Comment: Sigh

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: No! (see in situ)


You're being an idiot. Stop setting up straw men and telling me I agree with them.

First things first:

There is no right to freedom of the press WITHOUT A PRESS.

Would you like your speech to have the same impact that a sportscaster has? Awesome. START A SPORTS NETWORK. Heck, become a sportscaster if you want to take the lazy route. Quit whining that no one will give you the microphone that they built.

You're acting like everyone should for some reason be forced to listen to you. You know who listens to sportscasters? People who watch sports.

What you're proposing is utopian socialism. "Everyone gets 5 minutes on the radio today!"

Man made corporations have just as much freedom of speech as you have. You know what they have that you don't? An audience that listens to them. How do you propose to build that audience? By forcing people to listen to you at gunpoint? By holding the guy with the audience at gunpoint and making him say what you want?

I'm sorry, but that's not how freedom works.

So lets go down your sorry little list and bust it apart piece by piece.

You agree that man made corporations should have more freedom of speech. They don't, what they have is an audience that you don't have.

You agree that CEOs should have more freedom of speech and be able to meet with the governing bodies to form new legislation to their own gain while the best you can hope for is to leave a message with some voice mail. My lawyer just met with President Obama. He shared some concerns I have. What efforts have you made to meet with governing bodies? Why should they respect what you have to say? What impact do you have on the country? The rest of what you're saying doesn't have to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with government overreach, so I'll ignore it as it doesn't pertain.

You agree that special interests should have more freedom of speech by lobbying government for handouts while you haven't the time because you have to work and pay taxes for the government to give them. What you're describing isn't freedom of speech, it's bribery. Stick to the topic at hand please. You should be able to give congressmen a million bucks for all I care, as long as they're forced to be bound and vote by the constitution. Why do you think no one gave Dr. Paul any lobbying time?

You agree that news media should have a greater freedom of speech and report the news with whatever slant they see fit while you struggle to get truth by reading between the lines.

You don't like the news? Start your own broadcast. Start blogging. Start writing. You're not even on a national broadcast, and you're writing slanted garbage already. If you can't stay unbiased here and not toss around straw men, how do you expect anyone to believe you'd be unbiased on the national stage?

You agree that Bob Costas should have a greater freedom of speech by injecting his political opinions to millions who just wanted to watch a game and yet they have no way to rebut what he says.

The fallacy you're trying to propose is that because Bob Costas is heard by more people, that equals more freedom of speech. For instance, millions listen to Alex Jones, he obviously has more freedom of speech. This is incorrect. What you're talking about is REACH and AUDIENCE. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Just because no one wants to listen to your whining doesn't mean you have less freedom of speech.

Where do you see that the system is working fine? The only time I see anyone get fired is when they speak the truth or say something politically incorrect. Costas alienated a majority of Americans with his asinine comments but perhaps you are right and the viewers he was addressing agree with him. They are just a bunch of armchair warriors after all.

Uhhhh... why yes. I am right, most likely. If his parent company gets a bunch of people writing letters and it becomes news and looks bad for the company, he's going to be getting less work. Sports broadcast companies don't want political crap on their broadcasts. They want sports. People who watch sports don't want to hear it. Figure half the people listening disagree with the guy and it makes them angry or stop watching. That's what loses contracts. Your job as a sportscaster is to talk sports. Get outside sports enough and the boss replaces you with some other sports "used to be a contender" type with a nice voice.

Eric Hoffer