No, not the ones in India, although there is a connection.The term derives from the fact that one does not touch nor kill a cow in India
Every journalist knows about that other "sacred cow".
It's the individual, the institution, the company, the situation he does not dare write or talk about for fear of reprisal from someone. That in turn, can translate to lost dollars in advertising revenue at best and to loss of his job at worst..
Smart politicians do not criticize Social Security nor try to change it. They incur the wrath of millions of senior citizens when they do.. President Bush found this out early on with his proposed Social Security changes. It's a sacred cow.
Another sacred cow is the Peace Corps. An alleged murder by a Peace Corps member was never mentioned in the Press or barely mentioned. The Peace Corps is too venerated.
For many, many years the private life of a politician was a sacred cow. Journalists knew where the secrets lay; they just did not write about them.
The network recently censored Kathy Griffin, the comediene, for supposedly making a joke about Jesus. Way too many Christians in the US for Kathy to dare to joke about Jesus. She knows better. Religion is a sacred cow.
Some of our blogsters recently learned that lesson the hard way by having their sites permanently removed. Calling Christians b_a_s_t_a_r_d_s on a public website dependent on advertisers for its revenue is not using good judgment. For future reference for those who do not know it, agree or disagree, religion is a sacred cow; publicly attacking it or its followers will never work.
In contrast, being gay or espousing gay rights is not a sacred cow, not will it even come close to being so in any of our lifetimes. I realize certain individuals stepped way out of line on both sides of this issue; but the religious right has the upper hand in this war. The gays are the guys taking the hits because they felt they had a case against the religious right. They also felt they were singled out when words flew both ways.
Free Speech only exists to a point. Stepping over the line treading on a "sacred cow" will get one's so-called "free speech" censored quicker than anything.
19 comments on Sacred Cows
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
[THUMBDOWN]
Very good article Joan.
Jenn[HEART]
things you have described but hope our "village" can proceed peacefully.[HEART]
Jenn[HEART][HEART]
http://volokh.com/2003_06_22_volokh_archive.html#105648645842556588
To be held for Libel, there must be 4 things present:1) a defamatory statement of fact; (2) of and concerning the plaintiff; (3) publication and (4) damages.
So while Blogster is immune, the individual stating the libelous claim could be held at fault. According to Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel#United_States_law)
"All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include:
* Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
* Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
* Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
* Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[13]"
So, for instance, if a blogger done a post (or two, and has) specifically naming me, they are libelous. Or if a blogger states the activity of a group is equivilant to the crime of pedophilia, they are being guilty of libel to everyone of that group. Is that not correct?[SMILE]
Just one comment about it. You want all this fighting behind. Why again writing about it then. Again putting some oil on the fire? Is it really needed? Arent the onces you talk about not been attacked enough? Who started all this, not those guys ....... So please dont interfere with it. Just read the article for I never visited this site, couldnt resist to leave a comment.