Surfed over to the Viet Weekly web site, and found an interview by that publication of Trong Doan, one of the most ardent protesters against Nguoi Viet Daily News. Doan is also sued by Nguoi Viet for defamation etc., and he’s also being prosecuted for an alleged assault and battery on a Nguoi Viet reporter.
Right now, a late-night talk show host is giving Doan and his cohorts plenty of free air time. But it’s at night. And it’s radio. Radio is not permanent.
Doan’s problem is, none of the regular print publications would give him the time of day. Nguoi Viet has recently instituted an express policy not to give any ink to the protesters or their supporters. Other Vietnamese publications – Viet Bao, Vien Dong, Little Saigon News, the Bolsavik can go on and on — nobody is giving Trong Doan and his kind any space.
So, after being slammed by the Reg’s Frank Mickadeit (Twice! Here and here), Doan went looking for sympathy, and found none. No print publication would touch this hot potato.
Except Viet Weekly, which gave him not just an interview but cover page exposure.
The irony is, Doan was also one of the most ardent protesters against Viet Weekly, swearing not to stop until the publication was shut down.
If he had succeeded, who’d be interviewing him now?
There’s a quote that’s one of the Bolsavik’s favorite, commonly attributed to Voltaire but actually said by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868-1919): “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
That’s the lesson here. The only way to ensure that your voice will be heard tomorrow is to ensure that your opponent’s voice is heard today.
Only a free and robust press can ensure a medium for all opinions — maybe even yours.
The Bolsavik’s friend Ky-Phong Tran once wrote on Nguoi Viet: “Freedom of speech is not just being able to say what you want and speaking your mind. That dear friends, is the easy part. TRUE Freedom of speech is that AND more so: listening to someone yap about something you disagree with, something you might morally or politically abhor, and grinning and bearing it.”
The rest of Doan’s mob squad may want to ponder that.
And some of their opponents too.
Ironically, the moron is benefitting from the freedom of expression which he is trying to suppress! He is exercising the freedom of thought to be moronic but is unable to comprehend that kind of freedom to others!
Trong Doan and his professional protest group say that Viet Weekly is communist or pro-communist (hence, the continuous protesting). So if logic were at play here, wouldn’t Trong Doan not want to purposefully be interviewed and published in Viet Weekly. Is Trong Doan disseminating communist propaganda? Ky Ngo needs to look into this. Maybe they can start protesting each other’s houses or cars.
Mr. Tien Huynh, you are very right. Doan Trong Mr. Evil. My wife and I heard him on radio and we think this guy is insane. Talking complete BS without proof or reason. Probably paid thug by the Communist donors to Vietnamese politicians. He is full of hate and I believe he does not represent goodness of our Vietnamese community. We turn the radio off and no longer listen to Vietnamese radio. We put on the classical, soothing music.
How dare you call me “friend?”
Is that all I am to you?
Confess, confess in public, Mr. Hao-Nhien: WE ARE LOVERS!
Do not be ashamed of me or our forbidden love. California currently allows domestic partnerships. Let’s jump in a green Monte Carlo and cruise the coast like in our favorite film “The Graduate.”
??? Love® is a many-splendored thing ??
Poster #4 and fan of “The Graduate”. One tip for your future – “plastics”.
Don Imus, Snoop Dogg and the 1st Amendment: Suppose the “marketplace of ideas” stops buying “bitches,” “hos” and the N-word?
By Peter Scheer
Don Imus may be gone, guilty of one too many assaults on his audience’s sensitivities and sensibilities, but outrage over racist shock-talk in the mass media continues to build, with hip-hop lyrics the most likely, and most deserving, next target. If “bitches,” “hos” and the N-word were to disappear from our public vocabulary, would freedom of speech be the ultimate casualty?
No, not as long as this change is not forced upon us by an overreaching government. When voices are silenced by the Federal Communications Commission, a Congressional committee, or some other arm of government, the result is censorship–no matter how offensive the speaker. But when a voice goes silent because hardly anyone cares to listen any more to what the speaker has to say, that is the opposite of censorship. That is an example of free speech.
Imus’ racist riffs, like Snoop Dogg’s misogynistic rhetoric, enjoy protection under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. With exceptions that are few and extreme, virtually all expression is protected. But the First Amendment does not assure that a speaker will have, or be able to keep, an audience. On the contrary, principles of free speech protect the right of audience members to choose a different voice, or to stop listening altogether.
Imus has lost his prized positions on CBS (radio) and MSNBC (cable), but his right to speak has not been taken away. He could re-launch his talk show tomorrow on the Internet, and likely would command a substantial online audience right away. What he has lost is the willingness of his sponsors to continue to subsidize his unconstrained impulse to offend their customers. Abandoned by the sponsors, Imus had no leverage with the bosses at CBS and MSNBC who, in the end, and after much equivocation, dumped him for financial reasons–despite their improbable claims to have acted on principle. (“Shocked! Shocked to hear bad language on Imus’ program!”)
Imus learned the truth in the truism that free speech isn’t free.
It is a lesson that bears relearning. The Dixie Chicks, following their well-publicized criticism of George Bush, experienced a fall-off in record sales and concert bookings (at least initially, when their antiwar views were still unpopular with their fans). If they thought their attack on the President, in the heart of Bush Country, would have no cost to them, they obviously miscalculated.
The First Amendment as a “marketplace of ideas” is an apt metaphor for the risks of being controversial. The constitutional safeguard protects a speaker’s opportunity to seek an audience–of true believers, supporters, or people who are just interested. It is a right to compete, but not a right to succeed. Rejection in the marketplace, as in Imus’ case, is not a denial of free speech, but, rather, a manifestation of it….
Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is executive director of CFAC. ps@cfac.org