Daniel Geery and the Freedom of Speech

I noted in OpEdNews and the freedom of speech an article by Gustav Wynn entitled Radio Treason: Hannity Continues Radical Anti-Obama Fearmongering. Mr Wynn was arguing for reinstatement of the obnoxious “Fairness Doctrine,” an idea which might sound reasonable on its face, but which is actually intended to stifle conservative radio talk show hosts. Mr Wynn even admitted such, when he wrote:

Before 1987, it was the broadcasting corporations who chose not to air lopsided political arguments because it was cheaper and easier to avoid back and forth debate.

But, despite the use of the word “Treason” in his title, Mr Wynn never advocated putting conservative talk show hosts in prison.

Now comes Daniel Geery, publishing Hannity & His Ilk Should Go Directly to Jail. the article isn’t long, stating only:

However you choose to describe them, hate mongers do not belong on the air. They are the cretins of our species, dividing people, spewing animosity, raw hatred, ignorance, and everything the world doesn’t need.

But, in the first comment on the article, written by Mr Geery himself, he said:

I’m sure there are many laws — the Patriot Act for one example — under which this could be done.

But even if a good attorney couldn’t find such a law, it is high time to write and pass one.

How are we to interpret this other than a stated desire to actually throw Sean “Hannity & his ilk” in prison? He can’t even specify what crime Mr Hannity has committed, but he’s sure there’s got to be one, and if there isn’t, what Mr Hannity says should be made illegal.

He had said the same thing, in a comment¹ on Mr Wynn’s article:

Hannity should be locked up and the key thrown away. He actively works against every human value that every bona fide educator tries to instill in children. But last I heard and wrote about, after doing considerable homework on this nutcase earlier, he makes $5 million a year from ABC (that station that is DEF).

Who is Daniel Geery? You can follow the hyperlink to his author biography on OpEdnews, but that’s self-written sarcasm; it doesn’t tell you much. But it does lead you to an article he wrote which sort of suggests that Vice President Richard Cheney should be assassinated. He’s careful enough to not advocate it directly — and site editor Rob Kall did slightly edit the article — because he’d probably rather not get a visit from the Secret Service.

I really don’t know whether to laugh out loud, or shake my head at just how pathetic this is. Here we have a man, one who has written 26 Articles, 72 Quick Links, 731 Comments, and 123 Diaries in 2½ years on OpEdNews, who has suggested that political assassination of the Vice President of the United States, though he carefully wrote:

Please note that even in my somnolence, I did realize that I was posing a question, not necessarily advocating the act. Also note that I was not “conspiring”-that requires at least two people planning, and I would never do THAT on a public website!-so much as thinking out loud to share my thoughts, and sincerely wanting to tap the brains of others who clearly feel some of my passions. Hey! It’s still ok to THINK, and at least at the moment, even to think out loud.

Yet this self-same, educated man, who celebrates his own freedom of speech and of the press, who says that it’s perfectly acceptable to “think out loud” about assassination, also thinks that we should put Sean Hannity and whomever he believes constitute Mr Hannity’s “ilk” in prison (though, oddly enough, he never suggested anything radical like having an actual trial!) for unspecified crimes due to what Mr Hannity and his ilk have said.

To their credit, several OpEdNews readers have taken Messrs Wynn and Geery to task for their disdain for other people’s freedom of speech. But it boggles my mind that people who publish on a website which, if it existed domestically in a lot of other countries would be labeled subversive (at the very least) and shut down, possibly with the writers being imprisoned, and who certainly believe that freedom of speech and the press cover whatever they have to say would so blithely throw the First Amendment in the trash when it comes to people whose speech they don’t like.
¹ – Individual reader comments on OpEdNews are not individually hyperlinked.
This article has been submitted to OpEdNews for publication, and was published here.


  1. When brown civilians are kidnapped from their houses, shipped off to legal limbo, and tortured, it’s securityWhen brown civilians are kidnapped from their houses, shipped off to legal limbo, and tortured, it’s security Pho

    This rather quaint but feeble essay into moral relativism is a hint of the limited reasoning capability of the poster.

    Were those residents at Gitmo sitting peacefully at home playing with their ‘worry beads’ when they were snatched up and placed in durance vile?

  2. What the hell is Phoe talking about? Name a civilian of any color kidnapped and tortured in legal limbo. I’m at a loss over his complaint. Have I missed Kristallnacht?

  3. What the hell is Phoe talking about? John

    Perhaps he is playing ‘fantasy politics’ in his little dream world where NewSpeak is used to define ‘truth’.

    Perhaps his aversion to capitalism marks him as another socialist loser who wants to have Big Brother change he diapers.

  4. When white pundits are stopped from speaking, it’s oppression

    When anyone is stopped from speaking, it’s oppression. This is a fundamental principal of liberal society, and we tamper with it at our peril.

  5. Well, let’s look at those names, shall we? Abu Bakker Qassim was not “kidnapped from his house,” to use Art’s original, but was Qassim was captured along with his compatriot A’Del Abdu al-Hakim by Pakistani bounty hunters. Said Abaseen was a taxi driver in Kabul and was initially suspected of being a terrorist; after about nine months it was determined that he was of no value as a prisoner. Abdul Rehman is not specifiable on a Google search as a detainee; perhaps the Phoenician misspelled his name. Zabet Ullah was a released detainee who alleged abuse, but was unwilling to provide any proof of what he said were with a metal rod on his legs and back, by refusing to show any resultant scars.

    These men were captured in a war zone, and were thought to be possible al Qaeda or Taliban. None were alleged to have been taken from their houses, nor were any of them seized in the United States.

Comments are closed.