First, let me address the response/reaction of the media (namely MSNBC), and second let me address the response of the general public/individuals.
Dowd was a political analyst. He does not report the straight news, the facts and nothing but the facts (which is what a news reporter does). He takes influencing factors, combines them with the facts, analyses them with the situation at hand, and comes to a conclusion. His conclusion is not something that is written in stone. To some degree, judgement and opinion factor into his conclusion. Analysts will disagree with one another on the same topic using the same info - that goes with the territory. Their conclusions are offered up to the public for their consideration.
We are becoming a country where only the 'right' opinion may be expressed, otherwise there will be consequences/punishment.
Whether I agree or disagree with Dowd isn't my point. I haven't stated my position on what he said. My point is that we are too quick to squash the voice that offers up opposing opinions despite our yelling 'freedom of speech'. MSNBC objected to Dowd's conclusions yet they hired him to analyze and offer his conclusions. If they expected him to only come to conclusions that make them happy they shouldn't hire an analyst. Hire a parrot.
We need opposing opinions to be expressed, even off-the-wall ones. The examination of all opinions and ideas is how we come to the decision of what is good and what is bad. Listening to others, even those we disagree with, has the potential to open a door to ideas that may not have occurred to us. What would be the point of tuning into a broadcast only to hear what is going on in our own heads? There is nothing new to learn or explore. And yet, that is what people and companies seems to want. They don't want the examination of all facets - they only want their position to be pushed on others. When that happens, the value of analysis dies. So like I said, hire a parrot.
Aside from the fact that murder is wrong, Kirk had a right under our Constitution to express his views/beliefs. I have the same right. In protecting his right to speak his mind, I protect my right as well and visa versa.
Sadly the focus of Kirk's murder in the public arena has quickly shifted from the wrongful violent death of Kirk and the thwarting of his right to state his beliefs to individuals defending their 'camp', their politics, their religion, and pointing fingers at those they oppose on these issues. The focus has become why the other guy is to blame and why one's position must be right and why the other guy must be wrong. IMO the proper response should have been for us as a people who defend human rights and freedoms to come together, to defend his right of free speech, and above all to condemn his murder. That is not what happened.
People are too focused on defending their camp, pointing fingers, and condemning the opposition. They rather fight than stand together, even when they agree on the primary issue (murder is wrong). And that is why, IMO, threads like this one don't stand a chance:
There will be plenty of time in the future to examine and come to conclusions as to why what happened did happen. The media puts those ideas out there (part of their job) and we the public chew on those ideas. . . but for now, in the immediate now, in consideration of someone was murdered, and someone(s) lost their husband and father, . . . how about we stop using someone's murder to push our own beliefs on others? We will have the opportunity in the not too distant future to all go back to fighting. For NOW, how about people focus on what is so obvious - Kirk was murdered and silenced and both are just plain wrong. How bout we start by standing together and defending those two positions FIRST - murder is wrong, and so is silencing someone.
We don't throw shit on a dead person before they cool down to room temperature. Only people with no class do that.
There is plenty of time for it after the family goes back home. Not sure how long that should be, but certainly not before the funeral.
But, rest assured, if the situation were reversed, the same thing would happen. Just different people outraged. I would like to think it wouldn't happen, but it probably would.
I agree with your point on timing. It feels to me as if we are
To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
The internet is awash in porn. Is that free speech?
