It's a boring news day...

Before the war, CNN conducted a poll asking how many people thought Bush had explained how long the war would last. When most people said Bush hadn't clearly made such a prediction, CNN said Bush had a "Credibility gap", which implied people thought Bush was lying and/or untrustworthy.

A recent comment takes yours truly to task for calling such a biased poll "Idiotic":

i think those who posted statements about how the press' quotes and questions on the war are being too aggressive. its better to state that you disagree with something then explain your argument then to label a comment or a question idiotic. taking someone's right to freedom of speech and immediately assuming its idiotic is an attack on freedom of speech itself, which goes against what are very forefathers laid down for us.

I only mention this so publicly because I've heard a lot of comments like this recently -- it's a trend I find deeply disturbing.

To recap, briefly: What CNN did was clearly illegitimate: If they'd issued a poll asking "Will Arnold Schwartzenagger stop beating his wife in order to please voters?" the question would imply something not generally evident: Arnold beats his wife. All possible answers to this are biased and distortionary: "Poll shows Arnold is next OJ!" "Maria abuse will end soon!" "Voters undecided about Schwartzenagger domestic violence outcome!"

It's no less biased to ask if Bush has accurately predicted the unpredictable details of a yet-unfought war. Since Bush said no such predictions were possible, of course people would agree he hadn't predicted it. But it doesn't imply, as the CNN headline alleged, that people found him "not credible". What would have been in-credible would have been a clear, detailed prediction: "This war will last exactly 90 days!" Precise predictions of the progress, duration, and outcome of wars are generally lies, yet CNN's reporting implies precisely the opposite.

Forgive me for having faith that most of you understand this implicitly.

But what really concerns me is the misunderstanding about freedom of speech and what it means. In this case, this reader, and so many, many others like him in our country, I fear, think that my ability to call a CNN poll "idiotic" jeopardizes our freedom of speech.

Again, those who were paying attention in history class please forgive me, but since it seems such things actually need to be said:

(1) My disagreeing with CNN does not actually prevent them from speaking. Did you notice how they're still on the air? Their "freedom of speech" is not being "abridged" by my disagreement with them. In fact, my disagreement means more speech is happening, not less.

(2) The constitution limits the powers of the government, not the citizens. This is done so that "the rights of the people will not be infringed." You or I can tell people not to listen to someone, or organize a boycott, or write letters all we want and we're not violating the first ammendement.

(3) This misunderstanding of freedom of speech seems to be the exact opposite of what the founding fathers intended. He actually seems to think that by disagreeing publicly with a large organization that we're depriving someone of first ammendment rights. The logical conclusion to such must be that my own speech is unconstitutional, and I must be silenced.

Again, I hate to have to explain this, but if such a misunderstanding gains any more credence, its a very short walk from here to a totalitarian state where only the "right" opinions may be expressed. In fact, there's some evidence we're well on the way there.

Last, to the poster:

On one hand, we just a very few, huge news organizations which reach millions and millions of citizens. Almost all of them share an identical viewpoint, and seem to omit, downplay, or distort information not conducive to that viewpoint, and prevent others who disagree with them from being heard via the radio and TV spectrum which belongs to all of us, which they use to their own profit. They have reported inaccurate story after inaccurate story and destroyed people's lives for the sake of profit and ratings.

And on the other hand, we have a guy with a little tiny web page, with a small readership, who doesn't cuss or engage in ad hominem attacks, and allows anyone to post a response.

And you write to the guy with the little web page to say he's being too aggressive and choking off dissenting views?

What is happening in my country makes me very, very sad. And I'm not talking primarily about some action by Bush or Ashcroft -- agree or disagree with them -- but rather about the moral character of our citizens, and their lack of understanding of the freedoms they now so lavishly enjoy. Without the former, we will not enjoy the latter very long.

Anyone want to post the relevant George Washington quote?