Maybe someone can explain.

I have seen numerous journalist from the right and left speak out in support of free speech related to the Mahr fiasco and other dissenters.

Ms Weiss churlishly lashes out at her readers for disagreeing with her and quotes our founding fathers to support her apparent opinion that there is something evil and hypocritical about the disagreement and some special evil in expressing that disagreement by withdrawing sponsorship.

For instance, if an advertiser wants to pull his support from a show, he has every right to do precisely that. This isn't about free speech, Ms. Moron: it's about free markets.



Well, fine: true enough, as far as it goes, although I must say I would find this argument more persuasive if said advertisers -- notorious for their limp-noodle spines -- had canceled Mr. Maher eons ago, rather than waiting to succumb to a malignant phone-a-thon ginned up as a substitute for war.



What ever happened to the straw that broke the camel's back?

Is she suggesting that advertisers be required to support unpopular opinions and viewers be required to tune in nightly, in the interest of free speech?

If the response to Mahr was so evil and un-american, where are the advertisers lined up to replace the hypocritical companies that dropped him? If he has been wronged, no doubt millions of good citizens will be tuning in a show of support.

No one has abridged this entertainer's first ammendment rights. At this point he still has his show. If and when it is canceled he still has the right to mount a soap box or maybe he can write a column, if he can handle a little chiding.

Free Speech Revisited