Radio: Freedom of Speech
home
home
siliconmom.com
Radio commentary on Freedom of Speech aired October 24, 2003 on KLIV, KRTY radio By Alison R.G. van Diggelen Last week, Salman Rushdie visited San Jose. This is the man who endured a fatwa or death sentence for his book “The Satanic Verses”. He wrote some things that offended the Ayatollah Khomeini and his fundamentalist followers. They tried to muzzle Rushdie but failed. Today, Rushdie is outspoken in his criticism of the Bush government. Meanwhile, in the streets of London, the British people are switching the vowels in Prime Minister Blair’s name, calling him a B-liar over the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Half the public thinks it’s time for Blair to resign. In America, this land of the free, there is no such widespread outcry against Bush. People are being muzzled in the name of patriotism. Actors Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins received death threats and the Dixie Chicks were banned on some radio stations for speaking out. When Democrats voiced concern over the wisdom of the war, and post 9/11 homeland security measures they were effectively silenced by accusations of being unpatriotic. Today Rushdie has the courage to speak out. But are the rest of us truly free to voice dissent or only the brave ones? About the author: Alison R. G. van Diggelen is editor of siliconmom.com. She is a columnist for the San Jose Mercury News and Silicon Valley Biz Ink. Alison welcomes comments at siliconmom@earthlink.net *** In response to Friday’s commentary, this radio commentary by Robert Kieve, President of Empire Broadcasting, (KLIV, KRTY), aired on Monday October 27th, 2003. It is printed here with the permission of Mr. Kieve. Last Friday we broadcast a Free Speech Message by a listener who declared that freedom of speech is greater in Great Britain than it is in the United States. People here, she contended, are -- to use her expression – “muzzled in the name of patriotism.” And she seemed to urge the public to be more courageous in voicing dissent. Although people who talk against the war in Iraq or against the President frequently are harshly criticized, I thought the commentator was mistaken about that “muzzling” charge. Despite that disagreement, we broadcast the commentary. After all, we don’t broadcast only those opinions with which we agree. And, in broadcasting this one, of course, we were perhaps demonstrating the inaccuracy of the “muzzling” contention. And then, later on Friday, something happened that would have supported the Free Speech commentator’s cause: a listener called to rip us up and down for broadcasting that commentary, and she vowed that neither she nor any member of her family would ever listen to us again. We didn’t get a chance to remind her that our stations broadcast many opinions; nor were we able -- before she hung up -- to ask if she thinks we should have a policy of broadcasting only those opinions with which we agree. I would have liked to hear her response. This is Robert Kieve, and that’s a personal opinion-- with which you may not agree. *** Footnote: On Monday Nov 3rd, 2003 the following appeared in the San Jose Mercury News, describing Democratic candidate Wesley Clark's speech at the San Francisco Fairmont Hotel before the American Bar Association. Bush has no plan for Iraq, Clark says By Dana Hull, Mercury News … “Applause reached a peak when the retired general blasted the Bush administration for saying that people who spoke out against the Iraq war were in essence helping the enemy. 'Since when in a democracy is it unpatriotic to ask questions about your country’s policies? That’s why I served 34 years,' said Clark, as hundred of lawyers rose for a standing ovation."”
