[In response to someone calling banning pro-gay media fascist.]
40 comments
Even though the first version of Lady Chatterly's lover, which was sold in this country before the third and final one was allowed in, was the more authentic, that had a lot more to do with the Freudian misogyny coupled with the substitution of his idealized self for a real gamekeeper D.H. Lawrence injected into the rewrite than with the uplifting effect of censorship. Censorship is not uplifting. Education in literary appreciation is uplifting. Education in critical thinking is uplifting. Education in ethics is uplifting. And guys like you are trying to *censor* all that.
"Our ancestors were smart enough to know the difference between protected POLITICAL SPEECH and immorality. And gutsy enough to enforce it."
Which is why later generations fled England.
Censorship is, first and foremost, an act of pure cowardice. If you are so terrified of a few words, put together in a certain sequence, then you really shouldn't be playing with the adults.
"True.....but the whole concept of self government allows the people’s representatives to pick and choose what they wish to make illegal."
No. The purpose of our constitution is so that the current representatives can't arbitrarily change the rules on a whim. If you want to make a change to our freedom of speech, you can do it, but you need a super-majority vote in both houses and a ratification by 3/4 of the states. That (hopefully) keeps d-bags like you from being able to shove your form of persecution down our throats.
"Our ancestors were smart enough to know the difference between protected POLITICAL SPEECH and immorality. And gutsy enough to enforce it."
Some of our ancestors also allowed race-based slavery, school segregation, denial of voting rights to everyone who wasn't a white male, etc. Sounds like you're in good company.
That's called the tyranny of the majority. The US Constitution was set up specifically to combat that. While the majority pretty much gets their way most of the time, when it comes to violating the rights of the minority, that no longer becomes the case. You can no more ban pro-gay media than Catholics and Protestants can ban Mormonism or Protestants can ban Catholicism. The Constitution can be amended and has been amended but the spirit of the Constitution is one of freedom. And your right to swing your arms wildly in the air ends at someone else's face and their right to not get punched.
It was once immorality to insult the king of England.immorality to dump tea into a harbor in protest of the monarchy.immorality to declare independence from a dictator.immorality to start a nation based upon freedom, liberty and justice for all.
I could go on. You can't suppress free speech simply because you don't like it, and use the buzzword of 'immorality' as an excuse for a legitimate legal means for doing so. So get up, wipe off the crocodile tears and deal with it.
@Rabbit: I'd guess to them, freedom ultimately "just" means (the quotation marks are because they think most other proper freedoms are just subsets of the one I'm about to name) freedom to attain your inborn zenith. Government regulations and their ilk, precisely because they regulate, can only retard the attainment of personal power. Remember that we've had at LEAST one comment here from another sharp-right who extolled the Old South's belief in hierarchy as opposed to equality/egalitarianism. Corollary: Some are born immutably inferior to others, and ought not do more than accept their fate. It's the naturalistic fallacy at work--what is inborn is Right and Proper®, and anything that doesn't just let it play out, no matter who (else) gets harmed, is Monstrosity®.
I wonder if you could analogize this to what Nietzsche called master-morality (and please note that while Nietzsche detested slave-morality, he didn't really have that much use for master-morality, either).
Your Founders protected free speech in the Constitution. A succession of oppressive governments tried unsuccessfully to restrict this free speech with various censorship measures, which the Supreme Court rightfully struck down as unconstitutional.
Foe people that think you are so into the Constitution you know remarkably little about it. You do NOT have the right to pick and choose what you wish to make illegal. My unalienable rights are not subject to your vote...that's what makes them unalienable, you fucking douchebag.
Also, a tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.
True.....
Wait a second. You agree that it's fascist? You agree that you are being a fascist right now then by supporting it? Yikes.
Also worth pointing out is that the guy debating mick here appears to be a fundy and a dedicated conservative freeper just one who believes in protecting the first amendment. It actually makes for an interesting debate.
whole concept of self government allows the people’s representatives to pick and choose what they wish to make illegal.
Except that in the US, the Constitution contains a list of specific exceptions - things the government is not allowed to make illegal, such as speech, the press, religious worship and the possession of arms.
censorship of movies and books according to the prevalent moral code of the people was always present in our country.
That's still true, but there are two important caveats: the material has to be utterly without redeeming social value and it has to be offensive to the moral code people actually live by; not the one they publicly profess to have.
"...but the whole concept of self government allows the people’s representatives to pick and choose what they wish to make illegal."
And that belief is one of the current social problems. An elected representative is not empowered to pick and choose, despite what his ego might believe. That disregard for the rule of law, and representative duty, is called corruption.
the whole concept of self government allows the people’s representatives to pick and choose what they wish to make illegal.
Wrong. The people’s representatives are bound to the restraints of the Constitution. Any law that restricts freedom of speech is unconstitutional and thus invalid.
I learned that in the 7th grade, at the latest. Probably sooner.
If mick were right, then I'd start lobbying for the banning of Christian media. Persecution galore.
Here I thought the freepers thought morality was Objective, I mean that is what every fundie I've met has said, but I guess he is either an idiot, hypocrite, or both.
Actually they were smart enough to recognise the tyranny of the majority and established clauses in the constitution to prevent it...
Learn your own country's law, dammit.
Yet another freeper who doesn't understand if that if they do it to us, we can do it to them.
Also smacks of "You're free as long as you act the way I want you to." Total hypocrite.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
