Professor Richard Thompson Ford made a good point on Lou Dobbs tonight, on the relationship between the possible racist nature of the New York Post's cartoon, depicting a shot chimpanzee which actually represented the Stimulus bill over all.
He mentioned that whether the cartoon was in bad taste or was meant as racism or not, things like these are protected by the 1st Amendment and no matter whom it offends, that right is there.
I agree with Professor Ford's position, because once you start to trample over free speech, then you start to restrict and reduce that Right. The whole reason for the 1st amendment in our Country of the United States is to protect any and all free speech from regulation whether it is Government or it be some yahoo on the street who thinks their way is the only way and everyone else should fall in line.
Reverend Al Sharpton dully has the afforded Right to be offended by the cartoon since there is the possibility of racial intent, and the choice of the chimpanzee was definitely in poor taste. However Reverend Al Sharpton does not have the right to call for a Federal investigation by way of the FCC since it is protected free speech under the first amendment. As well he neither has the right to lump the cartoon free speech issue together with a person's right to own and regulate one or many News outlets. These are two totally different issues that Reverend Sharpton seems to have an ulterior motive for attacking.
I personally agree with the New York Post that the cartoon Chimpanzee represents the Stimulus Bill which is out of control like a chimpanzee. However in light of the fact that most people in this Country refuse or haven't let go of racism in general, the cartoon's artist and the Post's Editor should have been a little bit more sensitive to this fact. Yet in the end they spoke their mind in regards to free speech and I do not hold that point against them.
He mentioned that whether the cartoon was in bad taste or was meant as racism or not, things like these are protected by the 1st Amendment and no matter whom it offends, that right is there.
I agree with Professor Ford's position, because once you start to trample over free speech, then you start to restrict and reduce that Right. The whole reason for the 1st amendment in our Country of the United States is to protect any and all free speech from regulation whether it is Government or it be some yahoo on the street who thinks their way is the only way and everyone else should fall in line.
Reverend Al Sharpton dully has the afforded Right to be offended by the cartoon since there is the possibility of racial intent, and the choice of the chimpanzee was definitely in poor taste. However Reverend Al Sharpton does not have the right to call for a Federal investigation by way of the FCC since it is protected free speech under the first amendment. As well he neither has the right to lump the cartoon free speech issue together with a person's right to own and regulate one or many News outlets. These are two totally different issues that Reverend Sharpton seems to have an ulterior motive for attacking.
I personally agree with the New York Post that the cartoon Chimpanzee represents the Stimulus Bill which is out of control like a chimpanzee. However in light of the fact that most people in this Country refuse or haven't let go of racism in general, the cartoon's artist and the Post's Editor should have been a little bit more sensitive to this fact. Yet in the end they spoke their mind in regards to free speech and I do not hold that point against them.
|
|