Freedom of Speech

Comment Up

As a government, we are diverting farther and farther from the Constitution in many aspects but especially the First Amendment that guarantees free speech and free press. On a national level,  Big Money is the influence in the eroding of the protections we have had in our Constitution and the every-day citizen who has any beliefs and speaks out on politics, candidates, and what is happening in the world, is subject to a new price of freedom. The "other" side does not want to hear you. They want to shut you up permanently. If you have any idea contrary to theirs, forget about it. A vile campaign will follow. It happens nationally and it happens locally. We all can get "swift-boated" with lies and vile attacks.

All writers can make mistakes from time to time; no one is immune. Trust me when I say that we get crucified for them as the other side of politics is scrutinizing everything you do and waiting for that one foul-up or looking to twist your intent. I am often the subject of the bully and one blogger who seldom speaks in public but he loves to hang me on a noose. All bloggers try their best to get the facts correct and rely on sources. But I am not talking about the occasional mistake. I am talking about freedom of expressing your opinion, your ideas, a right. I also agree that personal attacks are vile and unnecessary and should be kept at bay.

Forty-seven years ago the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting election-day newspapers' editorials in Mills vs. Alabama and said that "there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of the first amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs." We all know that news editorials written by those whose publications, for the most part  are owned by big business, are highly influential and their campaign endorsement is coveted for that great elevation it gives to candidates and causes. Here in Lake Worth, the local newspaper has always been on one side of politics.

Our local newspaper editor just wrote an editorial entitled "Let's be civil" and went after blogs and what is written saying "This venomous name calling wouldn't make it onto the pages of a respectful publication or even a blog." He calls it a form of pornography. Pornography is a form of sexual arousement and pornography is illegal. Free Speech, on the other hand, is legal and guaranteed under the Constitution. Big difference and his analogy, although far-fetched, is his right under the First Amendment. Blogs are opinion pieces as is his editorials. The difference in the two is that blogs, by their very nature, take comments most of which are anonymous. Comments can be extremely heady depending upon what side of the political spectrum the commenter is on. Most on-line newspapers will accept any comment as long as you don't use profanity or threaten someone or our union with harm or give disgusting, degrading remarks.

For a news editor to call those who disagree with his political views as "obstructionists" and should "be forced from the city," is hypocritical to say the least. He condemns the name calling but then reverts to the very same thing he abhors. He believes that there are some in this city who are anti-growth and some who want to keep the city exactly the same as it's been for the past 50 years with empty storefronts, prostitution, crime, etc. I would imagine it is because of the heights amendment and those who voted to keep the downtown a low-rise city. He gives an hypotheses and suggests that if this is what we want and if we don't want change, we are the problem and should be "purged from the city."

Everyone who is of sound mind, wants to rid this city of slum, blight and crime. We want all these things to end and property values to go up but we want the downtown to remain a low-rise city. Again he gives a personal attack, the very thing he is so much against. He implies that if you disagree with him and "If all of this is why you came to Lake Worth and you don't want change, we want you to leave." Why should we leave?  This is our city too and we want what's best for the citizens, not the developers. We are guaranteed this right.

He says we don't debate issues, just complain and don't give facts or solutions. I guess he doesn't read the blogs too thoroughly.  It is up to the elected officials to make the quality of life better here. We elect THEM to come up with the solutions. Building higher is not one of them because there is no argument that supports that our quality of life would improve. And we want change, perhaps not his idea of  'change' by compromising our low-rise city and handing it over to the highest bidder.

Anonymous blog comments have no credibility and anyone who has any integrity at all, should sign their editorial as well as their negative personal attack blog comment.