"If you feel you are intimidated from your freedom of speech, it's un-American."  -- Charlie Rose to Tim Robbins --12:50 AM. Tuesday, October 14th, 2003, on PBS (OPB). 

This was a reference to Robbins saying that many Hollywood people didn't speak publicly of their opposition to the war in Iraq out of fear.  If we look at what it was they were afraid of, we look into the heart and soul of the liberal.  They were afraid of what happened to the Dixie Chicks. And, what was that?  Millions of Americans turned against them, spoke out against them and
refused to buy their recordings. 

So, to meet Charlie Rose's definition of being a proper American, those millions of citizens should have been prevented from exercising their free speech rights. Should have been prevented from calling radio stations complaining about the playing of Dixie Chick music, should have been prevented from taking Dixie Chick recordings they had purchased and throwing them in the garbage, should have been required to continue to purchase Dixie Chick music, listen to it on the radio and publicly praise them, and other stars who despise patriotism or the use of American military power to both protect our nation against threats from abroad and set nations free from the rule of butchering tyrants like Saddam Hussein. 

The liberal heart, soul and mind in action.  The very picture of intellectual contradiction, inelegant logic, rapturous imbecility and self-serving demagoguery. 

These fools believe their free speech should include protection from the free speech reactions of other Americans.  Their definition of "intimidation" equates free speech response with actions which shut down expression. (A radio station which refuses to broadcast anything isn't by that refusal restricting anybody from saying what they wish.  It is merely refusing to assist in the reproduction and distribution of such viewpoints. Liberal media regularly edit out the truth from their programming, films, books, plays and journalistic text, and violate no Free Speech rights in the process.) 

The 1st Amendment isn't about "feelings."  It is about free speech -- for every American.  To suggest that it requires everybody to be nice no matter what is said is monumentally stupid.  Because Charlie and Tim actually believe crap like that, and have the power of two communications mediums in which to propose their crap, they represent a serious danger to the very free speech they claim they are defending.

In saying what they said, they are attempting to intimidate you, and me.  To suppress our free speech.  A certain irony there, don't you think?

We at Oregon Magazine support the right of Charlie and Tim to say what they said.  They will have to take the guns from our cold dead hands if they try to stop us from reacting with equal free speech rights to their moronic, anti-constitutional, anti-American views.

(LL/OrMag) 

Postscript

A few days after posting this piece I received the following note from Charlie Rose: 

Here is my position on free speech. It is at the core of who we are... We cherish the right to express our ideas no matter how unpopular.  Here is my understanding of your position: It is acceptable to prevent free speech because in so doing one is simply expressing himself or herself.

You remind me of a recent email from a writer very critical of an interview with Quentin Tarantino. Fact was that while Tarantino had been listed, he did not come because of illness.

Having said you may be wrong about me, I will fight for your right to say it...or write an editorial where you did not try to find the truth.

I can only imagine your motivation.

Regards,
Charlie Rose

© 2003 Oregon Magazine