Also, the Legal Dictionary at Lawyers.com mentions "slander" as being "false OR malicious" statements several times.
But I didn't need dictionaries to know this, alright? I go to Indiana University, one of the best schools for journalism on the globe, and I trust that they won't teach us improper meanings of terms. These people are professors, so who am I going to trust? You and a few dictionaries, or professionals AND some dictionaries? Besides, it's pretty childish to keep arguing a technicality when the more important question is of morality, not law.
And we liberals DO have morals, you know. We're out to benefit ALL people, from the dregs of society to the political masters who rule us all.
Also, you're allowed to voice your dislike for a public figure. Michael Savage is a public figure, so calling HIM an idiot isn't technically "malicious speech."
On to the issue of me being a "good" liberal or not. Am I in any way a hypocrite because of my stance on Michael Savage's hate speech? Let's ask THIS question instead. Which is worse: An angry man putting down Muslims, blacks, children with autism, gays, and sometimes even women? Or telling him he can't be PAID to scream nonsense over the radio? Which form of freedom would a "good" liberal support? Because you can't have both. Only one. I choose the less damaging of the two.
Fire Savage.
Now! If it'll ever be allowed to be DROPPED (my goodness, I hadn't intended to make my "Fire Savage" rants a theme, but that's how the comments ended up flowing, so hey...), I'd like to continue with the current events.
Okay, so we all know that the nearly-trillion-dollar stimulus package has been cut down significantly, but which areas took the biggest hits? Some things were thrown out entirely, and some were merely reduced. Personally, I agree with some of the cuts, and disagree with some others that I think could have helped create jobs in America.
For example, I can understand cutting out the $300 million for federal prisons. I don't see how that would add jobs, you know? It'd just make prisons "nicer," and in my opinion, prisons are homey enough for lawbreakers. I understand the cuts from NASA, a few wildlife preservation organizations, and some scientific research.
And I'm GLAD that $600 million was cut from No Child Left Behind. Personally, I have no idea why that ridiculous act hasn't been repealed yet. It's such a misnomer! It HARMS quality education.
But on the other hand, funding for construction of new high schools and institutions of higher education has been eliminated, and I think that's a bad idea. Manual labour jobs are in pretty high demand right now, with the masses of factory workers being laid off, and I really think that building schools would have been an awesome way to pull an FDR on this recession.
$40 billion is also being cut from state aid that would help prevent worsening recession on a more local level. I'm not sure whether or not I even understand how that part works, so I can't really make a decision. But that part seems to be the biggest controversy.
Overall, though, I guess I'm okay with the stimulus package as it is right now. Maybe when the most vital things are taken care of, other organizations can receive the money they deserve later on down the road. I mean, I'm all about the science, nature, and outer space stuff...but maybe they should be separate. A lot of that stuff wouldn't create too many new jobs, anyway.
But we'll see where it goes. Currently, the House favours a bill that works primarily on the state and local levels, whereas the Senate is really liking the bit about cutting taxes. And Obama's getting pretty pissed, it seems, that no one can agree on anything so we can just get this show on the road.
I'm getting pretty impatient too. This recession had better be over by the time Ashley and I are out of this buffer that is college, because we're big fans of money, and actually having it...
May I point out the "false choice" logical fallacy made in paragraph 6? We can have it both ways. We allow free speech (even if it is offensive) and we allow people to buy it. This is called allowing as much freedom as possible (you'll be interested to know the term for this is "classical liberalism") and letting the free market work. You are welcome to speak out against men like Savage and their opinions. You are also welcome to boycott stations that carry him. But please kindly refrain from using the law in this instance. When regulation begins it tends to continue and to expand in scope.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, have you actually read the stimulus bill? I thought not. You may want to if you can find time. It makes fascinating reading, never mind the whole philosophy behind it.
I do so love spending money :)
ReplyDeleteI urge everyone reading this to go to your library and use Black's Law Dictionary to define the legal terms being disputed. Black's Law Dictionary has been cited as the legal authority in the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, who needs dictionaries when we have Indiana University journalism professors, on the globe, who speak gospel truth?
Black's Law Dictionary 417 (6th ed. 1990) defines defamation as the "intentional false communication, either published or publically spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name"
In paragraph two, you cite Lawyers.com. Lawyers.com defines slander as the
“defamation of a person by unprivileged oral communication made to a third party
also: defamatory oral statements"
Using the transitive property, we can define slander as an "intentional false communication, made orally, that injures another's reputation or good name"
Libertarians have morals too. I have a moral obligation to let Michael Savage make statements that I disagree with. Who am I to take away a basic human right?
One could make the argument that gay marriage is immoral. This is a strong argument for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, yes? I hope this example makes it clear why we use 'law' and not one’s morals to govern.
Ah, Andrew, but why do we have laws? Even Locke's answer (to preserve property) is founded in certain moral assumptions. I agree with your conclusion, (and Black's Law Dictionary rocks; it could take any three IU professors hands-down in a cage match), but realize that some standard of morality is prerequisite to law. You and I believe that this philosophy is that people should be allowed to exercise freedom until this exercise directly infringes on the freedom of another. Please note, Ms. Politico, that I said rights, not emotional well-being.
ReplyDeleteTo Andrew: We aren't going to agree on this. It doesn't matter who or what defined slander, really, but that it HAS BEEN AND IS defined in some cases as an "or" situation if deemed a big enough deal, which some of Savage's rantings have been.
ReplyDeleteTo AJD: I have not read it front to back, but I've skimmed it as closely as I could, and I'm pretty sure that's what most people do. That's a MONSTER of a document, you know. But I did read up on all the bill cuts, and not just the CNN article.
I may be the voice of the liberal side in this blog, but that doesn't mean I am a complete radical. I do not support EVERY kind of social freedom, like a Democrat "should." I do believe an ethical line has been crossed when it comes to Savage Nation. And I DO believe he should be canned.
That doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite or anything; it just means my beliefs are a little different than the Democratic Party. I never SAID I'd be spot-on, you know.
I really would be interested in reading up on some of these cases where the plaintiff was awarded anything in a court of law when they brought charges of a mean statement. If you could link me, or just give me the names, that would be awesome.
ReplyDeleteThey really don't define terms like defamation on a case to case basis...
Only read the first paragraph and so, but so far real awesome critical thinking stuff! Keep it up!
ReplyDelete