Mark Davis Misses Wake-up Call

(Why does all the interesting stuff happen when I have no time?!?!)

Mark Davis, a radio talk show host, makes the point that the recent firing of Michael Graham by ABC (owned by Disney) was not a First Amendment issue.

There is no right to be on the radio, either as host or caller. There is no free speech issue here at all, just a conflict between a performer and his employer.

This is true, and would be better put in two respects. One, the First Amendment limits the power of the government to limit freedom of speech. Two, the separate issue of whether Graham keeps his job is a matter of his employer's property rights. These are both true, but miss the real issue in the Mark Graham controversy: Whose job is it to defend freedom of speech?

In the very next sentence, Davis makes another grave error.

I believe he could have amended the overly broad portion of his statement without surrendering one molecule of his meaning. CAIR would not have been happy, but it would have armed the station with the moral high ground to tell the group to take a hike.

Hint: CAIR ceded all claims to the "moral high ground" from the get-go.

And what portion of Graham's words below is "overly broad"?

Because of the mix of Islamic theology that -– rightly or wrongly -– is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it, but the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and reclaim their religion.

Those of us who see the connection between faith and force would say that Graham is actually guilty of whitewashing the role of Islam, and of religion in general, in fomenting violence.

The issue here is that in America, we are free to say whatever the hell we want. While Graham certainly has no right to employment at ABC or anywhere else, CAIR was clearly attempting to cause Graham's firing in order to cast a pall over anyone else who might dare to criticize Islam. Consider CAIR's "indignation" in its proper context.

CAIR has a curious sense of outrage. This group is driven to distraction by a guy on the radio, but, apparently, the murder of innocents is not worth its breath. Asked often to specifically condemn the brutality and viciousness of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, CAIR has refused. The group will talk a good game about opposing ... "terrorism," but that is meaningless without the accompanying courage to identify it by name.

I dare say that this indicates that CAIR's "good game" is a game of deception. CAIR's priorities are revealed in the battles it chooses to fight. The organization fights Americans expressing their opinions and refuses to condemn terrorists. Draw your own conclusion, but be forewarned that CAIR wants you to keep it to yourself.

So I disagree with Davis's contention that an apology or a rewording would have given Graham or ABC the moral high ground. Regardless of the merits of Graham's words, what was at issue here was his right to say them -- a right that ABC does in fact have an interest in protecting, if it wants to continue being able to produce interesting radio shows for very long. (Pssst! There's money in shows like that!) ABC should have simply said that it stands with Graham for his right to say what he wishes in America and left it at that.

The point at which ABC's rights (an extension of those of Disney's shareholders) to free speech and property converge is precisely in its ability to let loose cannons like Mark Graham fire at will. No. ABC doesn't have to employ Graham, but doing so helps its bottom line and they were fools to fire him. Slapping down CAIR would have been the moral and practical thing for ABC to have done. ABC failed.

Instead, ABC capitulated, meaning that CAIR now exercises the de facto threat of a veto over all its other program material. ABC could be said to have granted CAIR controlling interest over its programs free of charge. So, instead of possibly having an annoying court battle at worst, ABC no longer has editorial control over its programs.

And this blame is not the sole property of a bunch of clueless suits. It is owned by all the employees of ABC who failed to rally behind Michael Graham, particularly the other talk show hosts.

While I differ with certain points of Davis's essay, I salute him -- an ABC radio host -- for at least saying something about this. However, he addresses his remarks to the wrong people, CAIR! This is a mistake of the same kind as negotiating with a terrorist. CAIR lost the right to get so much as the time of day when it went after Graham's head for something he uttered.

My unease with this is the victory it chalks up for the kind of ideological thuggery that passes for public discourse at CAIR. If all criticism of Islam is hate speech, debate has no meaning. And until CAIR sprouts the guts to point fingers at the radical, murderous wing of its own faith, its claims of moderation are meaningless as well.

I will grant Davis that his essay is well-intentioned, if off the mark. But I wonder how happy he is now that he can't say what he wishes about Islam? He now knows that ABC is unwilling to stand behind him while he brings in listeners and advertising revenue.

You are being used, Mr. Davis. By CAIR, by ABC, and by the Disney Corporation. You can willingly submit to dhimmitude or you can fight for your rights -- by organizing a walkout of all radio talk show hosts and any other commentators in ABC's or Disney's employ, until Michael Graham is re-hired and ABC tells CAIR in no uncertain terms that if it wants editorial control of its programming, it had damned well better buy controlling interest of the Disney Corporation first.

The blame for this fiasco lies not just with CAIR or a faceless corporate entity known only as Disney. It is shared by any employee of Disney whose trade involves expressing opinions. Your employer has just said that you cannot express an opinion about Islam that CAIR disapproves of. You don't like CAIR? Well, it's your boss now, but no one is making you work for it.

This is still America, but to keep it that way, we have to do what we can. Mark Davis, if he thinks he is powerless, is gravely mistaken.

Whose job is it to defend freedom of speech? Certainly, it is the government's, but this is a government by, of, and for the people. Doing what we can to defend freedom in situations that do not call for government action is a big part of the meaning of the maxim: "A republic, if you can keep it."

-- CAV

Note: The time for the government to get involved is when someone's rights are violated, or there is a threat that they will be violated. ABC simply forfeited its rights when no such threat existed.