Active Users:1078 Time:22/11/2024 11:15:57 AM
sorry but know you still clearly don't understand censorship or freedom of speach random thoughts Send a noteboard - 21/06/2017 07:56:20 PM

View original postYou say "using social and economic pressure to silence someone" is censorship. You're therefore claiming that pressuring a news station not to air the ideas of a certain person is the "moral equivalent of book burning."

Same principle. Stop ideas from not by countering them but by not allowing them to be heard. Only difference is the medium.


View original postIs it only pressuring a news station not to air the person that is censorship? If pressuring a news station not to air the person is censorship, then the news station deciding of its own volition not to air the person must be censorship as well.


View original postAll right, so a news station deciding of its own volition not to provide a platform for someone constitutes censorship. What about a person who publishes a small newsletter? Should they be required to grant column space to a person with whom they disagree? Isn't it censorship for a Catholic newspaper to refuse to publish an article on the benefits of abortion and gay marriage?





View original postKeep in mind that you've called this sort of censorship to "the moral equivalent of book burning."

Sorry but you drove that one into the ditch. No one is claiming that anyone including the media shouldn't be allowed to practice self censorship but that isn't what happened here. The media wanted to air the interview and the people who were angry about it didn't do that rational thing which not watch but they used threats and intimidation to try and make sure no one else could see it as well. If you can't understand that difference then you have proven my about your understanding of freedom of speech.



View original post

View original postThe best solution would be to allow people to sue anyone in court who organizes a boycott to have them censored.




View original post"Freedom of speech is important. Therefore, organizing economic protests should be grounds for a lawsuit." You really think that's a solution? Do people not have the right to spend their money they way they want now, or to advocate for others to spend their money they way they want?


View original postWhat happened to personal liberties? Individuals and corporations don't owe any duty to broadcast messages they disagree with. News platforms might owe a duty to society to report things that are newsworthy, but there's a difference between informing the public that Alex Jones is growing in influence and giving Alex Jones an hour of softballs in which he can freely peddle his idiocy.


View original postIt's a weird day when I'm more libertarian than you.


View original postEDIT: Also--a private corporation is not a public forum. It's not even a limited public forum. It's a private corporation which can say whatever it wants. NBC could switch to 24/7 Islamic prayers tomorrow if it wanted.

Sorry but you just misunderstand what is libertarian. You have the right to spend money anyway you want but certain people in Connecticut don't think you should be allowed to watch an interview that offends them. Your logic follows the same flawed path that gives us the "I am tolerant of everything except intolerance" mindset.

I was being a bit hyperbolic with talking of lawsuits but something needs to be done to squash this epidemic of intolerance and censorship that has infested the modern left. They have taken the idea of civil disobedience and turned it from a tool used to bring light to issues that were being ignored and now use it as a hammer for their thought police ideals. A conservative, even a moderate one, can hardly speak at university with mobs have public funded overgrown children trying to stop them from speaking. This is not people exercising their rights but people who believe they have a moral obligation to interfere with the rights of others.

NBC is partially public since they are given exclusive access to billions of dollars worth of bandwidth. If they wanted to switch to 24/7 Islamic prayer instead preform the public service they were given that bandwidth to preform then they should give it back but other that you are correct to say they have the right. If some Christian fundamentalist organized a boycott of their sponsors I would call that censorship and would oppose it. You seem to be pretending that NBC decided to not air this for any other reason than threats to their sponsors. "keep spreading these ideas and the government will punish you" isn't really that different than "keep spreading these ideas and the angry mob will punish you"

The truly sad part is all the protesters did in this case is feed the paranoia of the people who listen to morons like this. More proof that they are "afraid of the truth"

Reply to message
An irritatingly large issue here in Connecticut, was this past Sunday's ... - 20/06/2017 04:43:10 PM 765 Views
I don't understand this aspect of free speech discourse. - 20/06/2017 07:09:52 PM 552 Views
I disagree - 20/06/2017 07:25:26 PM 545 Views
I disagree with your disagreement. - 21/06/2017 02:24:53 AM 431 Views
*NM* - 20/06/2017 07:25:26 PM 243 Views
ugh. double post. yet again. *NM* - 20/06/2017 07:26:29 PM 262 Views
I have a theory - 20/06/2017 11:20:37 PM 443 Views
that must be it - 20/06/2017 11:24:55 PM 447 Views
It could be bunnies! *NM* - 21/06/2017 01:29:07 AM 390 Views
Or evil witches! *NM* - 21/06/2017 05:24:09 AM 227 Views
Who is the resident RAFO Bugs Bunny? *NM* - 21/06/2017 05:53:30 AM 220 Views
With their twitchy little noses *NM* - 21/06/2017 02:13:48 PM 235 Views
I think that it's more then that.... - 20/06/2017 07:36:06 PM 475 Views
Then you really don't understand freedom of speech - 21/06/2017 12:11:06 AM 443 Views
Freedom of Speech is not a single theory, there are multiple ideas of why Freedom of Speech is good - 21/06/2017 12:55:44 AM 490 Views
supporting freedom of speech only for people who don't offend you isn't freedom of speech - 21/06/2017 02:01:05 PM 458 Views
but this specific issue is not a freedom of speech issue - 21/06/2017 02:42:31 PM 449 Views
but it is a freedom of speech issue - 21/06/2017 07:09:03 PM 475 Views
Here's the biggest problem I have with that argument - 21/06/2017 07:34:07 PM 450 Views
This, exactly. Much better stated than what I wrote. - 22/06/2017 02:57:45 AM 434 Views
I'm fairly certain I do. But let's explore your ideas a bit. - 21/06/2017 02:22:48 AM 506 Views
sorry but know you still clearly don't understand censorship or freedom of speach - 21/06/2017 07:56:20 PM 552 Views
NBC is a business. - 21/06/2017 01:42:40 PM 474 Views
yes. my point exactly. *NM* - 21/06/2017 02:43:53 PM 249 Views
I disagree enormously with one part of this. - 22/06/2017 03:00:37 AM 481 Views
I disagree with you so much on this. And you don't seem to understand my view. - 22/06/2017 12:33:12 PM 450 Views
again, you nailed it - 22/06/2017 01:18:03 PM 433 Views
I agree.... - 22/06/2017 04:49:44 PM 420 Views
Rhetorical Question, which is worse Kelly or Jones? *NM* - 20/06/2017 08:02:40 PM 241 Views
they deserved each other *NM* - 20/06/2017 08:14:32 PM 260 Views
I always enjoy this Louis Brandeis quote when discussing "offensive" speech and publicity. - 22/06/2017 02:53:21 PM 499 Views
well said *NM* - 22/06/2017 03:14:06 PM 234 Views

Reply to Message