--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Coerced speech is a violation of > > the most fundamental principles of the United > States. > > It is ironic and revelatory that people who think > > preventing flag burning is an atrocity are fine > with NPR. > > So, are you saying that any entity that gets > government money for any > reason whatsoever is engaged in coerced speech if it > is produces anything > with any political content? I realize why that can > be problematic, but in > other areas you insist it isn't a problem at all and > an essential part of > free speech. > > Dan M.
No, I'm saying that when (as in the case of NPR) it pretty much forsakes all attempts at being neutral or apolitical and uses its government funding as a cloak to promote an agenda, then that's over the line. I'm not an absolutist on issues like this. NPR gets extensive government privileges that reach beyond just the funding, and they make its embrace of a wholesale agenda (often an anti-American one, even more often an anti-Israeli one) unacceptable. I recognize that there are organizations that get federal funding that engage in political speech - although this is something that should be viewed with _extreme_ caution - but NPR crosses way over the line. Note that PBS, which is still liberally biased but not nearly as bad as NPR, doesn't draw my fire in the same way. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
