Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (15910)	11/12/2003 2:55:52 AM
From: kumar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793592

Your belief that US military officers should be denied freedom of religion and freedom of speech is incomprehensible. I'll bet you 100-to-1 that if Boykin had said the same words while wearing civilian clothes, there would have been no fuss. Still the same person with the same freedom of speech, but a very different impression is created. Incidently, you give Boykin far too much credit for influence. I bet 10 days ago is the first time you ever heard his name in your life. In my case that is true, therefore I have no real basis to pass judgement.

To: unclewest who wrote (15910)	11/24/2003 9:39:14 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 793592

Your belief that US military officers should be denied freedom of religion and freedom of speech is incomprehensible. Nobody ever tried to deny Boykin's freedom of speech. Of course he has the right to say what he wants, and of course he will be held accountable for what he says: there is nothing in the principle of free speech that confers immunity from criticism, or from the consequences of what one says. He has the right to speak. The media has the right to report what he says, and the public has the right to comment on it. The speech in question in this case is an issue of contention because it directly undercut the administration's efforts to cast this fight as anything but a religious war. When a general contradicts his commander-in-chief, that gets discussed, and there are usually adverse consequences for the general. There was a time when military officers adopted voluntary restraints on freedom of speech, and avoided any public statement that might be interpreted as criticism or contradiction of senior officials. I guess that time is gone. In any event, there is no freedom of speech issue here. Holding people in official positions accountable for their statements is not an intrusion on their freedom of speech.