Tuesday, May 1, 2007

The Price Of Freedom

I recently posted an article entitled Orwellian Redux that dealt with the impingement on free speech by New York's Commission on Judicial Conduct. Raoul Felder, the Chairman of the Commission, has received a unanimous vote of "no confidence" from its other members based on alleged off-color, discriminatory comments contained in a book he co-wrote entitled "Schmucks."

Today, I received the following two comments on that article from "Anonymous," who appears to be the same person given the tone and writing style.

Here's comment #1, and I quote with misspellings included:

"What's wrong with you both? Are you a bunch of country bumpkins? This a [sic] Commission which decides whether or not judges should continue to serve in their posts as a result of misteps [sic] or misdeeds which give the mere "appearance" of impropriety. As Chair of this special Commission, Felder should have lived by example. If he wants to speak freely, like you or me, not a problem: Let him resign. You schucks [sic]! PS: You both may need to get better jobs so you won't have the free time to pollute the Internet with this trite nonsense. (Excuse me. But I now have to go vomit.) "

Now, here's comment #2, and I quote:

"You are a Nazi for previewing comments and stifling free and open expression on your crappy, little, amateurish blog. You are just as Orwellian as the people you mock! Loser!"

Rather than relegating these comments to the dark recesses of older post opinion or deleting them entirely, I think it's important that they see the light of day in a separate article so that everyone can judge for themselves. Name calling (particularly the use of the other "N" word in this instance), coupled with the shroud of anonymity, speak volumes as to the credibility and bona fides of the author and his/her position. The price of freedom is high, indeed.

1 comment:

Thomas Swartz said...

Randy, it is good that you highlight anonymous commentors like this. Rather than your commentor and the Commission being concerned about the "appearance of impropriety", they should be concerned about the appearance of rationality. Nothing that Mr. Felder has written has anything to do with his work on the Commission (and of course there is no suggestion that any of Mr. Felder's ACTIONS on the Commission were improper). If Mr. Felder can be removed for having written something that has nothing to do with the Commission's work, why not remove him for what he reads as well? Or how about removing him for what he writes in his private diary? It is extremely frigthening to me that the members of the Commission use a thinking process which is in reality non-thinking. Based on their actions against Mr. Felder, I would have to conclude that none of them are qualified to sit on the Commission. You were right on in bringing up Orwell's 1984. What is going on is a form of thought control. Ironic is it? -using a non-thinking process to control thought? I picked up a copy of 1984 and have started re-reading it. Keep up the good work on this issue Randy!