Tendency For Censorship

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer should kiss Bill Maher's ass!

By: The Sceptic | 28September2001

A pair of freedoms that America is supposed to be about -- freedom of speech and the press -- has once again been attacked... and not by some shadowy terrorist organization. The Bush Administration is the aggressor this time. (Does this surprise you?) Speech and Press In the interests of being thorough, let us briefly review the concepts of freedom of expression and the press, and what they really entail: People (and elected officials) don't generally mind fellow citizens saying what is popularly believed. The speaking of pleasing words that couldn't possibly offend anyone obviously needs no protection. Speech that sometimes requires protection is speech that the hearers don't like. Freedom of speech implies the liberty to express what is not popular, what may be untrue, or even what listeners may believe to be offensive. Those who crafted the Bill of Rights didn't include -- in any form -- a right to not be offended. In openly tyrannical nations, "The Press" is licensed and controlled by government. If a member of The Press offends the government in these countries, his/her membership can be yanked. In America, on the other hand, the Press includes anybody with the tools to publish or broadcast in any form, and the freedom to do so goes beyond merely reporting news. Any American with a printing press, photocopier, or Web site can claim the First Amendment right to publish news, opinions, or whatever else s/he feels deserves to be published. Bill Maher said... On 17Sep2001, less than a week after the multiple terrorist attacks on Manhattan and the Pentagon, the host of ABC's "Politically Incorrect" program made assertions that offended some Americans: "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away.... Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, that's not cowardly." In a later program, Bill Maher apologized for any possible misunderstanding, and amplified his comments by stating that he was referring to US policymakers, not the military. I understand the point Maher was trying to make about cowardice. I would go a bit further, and propose that the 11Sep2001 terrorist acts on American soil is different from (for example) the 21Aug1998 US Tomahawk missile strike on the Sudanese El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries factory in Khartoum, only in degree. However, if Maher thought he should apologize, that certainly was his right. After Maher made his apologies, the White House press secretary, a spokesperson for President Bush, Ari Fleischer decided to weigh in with his comments. Fleischer's credibility This would be the same press secretary who was among the spokespersons of the new administration who lied to the press, claiming that employees of the outgoing Clinton administration had vandalized the White House and Air Force One. This would be the Ari Fleischer who insisted to reporters that the reason Bush spent so much of 11Sep2001 flying from Florida to different locations before returning to D.C. was because Air Force One was specifically threatened as a target of the terrorists; another spun story which was later determined to be devoid of truth. It would appear that Fleischer believes his responsibilities as press secretary include deceiving the Press. On the subject of Maher's Politically Incorrect comments, Fleischer said: "It's a terrible thing to say, and it's unfortunate... There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." Did you get that?! A spokesperson for the Bush administration -- not particularly known for being a bastion of credibility -- told all Americans that they need to "watch what they say" and, in essence, that there are certain types of remarks that are always inappropriate. What American's safety was endangered by Bill Maher's comments? None. Was anybody offended by his comments? Probably so, but that is precisely the kind of speech that the First Amendment protects. Nevertheless, such is the attitude of a spokesperson chosen by the "there ought to be limits to freedom" president of the United States. If Fleischer wanted to defend the idea that targeting cruise missiles against aspirin factories (or whatever) is not cowardly, while piloting an airplane into a building is, he was free to do so, on a basis of logic or ideology. But for a White House official to say that people should "watch what they say" is not an argument, it is an implied threat! You need not be a constitutional scholar to realize that Ari Fleischer is completely out of line. 'Inappropriate' is a White House -- or any government -- official claiming that Americans should "watch what they say". America is defined, among other factors, as the country whose citizens may dissent -- offensively, if they choose -- and where they aren't required to answer to any government official for doing so. If anybody owes an apology, Ari Fleischer does. He owes one to Bill Maher for his tyrannical wish to censor a US citizen. He should also apologize to America for his apparent ignorance of such a basic tenet of the First Amendment.

Be informed when new content is added.

Email a Link to this page.

Email the SOB who publishes this.

Ingress		Archive		Skewed
	Comic		Rumours