You @#%$@#^& Nutbag: Our Freedom to Criticize

I'm not sure this is news, but Americans love their freedom of speech--mostly as it applies to criticizing others. Whether the criticism is for the President for choosing to appear on the View or the mayor for a quote he made, people online and "live" are all over it. Modern media probably couldn't exist without it and certainly is encouraging of it. Still, is it that people are afraid that their freedoms are being taken away and so they are getting in their final digs before the socialist-, Nazi-, Big Brother, Corporate-, Dictatorial-Government boot finally comes down? Or is it that Americans are predisposed to believe that their ideas and opinions are as valid as anyone elses, regardless of the subject and without regard of anyone elses' feelings?

In any case, all this critic-speak and punditicism seems to be leading to cautious action or poor action from our political leaders--fearing they will either lose power or cede power to the other side. We the people do not play by the same rules (and perhaps why we are so "mouthy"). To illustrate my point, think of a decision you make every day--going to work, taking your child to school, whatever. Now imagine if the roof of your house were removed if and giants were looking in on you as you were getting ready to do your daily routine. How weird would it be for someone to tell you how to dress or what to feed your child? Yet every day we opine about other people and their choices like somehow we know better than them what is best for them to do.

In the political realm this makes politicans do nutty things like making legislation that made sense when proposed into legislation that is, well, not very good. Thinking back a few years, do you think the "doughnut hole" in Medicare magically appeared? Probably not. Probably a perfectly well-crafted bill was watered down because of well-orchestrated criticism. So, rather than scrap the whole bill, legislatorive staff hammered out the details to make the buill palatable until, guess what, there was a doughnut hole in Medicare.

I'll grant you that being the President or the mayor carries extra weight than the rest of us carry, but it does not mean that their humanity should be sacrificed in the wake of someone else needing to express their opinion. And it certainly goes double for others whose opinion you choose to slash in burn as a comment to a newspaper or over the phone when you call in to speak on a radio talk show.

I do not suggest that people shouldn't be critical of others. That would be hypocritical coming from a blogger like me--particularly as I am currently being critical of others (maybe even you, I don't know). I do suggest that being critical should also balanced with a recognition that we are all human beings and should be treated with respect. I have failed on this point in the past and likely will in the future. However, if we can't hold out higher standards for ourselves, what good is all the freedom?

And, by the way, in the unlikely event that our freedom of speech is going to be taken away in the near future by whomever--to that oppressor I respectfully say in advance, go f!@k yourself.

Protest Press Conference Scheduled Tuesday

PRESS CONFERENCE: FREE SPEECH ON THE PED MALL
Iowa City, IA – On June 1, 2010, Iowa City Council will be considering a third reading to reduce the free speech zone of the Ped Mall to appease business interests that lobbied its members. We find this to be abhorrent to the 1st amendment Rights of all Iowa Citians and ask the City Council to reconsider passing this ordinance. On June 1st at 6:30 pm in front of City Hall, Citizens United for Free Speech will have a press conference to present our side of the story. Members of Iowa Citizen's for Community Improvement, the ACLU, the Bill of Right's Coordinating Committee, FAIR!, as well as street performers and fund-raisers for non-profit groups who will be affected by enacting a more rigorous "aggressive panhandling" ordinance will also be on hand.

As of the release of this notice, the current ordinance has not resulted in the citation or arrest of one person that it was intended to address. Our group is calling for a review of the enforcement of the current ordinance and asks the City Council to delay the last reading of the ordinance until more facts that would justify the action are presented by those who desire the law changed. We will share our survey results (see: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/J6LHR7G) that shows few Iowa City residents or visitors find the Ped Mall to be a dangerous place or unappealing to visit and because the impact for any group seeking goodwill donations will be permanently impacted by the Council's decision, believe this is a "solution seeking a problem."

Last month, the Mayor of Seattle, Washington, Bill McGinn, noted about the aggressive panhandling bill that he vetoed and his City Council backed up, "Although being asked for money on the street can be uncomfortable, it isn't illegal and the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that this is protected speech." He also noted his concern that the law would be leveraged unfairly against those who were perceived to be a threat. We share his concerns.

A Dickens of a City Council Meeting in Iowa City Tonight

The issue of what to do about panhandling and other annoyances on the Ped Mall in Iowa City will likely to come to a head tonight with a group of ICCI and FAIR! members asking the city council to delay a vote on the issue citing a lack of data to make the decision. Council member Terry Dickens has largely led the charge for the Downtown Assocation (DTA) to make panhandlers, musicians and others to stay 20 feet away from store fronts on the Ped Mall and 10 feet everywhere else in Iowa City.

There are numerous considerations on this issue:

- Does this significantly reduce free speech and right to assembly?
- Is the city essentially "selling off" public property to unfairly advantage a group of business people in a particular area of town?
- Is this fair to other downtown businesses?
- Is a council member using his vote in direct conflict of interest to his office?

Hear Mr. Dickens own words on this issue. He "pays dearly" for his store's corner location and for having panhandlers who are near his store who also recognize it's prime location value. Is his profit motive clouding his judgment?



People who wish to speak to this issue should plan to arrive at 6:45 pm for the council meeting which begins at 7 pm at Iowa City Hall at 200 Washington St. The agenda item is #18 and a second and third consideration will likely be voted on this evening, unless the council is compelled to await further input.

Do I Offend You?

Recently there has been a spate of stories about differences of opinion that have led to cries of outrage and people being offended. A story on the Des Moines Register website about public outcry over Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers buying advertising that offended religious persons, is such an example. However, nowhere in the Constitution do I see a sensibilities clause; in other words there is no freedom from being offended.

I will grant you there is a big gap between a difference of opinion and outright hate speech. In other words, I do believe that we have to be held accountable for our words when they are intentionally hurtful and leads to harm to another person.
But that does not mean that when my tender sensibilities (about the Chicago Cubs, for instance) are violated by a person whose opinion is polar opposite to mine (say a White Sox fan), I have the right to have the person from airing it.

The sticking point is how far in polite society do we let things go? Are the apparently politically motivated disruptions at health care town hall meetings (from both sides) offensive? Sure. Should they cause meetings to be stopped? Heck no. Just like in any circumstance where a heckler gets overly disruptive, the person should be shown the door. But the discussion should go on.

The fact that there are Barbarians at the gate should not keep discourse from occuring. And the same goes for advertising. The ad campaign that Atheists have paid for that has ruffled the feathers of folks in Des Moines all the way up to Chet Culver should be countered. But how about it being countered by folks choosing to not ride the bus or to take out an ad that is pro-religion?

There is no doubt that how each of us views the world could offend another person, but that doesn't mean we aren't entitled to voicing our opinion. The most useful thing that comes out of free speech is the intellectual exercise of defending our beliefs. If we have no faith in what we believe or have no basis in facts, perhaps the best lesson is we change our position.

The Most Annoying Law Ever?

If things weren't bad enough in Michigan, the city council of Brighton has had it with people who "in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose." As a result they approved a public conduct code Monday night, which includes fining someone up to $500 for being annoying.

The bill states it's unlawful for anyone to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy any person in public. The ordinance was modeled after one in Royal Oak, where Brighton police chief Tom Wightman previously worked.

Examples where this rule could apply are: ongoing neighbor disputes; an ex-boyfriend or ex-spouse harassing an individual; unwanted and repeated text messages; harassing phone calls or hang-up calls; and co-worker harassment. Wightman said the goal is to interrupt these behaviors and put a stop to it. "Our intent is to protect citizens and to protect free speech as well," Wightman said.

Two council members expressed concerns for the language of the ordinance, but voted for it anyway. Brighton officials said the ordinance would be subjective and the call will be made by police officers.

Existing harrassment laws may work just as effectively and be less subjective? The law's passing left one local business owner, Rick Stames, scratching his head, "It just makes the city look stupid. There's enough that happens that make you look bad to begin with; why go out of your way?"

Spooky: Palin's Constitutional Rights Attacked by Reporters?

To report the news is the job of journalism, not to be a public relations firm for any particular party or candidate--that's what bloggers are for. ABC reports that VP candidate Sarah Palin feels like her first amendment rights are being stepped on by the main stream media--really?

In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin [said] her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

However she feels about the way her story has been told in the press, Palin told WMAL she is not discouraged.

"It's sort of perplexing to me, because I'm a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington," Palin said.

As I have said before, the First Amendment protects free speech, it doesn't mean people have to listen to it. To continually assert that a person is guilty based on the meetings they attend is silly. Would either McCain or Palin call Ronald Reagan a Communist because he had meetings with Leonid Brezhnev and Mikhail Gorbachev?

Hurry Tuesday!

Clarion Fund Yelling "Fire" in the Theater?

When I first posted this story, I had no idea the intense reaction that would come from the blogosphere. I do not profess to be a full-tilt (or even half tilt) investigative reporter and this story truly needs at least one serious (does this for a living) journalist (Seymour Hersh, Bob Woodward, hello!) to dig to the bottom of this mess. Still, it is gratifying to hear reactions to it both positive and negative--believe it or not.

Now, for the record, I do not disregard the dangers of "fanatics" of any stripe. I believe there are organized fanatics out there who could/would do people harm--and they may as likely to be Evangelical, Christian, Jewish, or any other group except perhaps, Buddhists and Quakers, as they are to be Muslim. But, just as likely, there are people with hidden agendas that run around like Chicken Little telling us the sky is falling. Respectfully I say, we've already seen what telling a lie over and over can get us-- Good Morning, Iraq!

However, and not to be flippant at all, since we are talking about the biggest fear that people can imagine--terrorists trying to kill us where we live, it doesn't hurt to use mathematical logic to point out the statistical likelihood of this happening.
President Bush likes to point out that there have not been terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11/2001. That is slightly over 7 years ago. Before that, the last terrorist attack in the US was in 1995 (not a Muslim but an ex-U.S. Army private, Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City). Before that, the last organized attack by a radical Muslim was in 1993 (masterminded) by Ramzi Yousef at the WTC. In all three of these episodes, the total number of persons killed was 3390. Of course, on a purely sociological level, this is 3390 people too many.

However statistically, this means that the likelihood of a person being killed by a terrorist in the US for this 15 year period has been .001115% or 1.1 people in 100,000. For comparison, put this side-by-side with dying an accidental death (The Center for Disease Control nomenclature for traffic accidents, poisoning [mainly drug-related], falls, and suffocation) in any state in the US (which varied by state between 1999-2004 between by20 to 68 in 100,000).

I haven't seen a DVD being sent out to warn people of the "terrorism" of bath tubs, garden hoses, or plastic dry cleaning bags. Center for Disease Control, have you no decency?

And what about this group's right to say what they say? Yelling "fire" in a theater when there isn't one has been ruled by the Supreme Court as a reason to limit free speech. The storyline from the film does its best to convince us that the US "theater" is in clear and present danger from radical Islamic "fire". Is it true, is it not true--that is the unknown. But propaganda is allowable free speech, just as beer ads implying the foamy stuff will make you popular or sexy is okey-dokey.

Free speech tends to err on the side of doubt. So while I do appreciate the St. Louis Dispatch and the Greensboro News and Record who have chosen not to distribute the film-- I would rather a modernized Fairness Doctrine that addresses the print media, so that the papers who ran this "advertisement" would be obliged to provide other sides of the story (and I don't mean flaming letters to the editor)-- pro bono. After all, newspapers may try to protect free speech, but they don't feel bad for charging for it either!

And there are people trying to dispell the myth of the movie. Thanks to a comment I received from regarding my earlier blog entry, there is another place to learn more about the Clarion Fund's "Obsession" film. I certainly applaud the efforts of this diverse, mostly religious group to address the fiction and hate that is framed in this "documentary".