The Petition and Free Speech
While circulating the petition, I've had some LP activists whom I respect a great deal express to me concerns about the intent of the petition.
It's been (very politely so far) suggested to me that those of us supporting the petition are holding rigidly to our own preferences and point of view, to the point of intolerance.
Is this really an issue that involves the right of free speech?
First of all, no one that I know of who had a hand in getting the petition together is afraid of Mr Boortz's views per se. Our concerns are purely strategic, having to do with the link-up in the public mind between these views and the LP.
I ask that those concerned with the free speech issue consider one simple truth.
The Libertarian Party is a voluntary membership organization, in which members have every right to influence the way our organization is presented to the public.
Naturally, those who disagree with the petition have that same right.
It's no different than a private corporation that has just hired a CEO. Suppose that this person absolutely refused to come to work in anything close to proper business attire, while treating prospective customers with outright disdain.
The stockholders would have every right to bring their concerns before the corporation's board of directors, and ask for the new CEO's dismissal.
Those opposing the petition may differ with petition supporters on what the definition of "proper business attire" should be for the LP, but they shouldn't try to make their case on the basis of a perceived violation of rights.
Posted by Jeff Smith at December 10, 2003 05:05 PM | TrackBackWe are not "The Freedom From Consequences Party".
Every decision one makes brings a risk of consequences.
No one is holding a gun to anybody's head here.
The LNC need only decide if they want to stay on the current path or choose another. The petition is valuable feedback. The LNCs response to the petition is also valuable feedback for the signers.
It's amazing that even libertarians buy into leftist absurdities about "free speech".
Every time a person is invited to give a talk in a private forum, the free speech rights of all the billions of people who weren't invited are violated.
The invitation to Boortz violated Rush Limbaugh's free speech rights. Rush is also a prominent radio personality who talks about politics. There should have been a lottery to decide whether it would be Rush or Boortz. Boortz was invited because it was expected that the content of his talk would be more libertarian than Rush's, and that violated Rush's free speech rights.
Posted by: at December 10, 2003 06:22 PMHow bizarre, to have it suggested that our not abandoning our fundamental values is somehow "too rigid".
Even more bizarre is the suggestion that Boortz is somehow being denied his right to "free speech" by not beeing given a podium paid for by LP members and supporters. How are Boortz's rights being violated? Can anyone claim that he does not have a venue for spouting his neo-con trash? The man does have his own talk show!
Given the deafening silence by the LP on King George's war I find myself wondering if the Boortz invitation is not just part of a quiet coup. The LP keeps nattering on about local taxes, ignoring the blood and treasure being poured down an Iraqi rathole, then invites a neo-con to speak at the convention. It appears to be more than carelessness involved.
Posted by: R Spilman at December 12, 2003 05:46 AMLocal taxes and the war on drugs.
It seems that was one of Neale's defenses of Boortz. He's against the drug war! What more can we ask for?
Thanks for the post, Spilman. You've given clear expression to some thoughts that have been rattling around in my brain.
Posted by: David Tomlin at December 12, 2003 03:52 PM