The Dooryard

The Imus fallout is playing out perfectly

How offensive I found Don Imus' remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team is irrelevant. And whether I think he "should" or "should not" be fired for his comments are irrelevant. What is important here is that the beauty of the free market is playing out exactly how it should: The people are having a say.

The decision of MSNBC to discontinue Imus' show on their network has nothing to do with free speech. The protection of free speech in the U.S. Constitution pertains to the government. No one has a right to a TV show or a newspaper column. MSNBC's decision is a business decision. Several advertisers have pulled their support of Imus' show after his remarks set off crazy Al Sharpton and angry Jesse Jackson and sent them on a campaign to rid the world of Don Imus. And I can understand why those advertisers pulled their campaigns. No business wants to be swept up in a storm of hate politics; their money can be spent elsewhere.

And all of this comes from the people. Sharpton has said he wants the big-brother FCC to step in and make new rules about blah blah blah. There's no need: The free market has taken care of it.

The unfortunate thing in all of this is that hatemongers like Sharpton and Jackson have gotten their way. There is just no good left in these men; they are spew lies and hate and simply set out to promote themselves, even if it means deceiving people (see their nonsense regarding the Duke lacrosse case). But, in this particular case, I personally think they happen to fall on the right side of things: Imus simply went too far, more in calling these women "hos" than "nappy-headed." There's just no need for that crap.

"Faggot" vs. "Idiot"

It's been educational watching the public reaction to Ann Coulter calling former senator John Edwards a "faggot." First, my reaction. Faggot is not a good word to use in the way she used it. She didn't have to do it, it makes a lot of people cringe, and she shouldn't have. Should we make a big fuss about it and protest and boycott? No. We should all understand that Ann is an over-the-top lightning rod who is little more, at this point, than a far right comedienne.

With that said, it is totally appropriate for companies to stop advertising on her Web site and for newspapers to drop her column, if they wish. They are businesses whose sole purpose is to make money, and associating themselves with Coulter at this time could certainly raise public ire against them and reduce their bottom line. It's a business decision for most of them, nothing more; just as I'm sure Ann's choice of "faggot" was a business decision.

However, let's be clear. Coulter's use of "faggot" is no worse than all of the liberals who call conservatives "idiots" and "morons." Those are pretty hateful words, said pretty hatefully, as well. I don't hear many people get upset when Bill Maher, the left's equivalent of Ann Coulter, calls the president an idiot. So, their screaming about Ann's "faggot" comment seems more political than progressive.

Actually, I think calling someone an "idiot" is worse than calling a straight person (and Ann has said she wouldn't use the word to describe a gay person) a "faggot." A straight person isn't a faggot the way gay activists want us to think of the word; John Edwards is married with children, and there's no reason to believe he's gay. But calling someone an "idiot" is a personal attack that has no place.

HRC's top divisive, Joe Solmonese, wrote an op-ed piece for liberal The Huffington Post slamming Ann Coulter for her thoughts, and slamming her press syndicate for not saying how horrible Ann is (God forbid someone lets the public exchange take its course without jumping into the fray). But my favorites are the first two lines of his hateful op-ed:

Ann Coulter is clueless and callous. She has built a career out of demonizing other people and dividing our country.

Solmonese attacks Coulter for calling names . . . by calling her names. He then accuses her of demonizing other people . . . by demonizing her. Socialist divisives like Solmonese are so focused on "ridding the world of intolerance" that they can't even see how intolerant they themselves are of political thought that's contrary to their own.

I will definitely give Solmonese credit for this, though: using the word "faggot" in his op-ed, Instead of the intellectually offensive f***** that we have to suffer through so much. His use of it is totally innocuous and it makes it very clear what he's talking about. So kudos to him for that.

Free speech when it suits them

Some "artist," Michael Petry, is making a bit of a name for himself with his art exhibit, America the Beatiful, that looks at our great country's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. One of the pieces is an American flag with pearls (left) sewn into the flag in the design of a cumshot by an actual gay man. It is by far the most crude, disgusting, shameful way to use the American flag I have ever seen.

On the other side, we have the continue battle raging over a single confederate flag flying on state grounds in the state of South Carolina. Black and other liberal groups have tried for years to get all confederate flags removed, but this one lone flag stands, and the state legislature refuses to remove it, saying that it represents an important part of state history (which is, of course, true). Now, some black coaches have gotten the NCAA to take aim at South Carolina's university, and the NCAA may strengthen its existing ban on postseason tournaments and games held in the state.

Various people would defend the sperm-covered flag; many others would defend the confederate flag. Unfortunately, few would defend both because political agenda, not individual rights, are what is most important to so many Americans today.

Though I personally find the former absolutely disgusting and I would like to see it gone, while I find the latter to be one group's fight for self-expression (the supports of the flag) against the ever-growing P.C. police (in this case the black coaches), I defend the right of both to exist.

• Kentucky hoops team refuses to play South Carolina team

"Fair Use"

At Outsports, we go out of our way to avoid violating any copyrights. It sucks for someone to see their hard work used by other people for profit; we've had it done to us and we hate it, and we wouldn't want to do it to anyone else.

Blogs across the Web have been stealing copyrighted photos for quite a while now and using them to make a profit. While I can't stand Oprah, it was good to see her and her attorney's serve notice to The Malcontent that they must stop violating copyright. I certainly have nothing against The Malcontent. In fact, I often enjoy it. But, like Towleroad, PerezHilton and so many other blogs that I like, it bugs the shit out of me that they're just stealing other people's photos.

The defense has long been the "Fair Use" doctrine, which does limit, in certain circumstances, the protections of a copyright. The problem is, these blogs are using copyrighted pictures to make money. If they were incorporated non-profit organizations, then they would have a great case; but, they're not, so they don't. Take The Malcontent's argument:

"But the one that really sticks in my craw is his contention that our supposed infringement stems from commercial exploitation of the images because this site 'solcits (sic) and includes advertisements.'

"Forget for a moment that the meager sum we make from BlogAds (which does not offset the cost of running the site).  Forget that we aren’t exactly profiting directly from her content, say, by charging a fee for people to view our Oprah clips or such.  But Friedman’s view of copyright law is so tendentious and expansive as to render it almost meaningless."

Uh, actually, the lawyer's dead-on. Remember, he actually went to law school, so it's no surprise his legal argument is better than that of this blogger. The blog IS soliciting advertisements and IS making money off of them. If they're spending more than they're making, then that's their problem.

I strive on this blog to use my own pictures and marketing materials. If I infringe on anyone's copyright, I invite them to contact me and ask me to remove the image; I won't slam you for protecting your rights, I'll happily remove it.

Founders: "Freedom of speech is not absolute"

I am a huge proponent of protecting the First Amendment, which gives us the freedom to say whatever we want whenever we want. As a strict interpretationist of the U.S. Constitution, I think the words on the paper speak for themselves: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What is interesting here is that it says "Congress shall make no law...." It says nothing about the executive branch or the court system. No other amendment to the Constitution mentions Congress but this one. Those words were chosen carefully, as the founders knew that there were times and situations when people should not be able to say whatever they wanted, and that it was the executive and judicial branches that should determine that. The classic example is yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

The debate over the freedom of political speech has raged for years. From communist teachings in the '50s to burning the flag in the '80s, we have wrestled with the role of political (and religious, for that matter) speech since our inception. I watched coverage last night of the Chinese woman who heckled the Chinese President who was at an even with President Bush. Some of the coverage (including reaction from around the world) claimed that the woman should have been allowed to speak, and that past hecklers of Bush were unjustly quieted. That is poppycock. If people were allowed to heckle everyone else, no voices would be heard. Should people be able to invade the offices of CBS and CNN and protest during their political segments? Of course not. I think the executive and judicial branches have done a good job of protecting the integrity of the First Amendment.

I wish more people who disagree with the political statements of some would find their own platforms instead of trying to tear down those of others.

The Stanford Review's fight for freedom

The Stanford Review is the University's conservative voice on campus. It's funny that many people I talk to think Stanford is a conservative place because they think only rich white kids go there. On the contrary, it is a bastion of liberalism. In 1992, George Bush came in third in presidential voting on campus: Clinton 75%, Perot 14%, Bush 11%. Despite the presence of the Hoover Institution, one of the most-respected conservative think tanks in the country, and Condoleeza Rice's stint there as provost, it is just to the left (literally and figuratively) of Berkeley.

When I was there, I encountered an alarming amount of liberals trying to quiet conservative voices. From closing fraternities (and boy did they hate that I STARTED on - Theta Delta Chi - which lives on today) to supressing conservative thought in the classroom, Stanford was a factory of liberal thinkers.

So it comes as no surprise to me that The Stanford Review has come under fire from the university for daring to distribute their newspaper door-to-door. When I was there, I got countless door-to-door solicitations for t-shirts, candy, credit cards - you name it. But a conservative newspaper? Now these students have gone too far! In fact, a resident fellow while I was there took the copies of The Stanford Review in his dorm and threw them in the trash so none of his residents could read it.

It's partly because of those four years at Stanford that I have since thougth liberals were far more interested in the suppression of expression than conservatives. Political thought, to me, should never be suppressed by should be encouraged, whether you agree with it or not. Private institution or not, the First Amendment is the most important document we have because it is what sets us apart from the rest of the world.

Luckily, the Review is fighting back and has the support, quite surprisingly, of the student union and other student publications. If you're affiliated with Stanford and want to help build open thought at Stanford, please sign this online petition.

Another example of why America is great

Before you start posting messages about how racist I am, let me start by saying I don't agree with anything this guy says about the Holocaust not being that bad. Murder is a terrible thing. Genocide is a terrible thing.

With that said, British historian David Irving should be able to say whatever the hell he wants. He has said, over the course of the last 20 years, that the Holocaust didn't really happen and has spread anti-Semetic ideas. Austria, where he gave a speech denying the Holocaust, has a law prohibiting such speech. The Austrian government finally has its claws in him, and he is presently being held in jail.

It's disgusting to me that a country - let alone a European country - would have a law prohibiting political speech. While his opinion may be wildly unpopular and racist, he has a right to voice his opinion and no government should interfere with that speech. As JFK said, "the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."

Unfortunately, the people of Austria are too haunted by their past, and too afraid of the free marketplace of ideas, to adhere to such a very American ideal.

Virginia makes fine for low-rise jeans

The Virginia House of Delegates has passed a statewide law that creates a fine for wearing low-rise pants that show your underwear.

Norfolk Delegate Algie Howell Jr. introduced the bill at the behest of constituents who said they were offended by seeing people's underwear.

Howell said, "That's why they're called undergarments. They're supposed to be worn under something else."

Virginia is now at the very top of my list of worst places to live in America.

Freeing America: FCC chair steps down

Mike Powell, the FCC Chairman who has ruled the airwaves with an iron fist (and a lack of regard for the First Amendment) is reportedly stepping down. This is great news. From Janet Jackson to Howard Stern, Powell has sent a chill through the entertainment and communication industries that has made people more and more afraid to speak their minds.

Far worse than now-former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Powell waged war on our rights and sought to replace American liberty with his version decency. Let's just hope the devil we don't know isn't worse than the devil we know . . .

No 1st Amendment in EU

You wanna talk to me about how great Europe is, and how America has "slipped"? Try these two gems on for size.

In grand old England, establishments are being ordered to remove rainbow flags that are flying outside of their buildings. The local government is coming up with zoning nonsense as an excuse to order them to remove the flags. Poppycock!