Principles of dialogue in Florida

Respectful and vigorous dialogue. Freedom of speech. A plurality of voices. These are concepts that go to the heart of a mature, democratic, and healthy society. But what exactly are the parameters, the characteristics or principles that foster such a dialogue? And conversely, what will hinder or threaten it? These are some of the ideas that I want to explore in this blog.

I will begin with a recent incident that occurred the week of June 10, 2007, just this last week. County officials in Broward County, Florida were threatening to stop broadcasting hurricane warnings on a certain radio station simply because the station carried controversial speakers such as Rush Limbaugh.

What ideas or principles of dialogue and free speech are involved in this event? (I will give my answer at the end of today's blog.)

According to one newspaper, one county commissioner cited Rush Limbaugh and the radio station, WIOD, for being “out of step” with the majority of the residents of the county. Here is an account of what ensued in yet another newspaper, The Miami Herald, written by Amy Sherman, dated June 13, 2007 :

“If it truly wants to be Broward County's official hurricane radio station, here's what WIOD (610 AM) needs to do:

“Fire Rush Limbaugh.

“At least that's the stand taken by Commissioner Stacy Ritter, who was able to prevent the county from renewing its hurricane information partnership with WIOD because the station carries the conservative icon's syndicated show.

“Ritter pointed out that the majority of the nine county commissioners -- all of whom are Democrats -- are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Limbaugh and other conservative hosts carried by WIOD.”

The following is my exchange of views with the Broward County Commissioners:

I wrote all nine members reminding them that the constitution defines censorship as something that the government must not do. In effect, such censorship would result if they withdrew their use of this station strictly based on the content of his speech. Here is what I said to them:

“You are out of step with constitutional, national, and historical values if you move to censor Rush Limbaugh. At some point good government must be above politics and respect the freedom of mass media, journalism, etc. I hope you will make the right decision. The nation is watching.”

Surprisingly, five wrote back. (And even more surprisingly, most were genuinely personal, not just a prepared public relations text.) Most of them wanted me to know that they were going to base their vote on which station had the largest audience and not the content of the speech on that station.

“Good for them,” I thought.

One of the commissioners, Vice Mayor Lois Wexler urged me to write all of the commissioners, something that I had already done. Here are excerpts from my last reply to her:

Dear Commissioner Wexler,

In my letters... I applauded [the other commissioners], as I applaud you, for approaching your decision from a rational basis.

In my comments to them I said:

...Good government must be based first and foremost on rational decisions and not be first and foremost an extension of raw politics. Leave that for the campaigns.

...The genius of our way of governing (two or more parties, three branches of government, freedom of speech, etc.) is that there will be more than one voice, more than one opinion, and therefore, many checks and balances.

As you well know, Ms. Wexler, our constitution defines censorship as something that a government [unfortunately] can do and consequently proscribes it. Therefore the one societal entity that must be very careful about stifling speech is the government. Government is held to those standards, not a particular radio station. From your remarks, I surmise that you are aware of this and therefore I am very glad to know about your sensitivity to this issue.

As you can see, much more is at stake here than just reaching the largest audience. However, that is an important, rational fact to consider and a good place to begin.

Best of luck to you and the other public servants as you make your decisions.

Sincerely,

Michael O'Connor

What is the principle that becomes the focus of today's blog entry?

Healthy communication thrives on a plurality of voices. No one person has all of the answers. We need to hear from everyone. In a democratic society we agree that through a peaceful process we will come to a joint agreement on how one governs and who that will be. Suppressing those voices, either directly or indirectly, is not the answer.

One last thought: Calling people names doesn't help the conversation either. Such disrespect was shown by several of the interlocutors: According to the newspaper, Commissioner Ritter coyly called Rush Limbaugh “out of step” with the majority of the constituents. Another newspaper peeled off the sugarcoating and implied that he was regarded by some as a “gasbag.” Rush Limbaugh in turn called the commissioners “idiots.”

The question is: Are we as citizens just playing power politics or are we learning something constructive in the process?

-