0 Votes
Limits of Dissent
In his online column, Bill O’Reilly posted a commination concerning American media, politicians and society in general having too loud a voice in the digitally connected world.
We have senators claiming that American actions are similar to those of the Nazis, Pol Pot and other despotic regimes. Is this political mudslinging going too far? Can there be a limit on free speech? The World War II generation had no problem showing that during a time of crisis, it is best to present a unified front, and not air the dirty laundry of the nation on the front page of the Baghdad Times. 60 years of technology certainly have had an impact on this, but the general attitude of the American people has migrated across the political spectrum.
The military concerns itself about a concept called the <link><urL>http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/strategic_corporal.htm<label>Strategic Corporal.</label></link> In today’s world, an action or utterance by a soldier on the ground can, through the help of Al Jezeera or CNN, become a strategic issue. This same thing is true concerning remarks by senators, or even some ultra-liberal protester on the street.
Is O’Reilly implying that we need to censor the media and politicians? Some dissent is healthy and necessary, and freedom of expression is non-negotiable. Is there a point when we, as citizens, need to say "enough is enough" and temper the shouts of the extremists? Is it reasonable to expect some self control on the part of opposition politicians, considering they should be representing the voting public in their district?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Utility of Web Comments, by VnutZ about 1 year ago
- Google+ Less Active than MySpace, by VnutZ about 1 year ago
- Obtaining Freedom of Communication, by VnutZ over 1 year ago
- Vendor Installed "Rootkit" on Android, by VnutZ over 1 year ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
We have ourselves to blame by warner
I think a big difference between now and say during WWII is us. We shouldn’t need a law to keep politicians from saying these idiotic things during a time of war. We should just stop voting for them. If they knew that there were negative ramifications for making such extreme and offensive comments that aid the enemy in a time of war, then they wouldn’t do it. But right now it seems to be sadly winning them votes.
Our grandparents wouldn’t have stood for a politician getting up and saying half the things many of these politicians have been saying. They would have called for their head the very next day. And the politicians knew that and so they knew better. The problem is that much of the country keeps voting for these yahoos and giving them a loud "voice."
It points to a decline in nationalism and genuine patriotism that so many people have grown so indifferent to these outrageous remarks. The fact is, there are large numbers of people in this country who either LOVE that Senators are comparing our troops to Nazis or are too blinded by their idealism to care anyway. Both are dangerous.
re: limits of dissent by LordDilly
The American people absolutely need to step up and say "enough is enough" when politicians, heck- any public figure, oversteps the bounds and proclaims outrageous things, especially during a time of war. We, the People, are and should be the absolte arbiters on what is acceptable from our politicians and public figures (never the government.) I can see O’Reilley’s point, however. In this digitally connected age, one person’s voice can come across as loud as a thousand, possibly distorting it’s strength and authority. However, it’s the American people that need to adapt to this, not try to stuff the genie back in the bottle, so to speak.
Busted link by romanizzo
The busted link from above, in its real and working form.
The Strategic Corporal
Lack of fortitude, or lack of a voice? by americanorganist
I think part of the problem is that American leadership at all levels has a disturbing lack of confrontational skill. Dissent doesn’t necessarily need to be banished; it needs to be confronted and discussed on a public level. That isn’t happening. Instead, we get name-calling, influence-peddling and the unspoken hope that maybe the problem will "just go away if we ignore it." Any organized society has to deal with these responses; humans by nature group together and cooperate with each other, or civilizations would never have been built.
Human kind appears to have dealt with unavoidable conflict by selecting leaders that would debate and compromise, but there has always been some sort of baseline—a point beyond which no one would go—to act as a reference. The reference was meant to be a decision point: Do we continue to use diplomacy or do we go to war, for instance. Right now we don’t have such a baseline in place; this lack in the business world is what led to Sarbanes-Oxley.
Note how this Act came to be: Professionals in the business world and their regulatory agencies openly discussed a variety of guidelines and debated what the possible outcomes would be, and they did so openly. Our political institutions need to have the concept of organized, moderated debate put back in place to get over some of this reluctance to confront. As for the rest of us, we should practice the fine art of shutting up and listening to the debators.