If Not Applicable...

My biggest problem with the movie Double Jeopardy is that the term double jeopardy did not actually apply to the situation that arose in the film. The entire movie was created upon a false premise; I can’t help but to believe that the film creators did not actually understand the term. I feel the exact same way about the American public when it comes to this Dr. Laura nigger fiasco.

The radio host announced that she will not renew her contract and that her show will not be on the air after the end of this year. On Larry King’s television show, Dr. Laura said, “The reason is I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that.” Later, she added, “Living with the constant fear of affiliates and sponsors being attacked is very distracting. I never called anybody a bad word. I was trying to bring—and obviously it has become a national discussion now—I was trying to make a philosophical point. And I made it wrong, but I wasn't dissing anybody. I was trying to make a point, and for that to say that I should be silenced is the reason why I'm saying to you that I'm obviously losing First Amendment rights.”

The First Amendment. OK, OK, OK. Let me explain this. THIS IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. No one is infringing upon Dr. Laura’s right to say nigger. People are only saying that she is not right to say it. Saying someone is incorrect, disrespectful, and racist for saying something is not at all the same thing as saying that person does not have the right to say that thing. Furthermore, when serving as the host of her radio show, Dr. Laura is acting as a representative of the radio company and her sponsors. If the people of this nation feel as if those companies are condoning and/or endorsing her words, then the people have a right to express their disagreement and outrage. The people also have the right to take their listenership and spending money elsewhere. This is a form of nonviolent protest. This is an example of people voicing their opinions, which they have the right to do as provided by the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This is, in fact, the way the First Amendment was designed to work. This is also the way our country was designed to work. This is not a violation of Dr. Laura’s First Amendment rights; it is exercise of everyone’s.

This, to me, is very similar to the case of the Ohio church congregation who began protesting in front of a strip club on Friday and Saturday nights. The strippers retaliated by protesting in front of the church on Sunday mornings. All legal, all fine. The church members cried foul, of course, but everyone’s behavior was well within their rights. Same thing here.
The confusion here is that many people confuse their Freedom of Speech with the freedom from suffering the repercussions of what they say. The freedom from consequence does not exist. It should not exist. It can never exist in a land that, at least on the surface, claims to provide liberty and justice for all. Dealing with the consequences of our actions is our responsibility. The thing is that Dr. Laura knows this. As a whole, the general public does not quite understand it. They confuse these two freedoms all the time. That ignorance allows the Dr. Lauras of the world to manipulate their emotions and perspectives.
The people—the people never wake up.