I’ve spent a lot of time ragging on the conservative cause in this country. It’s one of those instances when I lump too many people into one group for simplicity, even though you and I are well aware that not all conservatives have the same view points on all issues. And no one is conservative on all things. Some of my best friends are conservative, and I couldn’t care less. So today, just for you, I’m going to rag on the liberals for a bit, particularly old Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman has demanded that Google and YouTube remove videos posted by “Islamic radicals”. That’s a very general label. Who gets to define which Islamic people are “normal” and which are “radical”? Who gets to pick which groups are not acceptable and which Islamic groups are? Needless to say, it’s not you or I.
Google already attempts to remove videos that advocate violence or are considered “hate speech”. These go against their published policies. So violent videos made by these groups are already being banned and hate-speech is also banned. What’s left? That would be videos that advocate anti-Western sentiment without advocating violence. Last time I checked, these fell under the umbrella of free speech. What we have here is a senator who is actively asking for censorship and a violation of the first amendment. Meanwhile, the liberal and independent members of government are lambasting Bush and his administration for doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Liberals are upset that Bush is censoring military blogging and communications and blocking access to legal representation for “suspected terrorists”. Yet here they want the same thing. Until the day I die, I will never understand how you can take the “moral high ground” (disgusting word, moral, but appropriate here) by asking others to stop doing something that you are actively doing. Do you not see the stupidity and hypocrisy in that?
Just because you don’t like what other people have to say doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to say it. And who knows. Maybe you can learn something by listening to what other people think and understanding how they got to that thought. Witch hunts have never worked. The Inquisition? The Red Scare? The Gestapo? They were all about the same thing: control. None of them worked. All they did was make people miserable.
One of the major themes of the upcoming presidential election is change. The Democrats think they have the change the public wants, the Republicans think they do. But based on examples like this, neither side is offering any change. It’s more status quo. This is only one example, of course, but you can easily find others. Read some headlines. Just don’t do it on CNN or Fox News.
Kudos to Google for telling Lieberman and his staff where they can stick their request.
4 comments:
Not to mention the issue of government censorship of the internet...
Having to study the crap out of U.S. History in order to tutor it, I'm beginning to clearly see how the government we have today embodies nearly every fear about central government that the founding fathers had.
Not that I'm advocating "intent" as a useful or intelligent argument for/against anything, it's just interesting to see how even the "free-est" of all systems of government over the course of a few generations can slowly lose its focus on the individual and turn into the same leviathan self-interest machine that our government was formed to get away from.
And yes, I did use the word FREEEST. I'm tired as hell of people saying GOODEST and TIREDEST are not 'good' English. By that, they mean English which is commonly used and familiar to them, which is a reflection of self and not in any way, shape, or form an authoritative or intelligent understanding of the English language.
It is obvious that the groups that are "against" us are the ones deserving of censorship. Of course, by extending that logic, all groups that are trying to bring about any change that the government disagrees with would be subject to censorship.
Oh, yes, and hypocrisy is the name of the game.
-Dave
I believe it was John Adams that tried to make it illegal for newspapers to publish anything that disagreed with the President...so, even some of our founding fathers were not completely in tune with freedom of speech.
- Nell's dad
John Adams especially, disliked the idea of free speech. As President in 1798, he passed The Alien and Sedition Acts, four bills designed to protect the US government from alien citizens and stop seditious attacks on government. The Democratic-Republicans, like later historians, attacked them as blatantly unconstitutional and designed to censor just criticism.
But even then, before the birth of the understanding of common Civil Liberties, this was hugely contentious and became a major issue in 1798/1800 elections.
One act — the Alien Enemies Act — is still active today and has been frequently used in wartime; the rest expired or were repealed by 1802. Thomas Jefferson hated them all and pardoned anyone convicted under them as soon as he became President.
Kind of shoots a hole in the hippie understanding of the Founding Fathers as being all in agreement about how best to run this crazy new country with its uppity citizens and spiked hair and hip-hop musics, huh?
Post a Comment