Disagreement, or disdain for your position is not "hate"

Dear Fiends:

In the mainstream media, there is a kind of collective consiousness that pretends to be representative of America itself. This is not so. In this collaborative mind is expressed an emotional response to people on the radio and TV who dissent. It is claimed that the discourse is not civil, and that we need to be "kinder" in our speech "toward one another." Nonsense.

It is claimed, first of all, that A, There is "hate" expressed on these programs, B, This "hate" is causing people to follow along blindly with these views, and C, the tone of these broadcasts are causing violence.

Let's look at the first claim, that there is "hate" on the airwaves. I have not heard anything said on the conservative radio or tv broadcasts that would indicate hate toward any person or group. I challenge you to come up with a specific instance of this. There are certainly daily instances of poking fun at their positions, certainly caricatures, parodies, etc., in the grand American tradition of creative free speech, but this is not hate. Parodies and caricatures have been the staple of political discussion since before our nation was formally formed. We have survived parody and sardonic humor for over 200 years, and we will be just fine in the future.

Let's look at the second claim, that people are blindly adopting the views and tone of the conservative broadcasts. Those who dislike conservative programs make the assumption, especially in the case of Rush Limbaugh, that listeners are only conservative because they listen to conservative broadcasts. That's backwards. They listen to conservative programs because they are conservatives. These programs express views that they already agree with. It is support and encouragement for them. It is a source of useful information for them. It is highly insulting to the American people to assume that their minds are so malleable that they automatically adopt the content and tone of any program they happen to tune in to.

The third assumption, is that "angry rhetoric" causes violence. If this was true, George W Bush would be dead by now, so would Dick Cheney. There has been so much vitriole toward George Bush and Dick Cheney, including effigies. George Bush has been depicted many times on signs as a Nazi and with a gun sight zeroed in  on his image. There have been no violent acts linked with free speech. Angry tones and figures of speech do not cause violence.

While the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, John Kennedy and his brother Robert, and Rev. Martin Luther King were all assassinated. There is no evidence that something like the Fairness Doctrine prevents such violent acts from being carried out. This latest case being discussed, the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, had nothing to do with political speech at all. The gunman was, by all accounts, out of touch with reality, and had a fixation with Ms. Giffords BEFORE there was a Tea Party, before the fight over health care reform.

Do we really want somebody in the government to make sure there is only "responsible speech" on the air waves? Who decides what is responsible and what is not? Are humans infallible and objective just because they work for the government? Are government employees and elected representatives free of personal or party agendas? Think about it. Have you ever said something that, if said on the air, could be construed as "irresponsible speech?" What happens when the utterance of your position is considered irresponsible? Will that position then be culled from the air waves so that only one side of an issue is allowed?

You can see, I hope, that the result of allowing only "responsible" speech will inexorably be censorship, not free speech.

God bless America, including my liberal friends,
Sincerely,
Bob Roushar