Letters to the Editor
-
Let's not kid ourselves
Excepting King :-) , there are at least as many morons sitting at keyboards typing sports blogs as there are morons like Cowherd sitting behind microphones doing sports-talk shows on radio.
-
People Need to Chill
This is among the most disturbing things I have ever read. You are seemingly using the free speech debate, and the right to post uncensored blog opinions, to silence a radio host at ESPN. Radio broadcasters have for years using the airwaves to influence the way people think and act. Rush Limbaugh the neocons, Howard Stern American Idol, etc. You may not agree with their actions or opinions, but you are advocating limiting our rights, and under this President's regime, we have already been stripped of far too many civil liberties.
There is no law against flooding a Website with emails or site visits, is there? So what this guy did was, at best, in bad taste. But that issue has been tackled many times before (see Stern, Limbaugh, Imus, et al.) Remember, while there is a right to free speech there is also a right to protest. Cowherd protested the views expressed on this blog, as is his right. He didn't kill someone in a vat of cinnamon and to equate inundating a Website with emails with murder shows complete bias and a poor decision on your part, which is essentially what Cowherd is guilty of.
Furthermore, you said if Cowherd had hacked into its servers…he didn't. Don't twist the facts. If Cowherd had slain the editors he'd be in jail. If Cowherd ate pizza, he'd be full. Who cares? Stick to the facts. He didn't hack into the servers. In fact, you ended your column by insinuating that you would like to do harm to him physically. Following your line of thinking, why shouldn't you be reprimanded or perhaps interviewed by police for your statements. They can be viewed as much more dangerous than urging listeners to send an email. This is not yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre. Ultimately, if the writers of the blog don't like it, why not tell readers to start a campaign to not listen to ESPN (which isn't a bad idea given how bad and self-promotional it has become) or shop at its advertisers? Why does it have to come at the expense of limiting free speech.
Just as there is no law against using the public airwaves to influence the way people vote in a presidential election, which has far great national implications than a radio host inundating a Website with visits and emails, you can't silence a radio host that is saying something you don't like. Until there are laws that explicitly state what Cowherd did was illegal, his actions are fair game. The same thing goes for blog readers that want to call into his toll-free line for three straight hours and make silly comments. It's silly and annoying (not to mention disturbing when you consider how many people actually listened to Cowherd and took time out of their day to email the blog), but not illegal.
-
Get a grip, Get a Grip
You are seemingly using the free speech debate, and the right to post uncensored blog opinions, to silence a radio host at ESPN.
Huh? Did we read the same column? I didn't see anything like an attempt to "silence a radio host at ESPN".
There is no law against flooding a Website with emails or site visits, is there?
Actually, there is. It's called a denial-of-service attack.
Just as there is no law against using the public airwaves to influence the way people vote in a presidential election, which has far great national implications than a radio host inundating a Website with visits and emails, you can't silence a radio host that is saying something you don't like.
How can you simultaneously say that
a) it's OK for Cowherd to explicitly send his listeners to shut down a website
and
b) King Kaufman's online criticism of Cowherd somehow constitutes "trying to silence" Cowherd (in a fashion I do not quite see) and therefore there is something wrong with it
?