Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

Ok, WHICH Side is Against Free Speech, Exactly?

▼

Ok, WHICH Side is Against Free Speech, Exactly?

from JoeUser Forums

I am sick of hearing Democrats claim that Republicans are the enemies of free speech. While the Republicans certainly have done their part to limit the exercise of free speech, they hardly have a monopoly on the concept. The Democrats, however, have the added burden of hypocrisy as they make a point in condemning Republicans for doing the same thing they're doing.

For a recent example, witness the efforts to silence the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11". The push has come almost exclusively from the Democrats, who are apparently unhappy with any suggestion that Bill Clinton's administration might have dropped the ball on securing the United States in the leadup to 9/11. Yet the fateful event happened less than 9 months into President Bush's tenure, and much of the stage had been set for the terror action under Bill Clinton's administration. That's not partisanship speaking, that's fact.

While it might be true that "The Path to 9/11" is partisan (I have heard otherwise, but, not having seen the film, cannot objectively comment), it is no more so than "Fahrenheit 9/11". And while Republicans decried the Michael Moore film, there was not a concerted, organized effort to ban its showing.

It could be said that the Democrats simply fell victim to the tendency to close ranks to protect their own if the examples ended there. But they do not. In fact, one need only look to find Hillary Clinton's recent video game ban efforts to find another example of concerted efforts by prominent DNC leaders to censor free speech in the marketplace. And, of course, anyone with even a remedial knowledge of the subject matter should be well aware of the "porn rock" hearings in the mid-80's led by none other than former Veep main squeeze Tipper Gore.

I am not suggesting that the Democrats have an official policy for censorship within their party. Far from it. But I am suggesting that if they are going to be human and give in to the natural tendency to want to censor things that offend us, they should at least be honest about it and not point fingers at the other side. I, for one, hope that this docudrama is at some point available for viewing in its unedited state. But I also hope the DNC will stop pointing a finger at others for the same sin that infects its own rank and file.

politics
11,724 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
For a people so in love with free speech that your right to it is enshrined in the First Amendment you're terribly prone to its most prurient expressions - both politically and sexually. You use sex to sell everything from SUVs to a cure for vaginal warts, you sexualise your children to the point where it's safer and simpler to watch TV ads when the kids are home from school than it is to go looking for kiddie porn on the net; and you react with terrified outrage at the mere sight of one small, brown, not particularly attractive breast at a public occassion.

And both political parties routinely vilify everything said by any spokesperson for their opposite numbers, whether true or not, because politics in this country has nothing to do with issues or debate and everything to do with appearance, conformity, and moral purity.

In their politics and their sexuality, Americans are a deeply sick people - and that sickness has everything to do with the denial of how people actually are in favor of a grossly Romanticised and utterly unreal image of how they ought to be.

And that 'ought to be' has far more to do with a crudely religious image of 'virtue' than it has to do with anything approaching reality.

Buy that SUV; buy that cure for vaginal warts; make your children look like porn stars - it'll give you a bigger dick and women will fall at your feet and beg to suck it.

And the only thing you can find to complain about is the 'hypocrisy' of one party or another. Here's a newsflash for you: every damned one of you is as hypocritical, as sexually perverse, as politically sick, as any of those you condemn.

Perhaps that's why I love America so. And why I'll never leave.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is a threat


kay....here's the first part followed by the second part. in order to qualify as a threat, there'd have to be some sorta 'do this or you'll suffer this consequence'. there's no mention of anyone doing anything to abc or its license.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.


Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.


only one thing is being threatened here: the collective sanity of those hapless passersby who unwittingly subject themselves to your ridiculous braying.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
The primary problem with Free Speech is that it always seems to cost someone something. Maybe we need a new, more realisable ideal.....something along the lines of "Discounted Speech" perhaps? Where you only get to say what you want to say if what you want to say is a little more yesterday than tomorrow?

only one thing is being threatened here: the collective sanity of those hapless passersby who unwittingly subject themselves to your ridiculous braying.


lmao. Thats a very funny slur. I can only hope to be put down half as well as that at some stage in the future.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
only one thing is being threatened here: the collective sanity of those hapless passersby who unwittingly subject themselves to your ridiculous braying.


I can see you have again lost the arguement since you resort to name calling. Well, it was fun for a couple before your resorted to your tried and true tactic.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can see you have again lost the arguement since you resort to name calling.


Well to be fair KingBee is correct. There is no threat in the text nor Url that you have quoted. There is a statement of fact. There is an expression of opinion and a request for a change in course of action but there is no suggestion of consequence in the material you presented. In order to be considered threatening either of the two blocks you've highlighted would require some sort of "therefore" or perhaps "unless" construct. In neither of these passages nor anywhere in the Url that you posted is there such a construct.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well to be fair KingBee is correct. There is no threat in the text nor Url that you have quoted. There is a statement of fact.

I respectfully disagree.  Part of it is stated fact, the other is opinion of the senators.  And in that, there is the threat.  As they are not FCC, nor are the a court of law.  They laid the ground work for a case in either of the former.

Assault is against the law.  That is clear.  SO you tell me that if I call you a jerk (just for the sake of arguement not in reality), and then you reference the Assault Statute, that is a threat (legal) of legal action.  I never said what they did was illegal, and indeed I would (and most everyone would have been) scandalized had they done so.  But we did state they 'threatened legal action', which is legal.  Not very ethical, but legal.