I would like to address a syndicated column that appeared in today's Chicago Tribune. This brilliant piece of journalistic analysis comes to us courtesy of Kathleen Parker, a talentless right-wing hack who writes for the Orlando Sentinel. As evidenced by this impressively thoughtful piece, it is obvious that Ms. Parker is, hmmm, I'm looking for the right word, hold on just a second, it will come to me..oh right, STUPID!!!!
She begins her blather by stating that "the 1st Amendment has been getting a workout in recent weeks on two college campuses--the University of Florida and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill--where students are learning that free speech is a messy business."
Pssst, Kathleen, unless there are jackbooted thugs in the employ of the U.S. government arresting these students or shutting down the papers, there is no "1st Amendment" question. Let me explain something to you. The 1st amendment to the constitution (you know, the constitution, old yellow paper, fancy writing, We the People and all that?) clearly states "Congress shall make no law." Congress, get it? It doesn't apply to the states and it certainly doesn't apply to individuals or non-government entities.
In a series of decisions (that really annoy conservatives), the Supreme Court has held that many of the basic protections listed in the Bill of Rights are also found within the 14th amendment. Even still, this applies to GOVERNMENT action.
Kathleen is bleating about a Michelle Malkin in training pants who was fired from a campus newspaper. Why? Well, this is a lot of he said, she said about quotes out of context, but basically the issue is that she wrote that "I want all Arabs to be stripped naked and cavity-searched if they get within 100 yards of an airport."
Chatty Kathy continues "one could make a strong argument that Bandes' column was silly, amateurish, lacking in taste, strident and ineffective. Being outrageous for the sake of outrage requires no special talent. Witness Howard Stern. But people have a clear and protected right to be both silly and amateurish."
Amazing. OF COURSE she has a right to be "silly and amateurish" but she doesn't have ANY right to do so in the employ of ANY newspaper, even one sponsored by a state university. This is an issue between the employer and the employee and has ABSOLUTELY NO constitutional implications!
Kathleen, meet the constitution. Constitution, this is Kathleen. I'm sure you two will have NOTHING to talk about!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
She says it's a messy business. And I think she points out a couple situations where it is in fact messy.
You're right that this isn't a 1rst amendment issue. But I also think college newspapers are slightly different than 'real world' corporations. I think they should be held to a higher standard. It's not like the cut in circulation was going to have any drastic effect on the University at all.
Kathleen Parker is a not-so-subtle neo-conservative mouthpiece. Now, had she approached this story from a different angle, I might actually agree with her - something to the effect that political correctness shouldn't trump one's ability to make a political point (as with the fired cartoonist).... of course, had she done so, then she'd have been in quite a pickle, as she was among those calling for Maher's head on a plate when he dared to cross over Bush's evil-doer threshold on his TV show misentitled: POLITICALLY INCORRECT.
It is only a "messy business" in terms of balancing the proper role of a college paper between working publication and teaching tool, and that issue doesn't resonate beyond campus. She can only make an issue, and hence a column, of it if she disingenuously plays the "liberals hate the first amendment" card.
Kathy Parker (acknowledged MILF) is more than willing to espouse any perceived neo-con view as long as it a) trashes a perceived liberal belief. b) Can be transformed into a conservative point of view if she can suggest that liberals are mishandling its’ application. c) Can get in a cheap shot on a serious issue by selectively applying certain facts and information while suggesting that any additional facts or information is supercilious.
Post a Comment