Tag Archives: free speech

Lazarus Orwell

Lazarus – Hebrew, “God will help.”

“Name Your Baby”, Lareina Rule

“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”

Winston Smith in “1984”, George Orwell

In the 1994 midterm elections, the Republican Party achieved something they hadn’t in nearly four decades: they won the majority of seats in both houses of congress.  And they won big; a “Super Majority” that clearly showed an early rebuke of President Bill Clinton’s agenda.  Newt Gingrich, a veteran politician from Georgia, was elected House leader.  At the start of 1995, Connie Chung, then co-anchor of the CBS Evening News, interviewed Gingrich’s parents at their home.  Puffing on cigarettes and speaking barely above a stage whisper, Gingrich’s mother, Kathleen, noted her son didn’t particularly like Clinton or First Lady Hillary Clinton.  In fact, she said, he had an extreme disdain for Hillary and said he’d called her a “bitch”.

The national reaction was explosive.  Gingrich himself never confirmed whether or not he’d actually said that, but condemned for taking advantage of two people who weren’t “media savvy”.  How media savvy does someone need to be, replied Chung, to know they’re speaking with a nationally renowned journalist and have three cameras set up around them?

But Chung had unknowingly orchestrated her own demise.  CBS almost immediately terminated her.

In 2004, as then-President George W. Bush was in the midst of his reelection campaign, Dan Rather, another veteran journalist and anchor of the CBS Evening News (Chung’s former colleague), dived into Bush’s so-called military record.  After graduating from Harvard in 1968, Bush immediately joined the Texas National Guard.  The Vietnam War was raging, and young men were being drafted into military service.  Getting a position in a National Guard unit was highly coveted and difficult to obtain.  According to…well, himself…Bush completed his first stint in the Guard in 1972 and reenlisted, before moving to Alabama to assist in the presidential campaign of George Wallace.  He then joined the Alabama National Guard and supposedly got suspended for missing an annual physical exam.  But what happened after that is largely unknown.  Bush’s records mysteriously disappeared.

Dan Rather had gained fame in 1961, as he delivered live coverage of Hurricane Carla’s landfall in Texas.  He began anchoring the CBS Evening News in 1981.  The outrage over his questions into Bush’s military service was palpable.  The same political and social conservatives who screamed over Bill Clinton’s lack of military service were suddenly offended with Rather’s report.

At the start of 2005, CBS dismissed Rather.  For the second time in a decade, the news conglomerate had allowed themselves to be intimidated by a key political figure.

All of that nonsense came to light recently, as controversy fell atop Stephen Colbert, host of “The Late Show” on CBS.  A few months ago Colbert interviewed Texas politician James Talarico who is running for U.S. Senate.  However CBS didn’t broadcast the interview.  Apparently CBS hadn’t heard of this thing called the internet and something else called YouTube.  Its legal advisors claimed the interview was in violation of the Federal Communication Commission’s Fairness Doctrine – a creed that mandates broadcast networks devote equal time to views on national issues.  Generally the rule applied only to news programs; talk shows were exempt because they were considered entertainment venues.

Until now.

If either previous presidents Bill Clinton or Barack Obama got upset every time a public media figure mocked or even criticized them, they’d be incarcerated for life in mental health hospitals.  In contrast the administration of current President Donald Trump is obviously of fragile spirit.  Colbert has been a vocal critic of the president.

CBS canceled “The Late Show”, which had been broadcasting since 1993.  Last week was the final telecast.  They claimed low ratings, but I don’t believe that.  My followers know what a strong free speech advocate I am.  It’s not just the writer in me – it’s the human being in my soul; someone born and raised in a country that values the right to speak freely.

Politicians utilizing their power to coerce a media into compliance or silence is the essence of totalitarianism.  Other countries allow this to happen.  China or Russia sound familiar?

I’ve never been a fan of Colbert, but I’m still angry over his show’s cancellation.  It’s obvious what happened.  But what should we, as free people, do about it?  How much of this madness are we supposed to tolerate?

1 Comment

Filed under Essays

Banned Books Week 2025 – October 5-11

Every “Banned Books Week” because it highlights the ongoing fight against censorship.  But it’s become especially critical in recent years in what has generally been considered the world’s most powerful democracy.  Under our current leadership, we’re heading towards authoritarianism, and the number of book bans across the U.S. has increased and intensified.

The hysteria won’t stop – certainly not as long as we have right-wing extremists in the White House and both houses of Congress.  Just remember: no one has the right to determine what’s appropriate for others to read!  That’s counterintuitive to the First Amendment to the Constitution and won’t succeed.  It will only drive readership underground and ultimately lead to anarchy.

Authors Guild Censorship Tracker: Monitoring Threats to Free Speech and Authors’ Rights

PEN America: Banned Books List 2025

PEN America: The Normalization of Book Banning

Keep writing and keep fighting!

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Watchittocracy

Around 1990 I met a woman who once worked for the now-defunct Braniff Airlines.  She was the aunt of a close friend, and somehow we got to discussing business practices and how things function in the corporate world.  I was already working for a major bank in Dallas.  She noted how the former president of Braniff refused to accept the reality of bad news.  Anyone who dared to step into his office and present him with less-than-stellar information about the company’s dire finances was promptly terminated.  On the day in 1982 the company filed for bankruptcy, she mentioned that employees didn’t get paid and, in some clerical settings, they literally went ballistic and destroyed many pieces of equipment and office furnishings as retribution.  I was shocked, but said I didn’t blame them.

In the summer of 2011 I landed a contract technical writing position with an IT firm in Dallas.  One of the senior technical writers had worked for Braniff as a flight attendant until they went bankrupt.  She confirmed what that other woman had told me two decades earlier.  Braniff employees didn’t receive their last paycheck and lost their patience.

You don’t have to be a business owner to understand that bad news is an inevitable burr in daily operations.  It comes with territory, but some people handle it better than others.  The same goes for comedy.  Cultural shifts can make individuals more or even less sensitive to certain aspects of their surrounding environments.

The U.S. currently has a president, however, who has no problem calling people names and making fun of them, but suddenly draws the line at people mocking him.  “You’re a horrible person” is how he often prefaces a response to someone who asks him a question he finds intolerable.  But, as I wrote in a previous essay, it appears the demonic world of American politics has become riddled with the emotionally fragile.

Last week conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed by a young man while holding an outdoor question-and-answer session at Utah Valley University.  The 31-year-old Kirk left behind a wife and two young children.  Right-wingers immediately jumped into the chaos and started pointing fingers at liberals and the entire Democratic Party. 

“Democrats own what happened today,” South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace groused to reporters the day after Kirk’s death.  “I am devastated.  My kids have called, panicking.  All the kids of conservatives are panicking.”

President Trump ordered flags flown at half-mast in honor of Kirk; something he didn’t do in the bloody aftermath of the January 6, 2021 riots on Capitol Hill.

It’s ironic, though, because Kirk once said that gun-related deaths were merely a price to pay for Americans’ right to own firearms.  “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment,” he stated matter-of-factly in 2023.  Now he’s being lionized as a martyr to conservative ideology.

Kirk also believed firmly in free speech, declaring that saying even “contrarian things” is acceptable.  I have to agree with that statement.  But, as the adage goes, be careful what you wish for…

The general concept of free speech is now under attack, as it always has been with Trump and his MAGA mafia.  Recently the Federal Communications Commission ordered the ABC network to cancel or at least suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s nightly talk show, after he commented on Kirk’s murder.  Kimmel didn’t gloat over the assassination; he simply pointed out that Trump supporters are using it to enhance their own anger.

For some folks, free speech only seems to have consequences or responsibilities when someone says something they don’t like.  How free should someone be with their own words?  You can’t threaten to kill someone or you can’t call them a rapist without tangible proof.  Slander and threats of violence aren’t covered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Banned Books Week 2025 is coming up soon, and I recollect a news piece I saw back around 1986 – the centennial anniversary of the Statue of Liberty.  Several foreign-born and newly-minted American citizens discussed the oppression they escaped.  One woman, a Russian, noted that she was a reading a book at an outdoor café, when said she suddenly got the feeling someone was watching her.  But she remembered she was now in the United States – and she could read just about anything she wanted, even in public, without fear that someone would report her to authorities for being a traitor or disruptive; merely because of what she was reading.

Is that where we’re headed?  People need to watch what they read, as well as what they say?  Or is the First Amendment now subject to political interpretation?

Do any of us want someone else to determine what we say and read?  I’m not willing to give up that type of freedom.  No one should.

Image: Dave Whamond

6 Comments

Filed under Essays

You Won’t Have Mail!

Recently American Online (AOL) made a stunning announcement: they’re shutting down on September 30 – this year.  As in one month from now!  What had once been THE email service for many internet users has apparently run its course and – like most lifelong politicians – is no longer relevant.

Introduced in 1991, the screeching sound of AOL dial up served as the soundtrack of those early days of the cyber universe.  I definitely remember it!  AOL came with my first personal computer in March of 2000.  The “You’ve got mail” voice alert was exciting at the time. 

The influx of broadband remedied the nails-on-chalkboard tone that signaled a connection to the internet.  But, as with dial phones and 8-track tape players, AOL may have become a victim of technology.  It’s just what happens with technology and trends.

Despite my initial love for AOL, I had two major clashes with them; the second of which severed our relationship forever.  In February 2004, AOL published a piece on how Christopher Columbus allegedly used Leap Year Day of 1504 to trick the indigenous Taino people of Jamaica into providing food for him and his stranded crew.  In the comments section, someone posted a completely unrelated remark; something to the effect of “no one has suffered like the Jewish people.”

I have no idea what prompted it, except ethnocentric arrogance.  But I replied with a remark that included the term “politically correct bullshit”.   Apparently that hurt someone’s feelings, so they reported me to AOL who promptly deleted the verbiage and suspended me from commenting for a short period.  In other words, AOL did something that reeked of juvenile behavior – they put me on “probation”.

“Excuse me?”  It was bad enough I could hardly understand the customer service representative through her heavy accent.  Like several U.S. companies at the turn of the century, AOL had outsourced their technical support and customer service to India and other parts unknown.  But, when she told me about the probationary status due to my foul language, I retorted, “You don’t place me on probation!  I place you on probation!”  I was a paying customer, plus the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that foul language was protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Neither truth would change their cyber mind.

Seven years later I committed another more egregious act – in the minds of AOL leadership.  I emailed a nude image of myself to a close friend in a joke message.  This time it was AOL who got their feelings hurt and literally shut down my email address.  I had to scramble to find another service and settled on Gmail.  But I kept thinking – if everyone who used foul language or sent a nude photo got banned from the internet, well…you wouldn’t have an internet!

My father – who was born in 1933 – told me that, as a kid, he thought the voices he heard from the radio were from tiny people inside the device.  Radio was a popular form of technology in the 1930s and 40s.  Then television, then computers and now…well, who knows what will come up in the future.

Goodbye to AOL.  And life continues.  Like technology itself, it always does.

2 Comments

Filed under Essays

CB Saps

The CBS television network is one of the most storied media outlets here in the U.S.  It officially launched in September of 1927 as a radio network – a major news source at the time – before transitioning in 1941 into the new medium of TV.  The assassination of President John Kennedy in 1963 led CBS to expand their weekly evening news broadcasts from 15 to 30 minutes, which remains a staple of mainstream news outlets.

In 1960 a young journalist named Dan Rather joined CBS, and in 1981, he took over the helm of the network’s nightly evening news broadcast from another legend, Walter Cronkite.  Rather had already established himself as a premier journalist.  From his live coverage of Hurricane Carla in 1961 to the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the horrors of 9/11, Rather had few equals.  But, in the fall of 2004, he encountered his final nemesis – and perhaps one of the most unlikely: a conservative Republican political figure with a fragile ego, incumbent U.S. President George W. Bush.  After five lackluster years as Texas governor, Bush ran for president in 2000 – and won in a controversial decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.  He became only the second U.S. president to follow his father into that esteemed role.  One issue that arose early in Bush’s presidential campaign was his decision to join the Texas National Guard upon graduating from Harvard in 1968.  He reenlisted four years later and then – allegedly – transferred to Alabama to work on the presidential campaign of George C. Wallace, a renowned segregationist.  Whether or not Bush completed his second stint in the National Guard has never been resolved.  He served at a time when the Vietnam War was raging and positions in any state’s national guard were highly valued for draft-age men.

The same conundrum befell Bill Clinton when he announced his candidacy for the presidency in 1991.  Conservatives were quick to denounce Clinton as a “draft dodger”, but held off criticism of Bush years later.  But when Dan Rather began his quest to determine the exact nature of Bush’s so-called military service, right-wing hound dogs quickly pounced.  How dare Rather question the integrity of their contemporary savior!  After Bush won the 2004 election (in contrast to 2000, when it was strictly an electoral college victory), the pseudo-Texan’s anger manifested quietly and nondescriptly in Rather’s termination from CBS.

The move pleased conservatives, but outraged liberals.  It mirrored a similar move by CBS against Rather’s colleagues, Connie Chung, a decade earlier.  Chung began her journalism career with CBS as a Washington, D.C., correspondent in the 1970s.  In 1993, she became only the second woman and the first Asian-American to headline a major network news broadcast, when she became Rather’s co-anchor on the CBS Evening News.  Two years later, however, her stint with the network crashed after interview with the parents of another conservative Republican with a fragile ego.

In November 1994, Republicans gained control of both Houses of the U.S. Congress for the first time since 1954.  And they didn’t just win – they won a super-majority in each chamber.  There were at least 3 factors: Clinton’s attempt at a national healthcare program, a ten-year ban on assault-style weapons and queers in the military.  All three were anathemic to American conservatives, and the new Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, stood at the helm of their angst.  A Pennsylvania native and Ronald Reagan acolyte, Gingrich first arrived in the U.S. Congress in 1979.  When Bill Clinton became president, Gingrich led the loud, yet unofficial call, to slaughter the former Arkansas governor’s reputation.

In the spring of 1995, Connie Chung traveled to Georgia to interview Gingrich’s parents.  His mother, Kathleen, sitting in her kitchen, chain-smoking and speaking barely above a stage whisper, noted her son’s disdain for the Clintons – not just the President, but also First Lady Hillary.  When pressed by Chung, Kathleen Gingrich said Newt had called Hillary Clinton a “bitch”.  Chung chuckled and seemingly expressed surprise.

The interview rocketed across the news spectrum like a lightning bolt.  Newt Gingrich openly announced his rage (and refused to acknowledge whether or not he’d described Hillary Clinton as a “bitch”).  Nonetheless, he accused Chung of taking advantage of people who weren’t “media savvy”.  In response, Chung asked how “media savvy” does someone need to be when they’ve welcomed a national news figure into their home and have three cameras and several studio lights set up around them.  CBS severed Chung’s contract.

Now, some two decades later, CBS has bowed to the ego of yet another conservative Republican: President Donald Trump.  They recently announced the cancelation of the long-running “The Late Show”, which will officially end in May 2026.  Comedian Stephen Colbert has hosted the show since 2015 and has been one of Trump’s most prominent critics.  This announcement comes as a surprise, but in reality, shouldn’t be.  Previous host David Letterman frequently mocked President George W. Bush – and never shied away from his barbs.  Every political figure in the U.S. has been the subject of disdain and caricature.  Anyone who enters American politics with a thin skin normally fries in the broth of farcical verbiage.  But it sort of comes with the territory.

Yet I can’t help but notice that attacks on journalism and popular culture have come from the conservative wing.  The right-wing fringe that once openly-mocked diversity and inclusion now seems to bristle at the sound of tawdry jokes and comical jibes.  And liberals are the wimps?

Spare me the anxiety!

Personally I was the subject of extensive bullying throughout my school years and even into young adulthood.  But I survived the maelstrom and I’m still here.  In a nation that values free speech and a free press, it’s frustrating to know that journalists and comedians are ostracized for criticizing or questioning anyone – least of all political figures.  In fact it pisses me off and makes me wonder what’s next.  The U.S. currently has a president who insulted a large number of people and deliberately fomented a physical assault on our government.  Threatening physical violence and slandering someone’s reputation are actually illegal.  But, in the current, political climate, personal fragility is obviously subjective.

1 Comment

Filed under Essays

The Magna Carta at 810

Around this time in 1215 C.E., England’s King John placed his royal seal on the “Great Charter”, more commonly known as the Magna Carta.  The signing came after a revolt by English nobility against John’s rule.  The document guaranteed the king would respect the rights of individuals and uphold the freedom of the Church – among other things.

The charter was a key element in the establishment of democracy in England and ultimately across Europe.  It also became critical in the creation of the United States more than 500 years later.  The framers of the U.S. Constitution highlighted the essence of the Magna Carta in their discussions.

The anniversary of King John’s signing is notable here in the U.S. since last weekend the indefatigable Donald Trump staged a parade in Washington, D.C., to coincide with the 250th anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. Army and his 79th birthday.  The festivities were more for him and his overbearing ego than to celebrate the Army.  But it was also important in that thousands of “No Kings” protests occurred across the nation – a direct response to Trump’s totalitarian attitude.

Fortunately, the Magna Carta – and the U.S. Constitution – will outlast any political ideology.

Here’s a PDF version of the translated document.

Leave a comment

Filed under History

In Memoriam – Mario Vargas Llosa, 1936-2025

“Good literature is absolutely necessary for a society that wants to be free.”

Mario Vargas Llosa

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Words

Several years ago actress turned animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot found herself in legal trouble with French authorities.  The former screen siren openly condemned the Islamic practice of animal slaughter during the Aid al-Kabir holiday. She’d been in such a predicament before – several times.  French law doesn’t actually forbid disparaging religious ideology, but it looks down sharply upon it, as it can be considered slander or worse, a conduit to hate-obsessed violence.

It’s surprising, considering France fought hard against Nazi occupation during World War II.  One tenet of Nazism is that anyone who speaks out against the government is deemed a traitor.  But, short of slander or threats of violence, criticism of governing bodies and religion is free speech.  Imprisoning anyone, or even threatening to levy a monetary penalty for such views, runs counter to that.

All of it strikes hard for me – and other writers and artists – here in the U.S., as we witness ongoing assaults on various forms of free speech.  Book bans remain a primary source of concern.  And with Republicans in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress, the attacks continue.  Social extremists have always been opposed to any viewpoint that doesn’t conform to their standards – whether it’s coming from the left or the right.  The voices of moderates seem to get lost in the chaos.

Recently the U.S. government – under pressure from the Trump administration – compiled and presented a list of words that are forbidden on federal web sites and other documentation.  They include such terms as “biologically male”, “clean energy”, “inequality”, and “woman”.  This is real!  I have a tendency towards creating outrageous stories, but I’m not intoxicated or deranged.  Well…not yet.

Regardless, the list definitely isn’t a manifestation of liberal outrage at the most right-wing president in decades.  It’s a result of years of conservative ideology designed to put people and institutions in categories and re-enshrine bigotry and hatred into the American conscience.  The leftward shift in culture and politics in the U.S. beginning in the late 1950s eventually met the hostility of Reaganesque antipathy towards anything viewed as different or the other.  The Trump era is the culmination of it all.

Those in formerly marginalized groups who also voted for Trump and his ilk shouldn’t be surprised – but they are.  For example, Cuban-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Trump, as they often have for the Republican Party.  As Cuba has been under communist rule since 1959, those fleeing the country have been given special protection from American law.  The same luxury hasn’t been granted to people fleeing war and violence in other Latin American nations, such as El Salvador and Guatemala.  However, the Trump Administration’s efforts to reform immigration law have started to impact thousands of Cuban immigrants.  Now, Cuban-Americans have the audacity to be horrified at the betrayal.  Remember the adage: be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.

We also need to recall the words of Martin Niemöller:

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Trump and his cronies appear to be going after anyone who doesn’t fit the narrow definition of who he is.  His hypocrisy is glaring.  He never outwardly espoused any religious fervor until he first ran for president, but now says Christian ideology should be taught in schools.  If he believes in true biblical content, then consider the Christian Bible’s 7th commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Exodus 20:14.

There are others.

“I am a stranger and an alien residing among you; give me property among you for a burying place, so that I may bury my dead out of my sight.” Genesis 23:4

“The sinless one among you, go first. Throw the stone.” John 8:6-11

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:30-31

I’m sure this would be too much for him to handle.  It’s too much even for some devout Christians to handle!

Whatever words someone wants to use, they shouldn’t be frightened into compliance.  Russia, Iran and North Korea do that.  No truly democratic society wants to echo such autocratic leadership.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Rapid Response Fund

As National Library Week 2025 comes to an end here in the U.S., I want to highlight Every Library’s “Rapid Response Fund”, a political action group for libraries.  As I’ve noted before, censorship is in full swing in a country that enshrined the concept of free speech into its constitution.  This could only happen with a right-wing autocrat like Donald Trump in the White House.  As writers and bloggers, we can’t afford to let this madness continue.  Please consider donating and as always – keep writing and keep fighting!

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Day of the Imprisoned Writer 2024

“The censorship and book-burning of unpoliced prose, the harassment and detention of painters, journalists, poets, playwrights, novelists, essayists: this is the first step of a despot whose instinctive acts of malevolence are not simply mindless or evil; they are also perceptive. Such despots know very well that their strategy of repression will allow the real tools of oppressive power to flourish.”

Toni Morrison

To all writers everywhere, don’t let any political entities stop you!  Keep writing and keep fighting!

Day of the Imprisoned Writer

Image: Pham Doan Trang, PEN/Barbey Freedom to Write Awardee, by Jin Jin

Leave a comment

Filed under News