Global Ontario's Friday News Hour featured a special report on Facebook hate sites which interviewed various individuals on both sides of the issue. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. The problem is that reporter Shirlee Engel (shengel@globaltv.com) decided to interview Paul Fromm describing him only has a "Civil Liberty" (sic) advocate. When there are numerous qualified civil libertarians and civil liberties groups out there, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association why in the world would Global not only decide upon Fromm, a far right activist who was fired from his job as a teacher for his neo-nazi links and is widely thought to be a neo-Nazi himself? And if that's bad enough why describe him as a "civil liberty" advocate with no reference to his far right views? Fromm has links to the Ku Klux Klan, opposes immigration, human rights legislation, is a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens - a white supremacist group based in American South and made up of unreconstructed opponents of the civil rights movement in the US and proponents of segregation, he supported not only the apartheid-era white minority rule government in South Africa but the white minority rule Rhodesian Front. Calling Paul Fromm a civil rights advocate is like calling the Ronald Reagan a Communist.
Global's "Special Report" on hate on Facebook begins about 10 minutes into the newscast and Fromm's appearance is at 11:26. To see it for yourself go to http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/ontario/video/index.html click "News Hour" and then click September 26. Recommend this Post
5 comments:
Fox made the same mistake
Well what would you prefer he be called?
You can't have it both ways here. You call for "Freedom of Speech," so to my way of thinking, that included all speech. Not just "speech" you agree with.
It's silly blogs like this that actually make me sympathize with those you despise.
How am I trying to have it both ways?
Global called Fromm a "civil right (sic) advocate". How can someone who is opposed to civil rights be a civil rights advocate? Or do you see support for apartheid and Jim Crow and opposition to immigration and anti-discrimination legislation as somehow being consistent with civil rights?
I would prefer that he be called what he is - a white supremacist or at the very least a far right activist with links to neo-nazis.
Paul Fromm has been abused by the state for doing nothing more than speaking his mind on a blog, just as you are doing, Firebrand.
I think you're a bit confused. Being sued for libel is not state oppression but being held to account for your words. No concept of free speech includes the right to libel, slander and defame.
Post a Comment