on the vitality of free speech

Posted on March 13, 2008 by Lessig

That Olbermann gets television time is the best evidence that free speech lives.

This entry was posted in presidential politics. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to on the vitality of free speech

  1. zenbum says:
    March 13, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    Sometimes free speech lives. Sometimes it dies.

    Just ask Phil Donahue. Although his show had the highest ratings in the history of MSNBC, they cancelled it in 2003 because he was “a difficult face for NBC in a time of war.”

    BTW, your site wins the award for most illegible captchas. I had to reload them three times before I got something I could read unambiguously. Then again, maybe I’m just a bot.

  2. Andrew Norris says:
    March 13, 2008 at 11:50 pm

    Olbermann is the only journalist who is speaking the truth, uncovering lies and half-truths. He is the greatest voice in our media today, it is a crime that so few people hear him.

  3. A says:
    March 14, 2008 at 1:00 am

    Olbermann is also a master of the extremely long sentence, with relentless subordinate clauses. He really needs to break it up a bit.

    (I also agree about the illegible captcha. I reloaded twice but I’m still not sure I can read the word.)

  4. zk says:
    March 14, 2008 at 2:52 am

    This guy is a nut.

    All this craziness about Ferraro’s benign (and probably true) statement is pushing me away from Obama (who I’ve really been getting excited about) by making me feel like his supporters are the brain dead type of liberal.

    Is Lessig’s post of this video an indication that he shares Olbermann’s views? Or just a remark about how nuts like him can get on TV?

    Lessig’s new direction has inspired me. Part of that inspiration is admiration. I hope Olbermann’s views on this subject don’t mirror his own, for I don’t wish too lose the admiration that was fueling my inspiration.

    I too would like to see big money out of politics (and science for that matter). But this is brain dead politics.

  5. M. David Peterson says:
    March 14, 2008 at 3:31 am

    @zenbum, A,

    If you click the “audio” icon you can get an audio challenge instead.

  6. pikkumatti says:
    March 14, 2008 at 3:42 am

    I, too, could Olbermann’s content an example of “free speech”. But I’d be damning with faint praise. I guess one could call any nonsense “free speech”. And the more distasteful it is, the better example of “free speech” it becomes.

    The problem with Olbermann’s MSNBC work is that it has no relationship to the truth.

    Bad career move, Keith. Should’ve stuck with Dan on the Big Show.

  7. M. David Peterson says:
    March 14, 2008 at 3:50 am

    @zk,

    >> I too would like to see big money out of politics (and science for that matter). But this is brain dead politics.

    Big money out of politics is admirable, but using racism, intolerance, deception, and lies is complete tolerable?

    >> Or just a remark about how nuts like him can get on TV?

    At present time I’m wondering how nuts like you feel justified suggesting that those willing to stand up /publicly/ against racism, intolerance, and deception *AS WELL* as the corruption that is big money in politics are the ones that are nuts. What is it about this type of behavior — the kind that will stoop to any level, regardless of the effect that it has on our society, all in the name of personal gain — do you find justifiable? Because you realize that by suggesting “This guy is a nut.” to then follow it up with “All this craziness about Ferraro’s benign” — (benign! *BENIGN*!!! At what point does racism, intolerance, and deception become benign?!) — and “[is] making me feel like his supporters are the brain dead type of liberal.” you’re attempting to both defend and justify that in which has been the *non-benign* cancer of our society for *FAR TOO LONG* to be seen as anything other than the vicious and evil killer that it is.

  8. Allen Velasquez says:
    March 14, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    While I agree with some of the content of what he said (rejecting vs. distancing from said remarks), he is incredibly long winded and shrill. It seems like less of a feeling of unbiased offense, and more like political posturing from an Obama supporter. I would prefer an outright and unemotional criticism rather than a sanctimonious and acerbic rant.

  9. M. David Peterson says:
    March 15, 2008 at 2:02 am

    @Allen Velasquez,

    >> I would prefer an outright and unemotional criticism rather than a sanctimonious and acerbic rant.

    I think that’s a pretty fair criticism, though I would argue that, generally speaking, with passion comes long winded rhetoric. Of course, the content that preceded the passion was much more inline with the unemotional criticism that you prefer. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxX7bRhTkNA&feature=related — which is a conversation between Tim Russert and Keith Olbermann on the same subject.

  10. zk says:
    March 15, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    @M. David Peterson

    I appreciate that this is a charged emotional issue for millions of citizens like yourself.

    Nevertheless, all Ferraro said was that Obama’s campaign has gotten lots of extra attention because he is black. This is a true fact. I fail to see how a true fact can be racist.

    The fact that he has gotten extra attention because he is black does not mean that he is not a powerful leader in his own right. It does not mean that he doesn’t have exceptional judgment, and well researched policy agenda.

    All it means, is that good people, like you and like me, are even more attracted to his candidacy because he is black.

    If that is a painful fact for you, its probably good for you to accept it and move on. The most painful facts are the ones we most need to see.

  11. Steve Baba says:
    March 16, 2008 at 5:25 am

    “This is a true fact. I fail to see how a true fact can be racist.”

    “That Jew Spitzer is a criminal.” is both true and racist. But don’t feel bad about making the mistake since half of the citizen “journalists” on Wikipedia make it also.

    Racists from Nazis to the KKK have chosen true facts about the criminal members of minorities to imply more.

    But Ferraro badly worded her comment, and it could be interpreted several ways.

    Obama has benefited in the Democratic primary from being black. – mostly likely true

    Obama will benefit in the general election from being black. Maybe, Maybe not

    Obama has benefited throughout his life from being black. Patently absurd as Obama said and framed the argument like any slick politician would.

  12. zk says:
    March 16, 2008 at 5:48 am

    @Steve Baba

    In the Spitzer case its not the fact that is racist, it the venomous phrasing. Ferraro’s phrasing simply was not venomous.

  14. Steve Baba says:
    March 17, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Try this for a “non-venomus” true statement that is racist:

    Years ago mainstream newspapers and online racists today will report the “true” facts, “Five black youth were arrested for the crime.” Any racist today will argue on their blogs or Wikipedia that it’s true that they were black. But only racists think that the youth committed the crime because they were black. Everyone else thinks that the youth committed the crime because they were amoral and or poor.

  15. zk says:
    March 18, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    @Steve Baba

    I agree that “only racists think that the youth committed the crime because they were black.”

    However that doesn’t mean that any mention of the fact that they were black is racist. Suppose a newspaper article quotes a witness reporting that she saw “five white men fleeing the scene of the crime.” The next line in the article is “But five black youth were arrested for the crime.”

    Here the newspaper is engaging a an analysis that includes race, but it is not being racist. Similarly, Ferraro was engaging in an analysis that included race, but she was not being racist.

    Surely it cannot be, that any time an analysis that includes race is unfavorable in any way to a black person that it is racist, but when the analysis is favorable it is not racist?

    Well, according to the politics of the brain dead left that is exactly how it goes. I’ll choose to be part of the thinking left instead.

  16. bugmenot says:
    April 5, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    All comments — from Ferraro and Olbermann are signs of free speech. Even racists have right for it, it is only in media’s hands whose words gets spread out and whose not. In this case it is better that Ferraro’s words were spread out first, so people knew her real attitude.

    I do not see a problem in this at all. Yes, there are benefits for Obama being black and I totally agree with Steve Baba that what is true should not be considered a rasism.

    Normally it is easy to distinguish these cases, if you stick to the facts and not imply any connections which are not supported by facts. “Our cat today had two kittens, one white and one african-american.”

Leave a Reply