Conservatives and the Constitution

[Admin]

In My Opinion by Trevor Bothwell

Talk radio host Michael Graham has been fired from Washington, D.C.-based radio station WMAL-AM for his comment on July 21 that “Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization.” In the wake of this recent development, it’s becoming ever too clear that even conservatives sometimes misunderstand the Constitution.

Indeed, the first sentence of Graham’s formal statement regarding his release reads, “The First Amendment and I have been evicted from ABC Radio in Washington, DC.”

Well, he's half right. Mr. Graham may have been evicted from ABC Radio, but the First Amendment wasn’t even paying rent in the first place. As a private corporation, WMAL is under no obligation to observe it.

Most conservative columnists and bloggers are convinced that Graham was fired after WMAL buckled under pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and I tend to agree. According to Townhall.com writer Joel Mowbray:

The latest development in the month-long saga is surprising given that there was barely a stir for the first few days after Graham’s original remarks—and he wasn’t suspended until a week later, on July 28.  Once he was suspended—which happened as a result of a CAIR-led campaign—the group instigated a campaign to have him fired. 

That said, blogger Brian Maloney admitted recently that hunting down the real reasons Mr. Graham was fired is proving to be somewhat tricky. “Was he really terminated after a pressure campaign led by Islamic extremists?” Maloney asks. “Did his comments cross the line?”

Chances are Disney-owned WMAL is the only entity that truly knows why Michael Graham was fired. But the point is, it doesn’t really matter why he was. Conservatives can be upset. CAIR can be happy. It matters not. WMAL should be able to hire or fire any of its employees for any reason. It’s their company, their business, and their prerogative. And it’s also their responsibility to suffer the consequences if they go bankrupt because of their decisions.

This is where those who dispute WMAL’s decision come in. Write the station, buy ad space in newspapers criticizing ABC Radio’s judgment, or simply change the tuner. Let WMAL’s executives know that if they want your business they had better employ talk show hosts who represent your views in the marketplace of ideas. But don’t do what Michael Graham and a website supporting him have done by making statements in the vein of “CAIR WINS, FREE SPEECH LOSES AT ABC RADIO.”

This is not the first time conservatives have misapplied the Constitution either. In early August Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, improperly invoked the Second Amendment as he announced a nationwide boycott of energy and oil conglomerate ConocoPhillips.

Reacting to a federal lawsuit filed by ConocoPhillips to block an Oklahoma law preventing companies from firing employees for keeping legally owned firearms in cars parked in company parking lots, LaPierre stated, “[W]e’re going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights.”

As a member of the NRA, I support its campaign to encourage corporations to allow employees the benefits of firearm protection on company property. But Mr. LaPierre nonetheless should have known better than to suggest that a private corporation has any duty whatsoever to uphold our right to bear arms.   

Such misunderstanding of private property rights does not help the conservative movement. The fact that WMAL may be run by a bunch of pusillanimous imps who caved to CAIR's pressure is certainly pathetic, but it's not unconstitutional. Likewise, ConocoPhillips has as much right to prevent the possession of firearms on its property as you do in your own house.

The Bill of Rights is not a contract between two citizens. It’s a contract between government and its citizens. It places limits on the government, not the people. If we fail to realize this, how long can we expect the government to protect private property rights if we carelessly disregard them when it comes to those with whom we simply disagree?

© 2005 Trevor Bothwell

Trevor Bothwell is a freelance writer living in Maryland. He maintains a web log at www.therightreport.com and is a contributor to Townhall.com. Contact Trevor at bothwelltj@yahoo.com

[vraiblonde]

Good column, Trevor This statement, in particular, bears repeating:

The Bill of Rights is not a contract between two citizens. It’s a contract between government and its citizens. It places limits on the government, not the people.

[Tonio]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...14.html#friday

I found one liberal whose stance on Graham was based on principle instead of hysteria. He makes the good point that WMAL acted with cowardice:

Gene Weingarten: I find myself conflicted about the Michael Graham thing; my knee-jerk reaction is always to defend anyone who is being punished for free speech. And the fact that I think Michael Graham is a demagogic jerk, and disagree with him on everything, perversely makes me MORE inclined to defend his right to say it.

The problem here is that he is not being censored by government. He is being edited by his employers. There is nothing wrong with that, in theory. Now, sometimes in cases like that the employers are cowards -- witness the recent case in Miami with columnist Jim DeFede (look it up if you are unfamiliar.) But sometimes, the employers are quite justified in setting reasonable standards, and enforcing them.

If I wrote in a chat (my column is edited, so it wouldn't happen there) that all Muslims were terrorists, or something, or that Islam is a junk religion, and it was clear I was not being funny, I would expect to be either reprimanded or, more likely, fired. I would not contest this. The Post has a right to say, holy crap, we don't want someone that irresponsible writing for us.

The question then becomes, was MAL justified in taking the stance they did? My feeling is that if you hire a firebrand who says outrageous things ALL the time, and are basking in the good ratings of this guy, because he speaks to a jerk audience that wants raw meat, you have to die by that sword, too. ie, there is something Claude Rainsish about their being "shocked" by what Graham said.

So, mostly, I say good riddance to the guy -- and hope this won't actually HELP his profile -- but I think probably the station showed cowardice and should have kept him, while publicly distancing themselve from his statement.

[rraley]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Good column, Trevor This statement, in particular, bears repeating:

That line you quoted vrai does indeed deserve repeating. This is one of those times where I completely see eye to eye with Trevor.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by rraley

That line you quoted vrai does indeed deserve repeating. This is one of those times where I completely see eye to eye with Trevor.

...so let start a discussion here; WMAL is NOT one of the people. It is a corporation. Not only that, it is a communications corporation.

So, my question is simple;

Is a corporation due the exact rights and protections as a citizen?

I say not.

OSAHA comes in there and makes sure that the microphones are grounded properly and there is a handicaped ramp for the front door.

This is obviously to protect the rights of the individual, not the company.

Where is the right, in the Constitution, to a safe work place and how does it trump another right, to free speech or to carry a firearm?

This isn't some trucking company where a driver has decided to set aside his job, driving, and decided to take up speaking out on the issues of the day instead...and still expecting to be paid.

This is a person paid specifically to talk about issues, read the news and so on.

Why wouldn't they just do a station editorial saying the company disagrees with what he said but is very happy and excited that a full discusion, from all sides, is fosterd by the station, to the benefit of all?

Why should they have some 'right' as an independent entity to just fire the guy if they are a bunch of cowards who aren't even acting indenpendently; they're cowering to some outside group who now, ostensibly, set policy for this 'private' enterprise.

What next? Will this group, who may be citizens but as a defined group are no more a 'citizen' than the station is, dicate what is served in the company kitchen or candy machines?

WMAL is NOT a citizen.

[willie]

I don't know who OSAHA is but I pretty much agree with you.

osha

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

WMAL is NOT a citizen.

No, but they are a business and have a right to control the message that business sends. What if Reds suddenly decided to go on a rampage against Home Depot and exercised his right to protest in front of the Frederick location, complete with a camera crew? Now you've got your client looking at you and what are you going to do?

All Reds is doing is partaking in a Constitutional right. But it could negatively impact your business. Can you tell him, "Reds, knock it off or you're fired"?

Regardless that I agree with Michael Graham about Islam, WMAL has a right to not want to rouse the rabble and cause problems with their station.

I think that the Graham case shows once again why we're not going to win any kind of war against Islamic terrorists. It shows once again how we as a nation are too squeemish to deal with any issue relating to religion in any kind of a negative way. The Islamic leaders are free to do and say whatever they like, and if an American responds in kind, the Islamic leaders clutch the pearls, cry out their victimhood, and the voice of opposition gets squashed in the name of "we don't want to lower ourselves to that level." Meanwhile, the Islamic leaders keep to their message and gain more supporters as they point to guys like Graham as an example of anti-Islamic attitudes in the US. In short, they win it all.

What would be better is exactly what Larry was calling for, that being an approach of "what say you Islamic leaders? You've just been accused of inciting violence, and that your religion sponsors terrorism, so what can you offer in your defense?" By holding their feet to the fire, and making them publically accountable for their actions, we could win a battle every now and again. Instead we hand them the laurels rather than dare to appear uncaring about any religion, regardless of how violent they are.

I say freedom of speech be damned. This was not an infringement on freedom of speech, but rather a tactical loss in the war on terror.

[SamSpade]

I kind of wonder why they'd cave in to the likes of CAIR.

I mean, what'd they do? Say "hey, we SOOO are NOT terrorists, but if you don't fire that schmuck, we're gonna bus' you up!".

What if WMAL just said - no. No, we'll keep him. Screw you. What could CAIR do? Prove Graham *right*?

(I've read on the Net that some place in LA has re-hired him. Good on them!)

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

What if WMAL just said - no. No, we'll keep him. Screw you. What could CAIR do? Prove Graham *right*?

You know how this works. Then the libbies would be all over the place, saying that the station brought it on themselves for not caving to CAIR's demands and they deserved whatever happened to them.