Garrison Keillor upsets Texas Methodists

[k4kyv]

Garrison Keillor created quite a stir after visiting a Methodist Church in Dallas where he was apparently well received, then making some derisive comments about his experience in his syndicated newspaper column.

In a related article, the church people said the security guards were there at the request of Keillors' agent, while others claimed that the church always has security at large public events held in their building. Attendees maintain that he arrived late and started his program before he had time to talk to any of the church members before his presentation.



http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100506P.shtml

[WA5VQM]

I like Garrison Keillor and have enjoyed PHC for years but think he came into town with a chip on his shoulder. Before his post-appearance comments the review in the Dallas paper was generally complementary to him. I don't know what his problem is.

Maybe he got paranoid being in GWB's home church. I don't know. Unfortunate either way. I don't like Bush either but my opinion of Keillor has fallen in the dumpster also.

Think what you will of Bush. Forget him. That church was there long before he arrived and will still be there long after. The venue was a grand old lovely church (I've been there) and Keillor has come off like a nitwit diva.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (WA5VQM @ Oct. 17 2006,13:27)]Keillor has come off like a nitwit diva.
You're half right. I disagree with calling him a "diva."

[W1GUH]

Do you have a link for the "related article" you mention? #There seems to be some confusion as to who the "two burly security men with walkie-talkies" were and who were the "three people" who told him "that this was the Bushes' church and that it would be better if I didn't talk about politics. "

Taking this column as a whole, first GK reports on the content of this new law and its sponsors. #He then goes on to explain why he feels this is not a good thing. #Then he goes on to report that his freedom of speech was abridged just before going on stage. #He doesn't say whether the "two burly security men" were among the "three people", but he does seem to imply that he was deliberately intimidated into not talking politics. #Isn't that the main, very important part of that column?

You didn't post a link or quote or even the source of the article about GK creating "quite a stir", or did I miss something in your post? #Without seeing that/those article(s) I can only make a stab in the dark, but I'd say that the motivation behind them is to obscure and blunt GK's excellent commentary on the state of the nation.

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Oct. 17 2006,10:54)]"

Taking this column as a whole, first GK reports on the content of this new law and its sponsors. #He then goes on to explain why he feels this is not a good thing. #Then he goes on to report that his freedom of speech was abridged just before going on stage. #He doesn't say whether the "two burly security men" were among the "three people", but he does seem to imply that he was deliberately intimidated into not talking politics. #Isn't that the main, very important part of that column?
His freedom of speech, as granted in the constitution, applies to freedom from GOVERNMENT controls.

He was on private property, and was requested to behave in a manner that the property owners (the church) wanted him to. Waaaah. I bet I couldn't go in there with an "I love gay sex" shirt without being asked to leave or remove it either. Thier house, thier rules.

Your freedom of speech does not apply on someone else's property as a guest, or even on another website. Don't think so? Try putting a link to hamsexy in your QRZ bio...... Freds house, Freds rules.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Oct. 17 2006,10:54)]Do you have a link for the "related article" you mention?

You didn't post a link or quote or even the source of the article about GK creating "quite a stir", or did I miss something in your post? Without seeing that/those article(s) I can only make a stab in the dark, but I'd say that the motivation behind them is to obscure and blunt GK's excellent commentary on the state of the nation.

Try this one:

http://www.reporterinteractive.org/main....lt.aspx (http://www.reporterinteractive.org/main/Feeds/tabid/116/newsid/1252/Default.aspx)

I don't think GK's comments were quite as offensive as the UMC article implies, but he still may have come close to shooting himself in the foot on this one. Many of the people he allegedly offended probably share his political views.

There's probably more to the story than has come out in the news so far.

For another opinion on Garrison Keillor, click on this one:

The mysterious appeal of Garrison Keillor. (http://www.slate.com/id/2143763/)

[W1GUH]

It really depends on who the "burly security people" and the "three people" were.

But your "private property" comment rings true. #That's exactly why the shopping mall was invented. #"They" couldn't control what people said in the town square or even on the sidewalks, so they made the big shopping centers private property where they could.

They knew the average American is nothing but a mooch for buying stuff in shiny packages and could be lured out of "dirty, dangerous" downtown by glitzy, glossy shopping malls which, oh by the way, are private property so you can only say what we let you. #And this is even when they are located downtown! #That way they wouldn't hear or have to be even aware that there is any other existence in the world beyond their own piggy consumption.

This is de facto abridgement. #Use corporate bucks to subvert the people's access to information. #Happens all the time.

Finally, yes, it happens because $$$ = power. #That doesn't make it the right thing to do, however.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Oct. 16 2006,12:21)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Oct. 17 2006,10:54)]Do you have a link for the "related article" you mention? #

You didn't post a link or quote or even the source of the article about GK creating "quite a stir", or did I miss something in your post? #Without seeing that/those article(s) I can only make a stab in the dark, but I'd say that the motivation behind them is to obscure and blunt GK's excellent commentary on the state of the nation.

Try this one:

http://www.reporterinteractive.org/main....lt.aspx (http://www.reporterinteractive.org/main/Feeds/tabid/116/newsid/1252/Default.aspx)

I don't think GK's comments were quite as offensive as the UMC article implies, but he still may have come close to shooting himself in the foot on this one. #Many of the people #he allegedly offended probably share his political views.

There's probably more to the story than has come out in the news so far.

For another opinion on Garrison Keillor, click on this one:

The mysterious appeal of Garrison Keillor. (http://www.slate.com/id/2143763/)
Thanks for the articles. #I'm scratching my head about the "two burly..." and the "three people." #Not to mention public/private, etc.....

It's a shame that he added those last two paragraphs to his otherwise excellent (my opinion) column. #It gave those who wanted it something to pounce on to deflect interest away from what he was saying.

The funny thing is, the last time I saw him on TV for an Independance Day show my interest was waning. #He didn't captivate me like in the past. #Little did I know how outspoken he's become.

[KI4PEQ]

Moaning and groaning about "free speech" not being allowed in shopping malls? Since when were you allowed "free speech" in a privately owned store downtown? You can say what you want within the limits of community standards on public property, but the downtown store owner has just as much right to exclude you or limit your exercise of "free speech" as the suburban mall owner.

NO ONE is allowed the absolute right of free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building and claim free speech. If you want to practice free speech, one of the places where limits are not so strictly set is on public property. Even then there are limits in terms of breaching the peace, public decency ordinances, etc. Letters to the Editor get published only at the sufferance of the newspaper publisher.

Free speech is an absolute ONLY when you have control of the environment in which you speak. Your paper, your land, etc. Don't expect people to subsidize your free speech right by providing a private forum. There is nothing in the law or Constitution that says you must be provided a privately owned place to speak your peace by another, especially if the others disagree with what you wish to say.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Oct. 16 2006,13:55)]Moaning and groaning about "free speech" not being allowed in shopping malls? Since when were you allowed "free speech" in a privately owned store downtown? You can say what you want within the limits of community standards on public property, but the downtown store owner has just as much right to exclude you or limit your exercise of "free speech" as the suburban mall owner.

NO ONE is allowed the absolute right of free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building and claim free speech. If you want to practice free speech, one of the places where limits are not so strictly set is on public property. Even then there are limits in terms of breaching the peace, public decency ordinances, etc. Letters to the Editor get published only at the sufferance of the newspaper publisher.

Free speech is an absolute ONLY when you have control of the environment in which you speak. Your paper, your land, etc. Don't expect people to subsidize your free speech right by providing a private forum. There is nothing in the law or Constitution that says you must be provided a privately owned place to speak your peace by another, especially if the others disagree with what you wish to say.
#

I wasn't talking about inside private shops, I was talking about public spaces "downtown" where, in days gone by, there were crowds. #

My point was that corporate funds, not to mention their fast-talking hucksters who were in bed (not literally...well, maybe) with the town council have eliminated those public spaces where you could speak your mind and replaced them with vapid, useless, devoid of purpose, except to make them rich, Shopping Malls.

Your knee-jerk reaction to someone expressing his displeasure that so many people use their money to limit what we can say is exactly the reason that our founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. #I know it's "messy" and "inconvenient" to have people that can't be absolutely controlled, but that's what used to make our form of government work -- but lately big money has been used all over the place to subvert our Constitution and abridge what our founding fathers wanted life to be like. #

But, to take your analogy, I guess you believe that it's perfectly OK to molest a minor if it's on your private property?

[KI4PEQ]

Where does child molestation fit in with freedom of speech? There is no law permitting child molestation in public or private. You're putting up a straw man.

If a person or corporation buys property for a shopping complex, they have the right to exclude any and all persons they deem necessary to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for their patrons. Since municipal and state facilities are publicly funded, this explains why groups and individuals are permitted to speak and solicit funds in areas such as airports, public parks, outside courthouses, and the like.

Using YOUR rationale, if you were the property owner of a facility that attracts the public, I would be well within my rights to enter your private property and exercise my free speech rights. If you were a movie theater owner, I should be able to enter the theater and publicly denounce the showing of movies, because I disagree with Hollywood actor's politics. #If you owned a grocery store, I should be able to go to the meat and dairy departments and demonstrate against the sale of these food items, because they are cruel to animals. If you owned an auto dealership, I should be able to enter your sales lot and demonstrate against you selling trucks and SUVs. #

Be careful what you wish for. Free speech rights are balanced against the rights of persons to own property and control the property within the limits of the law. Those who wish to exercise their free speech rights must also be aware that private property owners also have rights. And those rights include denying a venue for those who have a message or mindset that they disagree with.

As for a conspiracy involving elected officials and private property owners to eliminate public spaces, many urban shooping areas are the victim of economic and social changes. People move from the cities to the suburbs. Shopping areas that are privately owned merely meet the need of these new communities. With the loss of a population that goes downtown to shop and dine, cities lose the population that will support shops and restaurants. Only governments and private partners who create areas in urban centers that will attract the growing suburban populace will see a vibrant "downtown".

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Oct. 16 2006,15:55)]Where does child molestation fit in with freedom of speech? There is no law permitting child molestation in public or private. You're putting up a straw man.

If a person or corporation buys property for a shopping complex, they have the right to exclude any and all persons they deem necessary to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for their patrons. Since municipal and state facilities are publicly funded, this explains why groups and individuals are permitted to speak and solicit funds in areas such as airports, public parks, outside courthouses, and the like.

Using YOUR rationale, if you were the property owner of a facility that attracts the public, I would be well within my rights to enter your private property and exercise my free speech rights. If you were a movie theater owner, I should be able to enter the theater and publicly denounce the showing of movies, because I disagree with Hollywood actor's politics. #If you owned a grocery store, I should be able to go to the meat and dairy departments and demonstrate against the sale of these food items, because they are cruel to animals. If you owned an auto dealership, I should be able to enter your sales lot and demonstrate against you selling trucks and SUVs. #

Be careful what you wish for. Free speech rights are balanced against the rights of persons to own property and control the property within the limits of the law. Those who wish to exercise their free speech rights must also be aware that private property owners also have rights. And those rights include denying a venue for those who have a message or mindset that they disagree with.

As for a conspiracy involving elected officials and private property owners to eliminate public spaces, many urban shooping areas are the victim of economic and social changes. People move from the cities to the suburbs. Shopping areas that are privately owned merely meet the need of these new communities. With the loss of a population that goes downtown to shop and dine, cities lose the population that will support shops and restaurants. Only governments and private partners who create areas in urban centers that will attract the growing suburban populace will see a vibrant "downtown".
Well written reply, with much good thought.

Yea, I admit to a certain straw-man content to what I wrote. #The point was both the prohibition of child molestation and the prohibition to write laws abridging freedom of speech are the law of the land. #So the question is, and this is a pretty nuanced question, what's the difference? #

I'm not talking about disruptive behaviour, I think that's a no-no most times and places. #But a blanket prohibition of, say, quietly, non-disruptively passing out leaflets, IMHO, goes way over the line. #It could be a quiet card table by an entrance, or in a set-aside area. #I have been in many situations where all viewpoints were represented and the conversations never degenerated into P&M sessions. #People said what they thought and we all respected everybody's right to do so.

As for Malls, well, it appears to be de facto prohibition of free but "proper" expression of ideas. in the same vein as de facto segration. #Yep, nobody did it on purpose, but there it was. #The latter was acted on, the former has been encouraged.

But I can take that further, down to the point where there is deliberate harassment of groups of individuals who only want to peacefully assemble and express their views. #Many, many ordinances are in effect that, while on first reading appear benign, but when you get out there and see how they're applied, (BTW...on a different topic there is no "equal protection under the law." ) #they are no longer so benign.

I don't deal in conspiracies. #I deal in trends that are happening all around us. #And there is a definite trend to limit free, peaceful, and reasonable discourse on may subjects these days. #

And the reason that I'm so much on a soapbox about this today is that's exactly wrong for these times. #The electorate needs to have a way to learn what's going on, especially the stuff you don't see on TV or read in the major newspapers. #Admittedly, a lot of it is very disturbing...but more disturbing is the large number of people who simply don't care.

73,

Paul