Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Jesse Jackson seems to disagree with Martin Luther King Jr. on First Amendment

Posted by on Dec. 28, 2013 at 8:02 PM
  • 11 Replies

BY JOEL GEHRKE | DECEMBER 26, 2013 AT 12:20 PM

Jesse Jackson believes "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson's statement that he thinks homosexuality is a sin is an opinion that is not protected by law, comparing him unfavorably with Jim Crow-era racists.

"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law,” he said in a statement quoted by the Chicago Tribune. “Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "

People are allowed to say all sorts of terrible things in this country, speech protected by the same constitutional provision that allows them to say all sorts of wonderful things. The First Amendmentis so capacious in the coverage it affords American speech that even people who have been denied full participation in American political and cultural life have, in the history of the United States, been permitted to say things that criticized the laws protecting such discrimination.

"If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in his famous "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech. "Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right."

Now, when Dr. King made those remarks, a lot of people in the country thought he was protesting for the wrong thing; Robertson doubtless believes gay rights activists are protesting for the wrong thing, just as Jackson believes Robertson is on "the wrong side of history," as the saying goes.

But the First Amendment doesn't allow someone else to make that decision for another American. Instead, it fosters a conversation. In other words, the same thing that allows Phil Robertson say homosexuality is a sin allows Jesse Jackson to accuse him of "white privilege."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," The First Amendment declares.

by on Dec. 28, 2013 at 8:02 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
slashteddy
by Member on Dec. 28, 2013 at 8:10 PM
I need a little clarification on this paragraph:

"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law,” he said in a statement quoted by the Chicago Tribune. “Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "

It's implied this is a Jesse Jackson quote. Is the whole thing attributed to him, or is the second quote in the paragraph just a comment by the author about Jackson's statement? I'm leaning towards the latter, but if the first were true, it seems to be saying Robertson is the one talking about his own privilege, not Jackson; that doesn't seem to align with the rest of the story. But if either are true, then Jackson seems to have not actually accused Robertson of anything or maligned his 'freedom of speech'.

TL;DR version: The author of this article is very, very sloppy when it comes to clear and relevant quotes.
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Dec. 28, 2013 at 8:19 PM

It's not that difficult. Jackson made the comment, which appeared in the paper. (Notice the quotation marks.)

Jackson, a millionaire, who is paid to harass people and call them racists, claims that a man who was dirt poor and makes an honest living has "white privilege," a privilege he obviously had, but Robertson did not.

I agree the author could have mentioned Jackson's name again in the second column - but he didn't have to, since he already mentioned it in Paragraph 1. But I agree with you, it would help clarify.

Make sense now?


Quoting slashteddy: I need a little clarification on this paragraph:

"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law,” he said in a statement quoted by the Chicago Tribune. “Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "

It's implied this is a Jesse Jackson quote. Is the whole thing attributed to him, or is the second quote in the paragraph just a comment by the author about Jackson's statement? I'm leaning towards the latter, but if the first were true, it seems to be saying Robertson is the one talking about his own privilege, not Jackson; that doesn't seem to align with the rest of the story. But if either are true, then Jackson seems to have not actually accused Robertson of anything or maligned his 'freedom of speech'.

TL;DR version: The author of this article is very, very sloppy when it comes to clear and relevant quotes.


slashteddy
by Member on Dec. 28, 2013 at 8:35 PM
Hardy har.

Apparently I wasn't clear enough.

The first quote is obviously Jackson. The second quote is not obvious. Again, the second quote is:

“Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.'"

If this is something Jackson actually said, then yes, he is saying 'free speech' does not apply apply to Robertson, but he would be referring to himself in third person unless he's trying to say Robertson himself was talking about his own white privilege; if this is just the author commenting on what Jackson said, then the punctuation is poor, as it comes off as the REPORTER saying free speech does not apply. If it's actually the author and not Jackson, then the author should actually quote, specifically, where Jackson said Robertson's words were not covered under freedom of speech.



Quoting SallyMJ:

It's not that difficult. Jackson made the comment, which appeared in the paper. (Notice the quotation marks.)

Jackson, a millionaire, who is paid to harass people and call them racists, claims that a man who was dirt poor and makes an honest living has "white privilege," a privilege he obviously had, but Robertson did not.

I agree the author could have mentioned Jackson's name again in the second column - but he didn't have to, since he already mentioned it in Paragraph 1. But I agree with you, it would help clarify.

Make sense now?


Quoting slashteddy: I need a little clarification on this paragraph:



"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law,” he said in a statement quoted by the Chicago Tribune. “Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "



It's implied this is a Jesse Jackson quote. Is the whole thing attributed to him, or is the second quote in the paragraph just a comment by the author about Jackson's statement? I'm leaning towards the latter, but if the first were true, it seems to be saying Robertson is the one talking about his own privilege, not Jackson; that doesn't seem to align with the rest of the story. But if either are true, then Jackson seems to have not actually accused Robertson of anything or maligned his 'freedom of speech'.



TL;DR version: The author of this article is very, very sloppy when it comes to clear and relevant quotes.


SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Dec. 28, 2013 at 8:56 PM
1 mom liked this

I think the speaker of the second comment is still clear, in that it's still Jackson speaking. But I agree it would be even clearer if it repeated his name.

Robertson didn't say "white privilege" about himself. That's an epithet created by iberal academic elites, not conservatives. The only liberal mentioned in the OP is Jackson. Therefore, the quote came from him.

Again, someone who has been dirt poor his whole life and worked his way out didn't have any kind of privilege - of any color.


Quoting slashteddy: Hardy har.

Apparently I wasn't clear enough.

The first quote is obviously Jackson. The second quote is not obvious. Again, the second quote is:

“Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.'"

If this is something Jackson actually said, then yes, he is saying 'free speech' does not apply apply to Robertson, but he would be referring to himself in third person unless he's trying to say Robertson himself was talking about his own white privilege; if this is just the author commenting on what Jackson said, then the punctuation is poor, as it comes off as the REPORTER saying free speech does not apply. If it's actually the author and not Jackson, then the author should actually quote, specifically, where Jackson said Robertson's words were not covered under freedom of speech.



Quoting SallyMJ:

It's not that difficult. Jackson made the comment, which appeared in the paper. (Notice the quotation marks.)

Jackson, a millionaire, who is paid to harass people and call them racists, claims that a man who was dirt poor and makes an honest living has "white privilege," a privilege he obviously had, but Robertson did not.

I agree the author could have mentioned Jackson's name again in the second column - but he didn't have to, since he already mentioned it in Paragraph 1. But I agree with you, it would help clarify.

Make sense now?


Quoting slashteddy: I need a little clarification on this paragraph:



"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law,” he said in a statement quoted by the Chicago Tribune. “Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "



It's implied this is a Jesse Jackson quote. Is the whole thing attributed to him, or is the second quote in the paragraph just a comment by the author about Jackson's statement? I'm leaning towards the latter, but if the first were true, it seems to be saying Robertson is the one talking about his own privilege, not Jackson; that doesn't seem to align with the rest of the story. But if either are true, then Jackson seems to have not actually accused Robertson of anything or maligned his 'freedom of speech'.



TL;DR version: The author of this article is very, very sloppy when it comes to clear and relevant quotes.



29again
by Gold Member on Dec. 28, 2013 at 9:35 PM

It was all Jackson's statement.  Highlighted for emphasis. 

Jackson is saying that Mr Robertson is using that white privilege to say what he did.  I am getting from it that he thinks Mr R does not have the law on his side with his statement, but then, I often have a hard time deciphering what the rev. j jackson is trying to say.

Quoting slashteddy: I need a little clarification on this paragraph:

"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law,” he said in a statement quoted by the Chicago Tribune. “Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "

It's implied this is a Jesse Jackson quote. Is the whole thing attributed to him, or is the second quote in the paragraph just a comment by the author about Jackson's statement? I'm leaning towards the latter, but if the first were true, it seems to be saying Robertson is the one talking about his own privilege, not Jackson; that doesn't seem to align with the rest of the story. But if either are true, then Jackson seems to have not actually accused Robertson of anything or maligned his 'freedom of speech'.

TL;DR version: The author of this article is very, very sloppy when it comes to clear and relevant quotes.


slashteddy
by Member on Dec. 29, 2013 at 2:00 AM
Okay, cool. I did look up the actual quote, and you all are correct; he said exactly that. To me, it puts the quote in a different context. Jackson's quote allegedly refers to a segment of Robertson's where he describes working in a field with black people.

In the end, I don't think it's accurate to say Jackson accused Robertson of suffering from white privilege; Robertson was commenting on racial interaction, and it seems Jackson is saying that's what Robertson was addressing.

"...within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "

HE believes, meaning Robertson, not Jackson.


Quoting 29again:

It was all Jackson's statement.  Highlighted for emphasis. 

Jackson is saying that Mr Robertson is using that white privilege to say what he did.  I am getting from it that he thinks Mr R does not have the law on his side with his statement, but then, I often have a hard time deciphering what the rev. j jackson is trying to say.

Quoting slashteddy: I need a little clarification on this paragraph:



"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law,” he said in a statement quoted by the Chicago Tribune. “Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "



It's implied this is a Jesse Jackson quote. Is the whole thing attributed to him, or is the second quote in the paragraph just a comment by the author about Jackson's statement? I'm leaning towards the latter, but if the first were true, it seems to be saying Robertson is the one talking about his own privilege, not Jackson; that doesn't seem to align with the rest of the story. But if either are true, then Jackson seems to have not actually accused Robertson of anything or maligned his 'freedom of speech'.



TL;DR version: The author of this article is very, very sloppy when it comes to clear and relevant quotes.


29again
by Gold Member on Dec. 29, 2013 at 2:22 AM

You realize that socially, Robertson would have been equal to or less than the black people he was working beside, right?  He had NO privilege, of any kind.  It is ludicrous to accuse Robertson of using white privilege for anything.  

Can you provide anything at all that would indicate that Robertson subscribes to white privilege theory?  I haven't seen it, anywhere.  I have seen where he believes we all come from the same father, therefore we are ALL equal.  This is, at the beginning and the end, an attempt by Jackson to remain in the public eye, and therefore relevant, keeping his grievance industry alive and getting some pocket money while he is at it.

Quoting slashteddy: Okay, cool. I did look up the actual quote, and you all are correct; he said exactly that. To me, it puts the quote in a different context. Jackson's quote allegedly refers to a segment of Robertson's where he describes working in a field with black people.

In the end, I don't think it's accurate to say Jackson accused Robertson of suffering from white privilege; Robertson was commenting on racial interaction, and it seems Jackson is saying that's what Robertson was addressing.

"...within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "

HE believes, meaning Robertson, not Jackson.


Quoting 29again:

It was all Jackson's statement.  Highlighted for emphasis. 

Jackson is saying that Mr Robertson is using that white privilege to say what he did.  I am getting from it that he thinks Mr R does not have the law on his side with his statement, but then, I often have a hard time deciphering what the rev. j jackson is trying to say.

Quoting slashteddy: I need a little clarification on this paragraph:



"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law,” he said in a statement quoted by the Chicago Tribune. “Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "



It's implied this is a Jesse Jackson quote. Is the whole thing attributed to him, or is the second quote in the paragraph just a comment by the author about Jackson's statement? I'm leaning towards the latter, but if the first were true, it seems to be saying Robertson is the one talking about his own privilege, not Jackson; that doesn't seem to align with the rest of the story. But if either are true, then Jackson seems to have not actually accused Robertson of anything or maligned his 'freedom of speech'.



TL;DR version: The author of this article is very, very sloppy when it comes to clear and relevant quotes.



Lilfootmommy
by Littlefoot on Dec. 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM
Well robertson is on the wrong side of history. That being said he broke no laws and the law is on his side.
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Dec. 29, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Jesse Jackson states Phil Robertson exhibited "white privilege." His jaded opinion, not fact.

But Jackson fails to ever address the "black privilege" he has exhibited for the past 20-30 years, shaking down businesses for forced donations to his Rainbow PUSH Coalition.

Quoting slashteddy: Okay, cool. I did look up the actual quote, and you all are correct; he said exactly that. To me, it puts the quote in a different context. Jackson's quote allegedly refers to a segment of Robertson's where he describes working in a field with black people.

In the end, I don't think it's accurate to say Jackson accused Robertson of suffering from white privilege; Robertson was commenting on racial interaction, and it seems Jackson is saying that's what Robertson was addressing.

"...within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "

HE believes, meaning Robertson, not Jackson.


Quoting 29again:

It was all Jackson's statement.  Highlighted for emphasis. 

Jackson is saying that Mr Robertson is using that white privilege to say what he did.  I am getting from it that he thinks Mr R does not have the law on his side with his statement, but then, I often have a hard time deciphering what the rev. j jackson is trying to say.

Quoting slashteddy: I need a little clarification on this paragraph:



"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law,” he said in a statement quoted by the Chicago Tribune. “Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.' "



It's implied this is a Jesse Jackson quote. Is the whole thing attributed to him, or is the second quote in the paragraph just a comment by the author about Jackson's statement? I'm leaning towards the latter, but if the first were true, it seems to be saying Robertson is the one talking about his own privilege, not Jackson; that doesn't seem to align with the rest of the story. But if either are true, then Jackson seems to have not actually accused Robertson of anything or maligned his 'freedom of speech'.



TL;DR version: The author of this article is very, very sloppy when it comes to clear and relevant quotes.



SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Dec. 29, 2013 at 11:37 AM

How is Robertson "on the wrong side of history?"

I didn't realize history takes sides against religious people with close families who come up with a winning business idea and take their family out of poverty.

Seems to me that Robertson and MLK are on the same, right side of history, and Jesse Jackson is on the wrong side.

Quoting Lilfootmommy: Well robertson is on the wrong side of history. That being said he broke no laws and the law is on his side.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)