Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

More YouTube Censorship

<< < (4/9) > >>

CWuestefeld:
Google can NOT engage in censorship. They're a private entity choosing how they want to use their resources.

I'm willing to be that each of you would willingly engage in this same kind of "censorship". If someone came into your home -- even with an invitation -- and started saying insulting things to your family, wouldn't you ask them to leave? It's your home, and you're well within your rights to control the kinds of things that others do there.

Indeed, our system needs to work this way. We recognize that the government must not interfere with people's ability to speak, but that doesn't mean that we want to have profanity and porn displayed on every street corner. Instead, we rely on the values of the people to exert social pressures on each other, so that the overall cultural values are preserved.

katykaty:
  From what I read about her she's a nut job (and she looks the part).  Considering she makes her views public, any opposing views shouldn't be Censored, even if it is satirical or mean.  That's the price you pay for going public, you are a public figure....
-Tinman57 (April 10, 2012, 07:26 PM)
--- End quote ---
Would it make a difference if she didn't look like 'a nut job'?

Tinman57:
  From what I read about her she's a nut job (and she looks the part).  Considering she makes her views public, any opposing views shouldn't be Censored, even if it is satirical or mean.  That's the price you pay for going public, you are a public figure....
-Tinman57 (April 10, 2012, 07:26 PM)
--- End quote ---
Would it make a difference if she didn't look like 'a nut job'?
-katykaty (April 11, 2012, 02:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
  Nope.  A nut job is a nut job, no matter what you look like.  It just so happens that she also looks the part.
  Or perhaps your looking for another answer, like: Oh yeah, if she was a fox we shouldn't ridicule her!     >:D

  I think Paul Watson was right on the money when he said "While some may find it offensive that Jones referred to Norgaard in a derogatory manner, what’s a thousand times more offensive is her gall in brazenly advocating that anyone who dares challenge the man-made global warming mantra be “treated,” presumably with the aid of pharmaceutical drugs, for having a psychiatric disorder, or that they be smeared as racists simply for disagreeing on a highly contentious scientific issue.

Not challenging that kind of arcane, ludicrous and despotic rhetoric, which has been embraced by others in the scientific field, is far more dangerous than Alex Jones cracking jokes about Norgaard being a stereotypical cat lady."

MilesOhToole:
At first I thought this was someone's idea of a cruel joke and threw a wig on Stephen Hawking.

J-Mac:
At first I thought this was someone's idea of a cruel joke and threw a wig on Stephen Hawking.
-MilesOhToole (April 11, 2012, 10:30 PM)
--- End quote ---

Is that considered offensive toward the professor? Or Stephen Hawking?!?    8)   ;)

Jim

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page