people on either side of two extremes when really the answer is not so clear-cut. Some of this is because of how we get our information - generally in short sound bites - and how few companies control that information flow (and it’s becoming fewer and fewer). Unfortunately our political leaders on both sides feel that the polarization is good for them, so they continue it and often exacerbate it. I believe we need to listen to more viewpoints, not fewer. Even if we disagree with those points of view, we can learn something and perhaps gain some understanding of others. Too often we (myself included) listen with the intent of defending our position rather than with the intent of understanding the other’s position and perhaps modifying ours based on new information. As the bumper sticker says “A Mind is Like a Parachute: It Only Works When Open.”

I thought this article was concise and very well-spoken. I also think that there is more than one issue here.

For example, the member of the Dixie Chicks was forced to apologize for her comments before the stations would play their music again. She agreed, but was this because she really felt sorry, or because the other members of her group were also facing the consequences of her actions? It gets sticky because what a person says often affects more than just them.

That said, I will not only always speak about what I believe, but defend to the death a person's right to free speech, even if I am against everything they have to say. If only one view is heard the world is a poorer place for it.