ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Miscellaneous Blogs -> Fannie's Room

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Miscellaneous

: Fannie's Room

A Crappy Tea-Party Victim Narrative

By Fannie

ADVERTISEMENTS
[Note: This post contains 6 of the 7 George Carlin dirty words you can't say on television, which some, consequently, also find offensive. Just so that's out there.]


So, I've been following this NAACP/Tea Party hub-ub with mild interest. Only mild interest because while the Tea Partiers annoy me, that annoyance is not significantly greater than my annoyance with Democrats or Republicans.

What does perturb me significantly is sloppy thinking and straw arguments. Observe, in reaction to the NAACP denouncing racist elements within the Tea Party, Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler opine in Politico:


"A clear pattern of behavior has emerged over the last 16 months. According to liberals, if you disagree with their thinking, and if you disagree with the Obama administration, you are not only wrong, you are a 'racist.'?


Holy strawman, Dorothy. You will notice that, despite this oh-so-pervasive "pattern" of liberal argumentation, Martin and Meckler don't provide evidence of a single liberal making such an absurd claim. Besides, it's not so much that those who disgaree with Obama are racist because they disagree with him, but rather, that sometimes those who disagree with Obama also happen be racist.

It's a nuance thing. But, it plays well into the victim narrative. Observe Martin and Meckler, continuing to get it so very wrong:

"The latest strike by the left comes from the NAACP, which has resolved that the tea party movement is inherently 'racist.' At its most simple, this is a direct attack on the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans."


Oh buddha on a biscuit. The First Amendment, say it with me now, prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech. Individuals calling other individuals names is not a violation of anybody's shit piss fuck c--- cocksucker motherfucker tits* free speech rights. At its most simple. Framing the label "racist" as a First Amendment violation, is an ironic silencing mechanism. Legitimate criticisms of racism are chalked up as either a pseudo-violation of somebody else's First Amendment rights or as unfairly playing the race card (tm).

Anyway, after those two beginning quotations, my respect for this article was so deep in the shitter that I stopped reading it. Proceed with caution.

*In real First Amendment news, the 2nd Circuit just issued an important free speech decision finding the FCC's rules regarding expletives unconstitutionally vague. That is a victory for free speech.

[Note: Yes, I self-censored that c-word that I, and many others, abhor. Just because you have free speech rights, doesn't mean you should always say everything you're free to say. Or, as some might say, the feminazis are censoring me!11!!1]

Full post as published by Fannie's Room on July 16, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0028 secs (from cache 11/03/26 08:25:08)