Recent Posts3551
Living Room / Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Last post by 40hz on April 30, 2013, 09:03 PM »The whole idea of the internet was an exchange of idea's and thoughts, and when you start censoring what gets through, you basically cripple the whole concept.-Tinman57 (April 30, 2013, 08:02 PM)
Amen.
Ken White over at Popehat had a nice piece on that which illustrates how even people who truly believe themselves to be advocates of free speech are somehow blind when it comes to their own demands for censorship. In this case journalist Nicholas Jackson's rant against sports commentator Chris Broussard's recent rant about homosexuality and gay marriage.
It seems Mr. Jackson wants to suppress Broussard's rambling bible invoking comments by branding them a form of "hate speech." He then goes on to completely misinterpret US laws regarding freedom of speech, and present a totally erroneous argument that US courts have historically moved to restrict freedom of speech (and have supposedly done so) when, in fact, US courts have done the exact opposite.
And why does journalist and self proclaimed free speech supporter Nicholas Jackson want comments like Broussrd's retricted or outlawed? Look no further than Mr. Jackson's article written for the Pacific Standard, where he tells us:
...Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has tightened the definition of free speech over and over again. <NOTE from 40hz:This is not true according to attorney Ken White.>
-
As a 15-year-old, that made me livid. Now, as a 25-year-old, I appreciate those restrictions, because, frankly, I don’t want to listen to your bullshit. In fact, I don’t think the existing restrictions go far enough.
Ah yes. Yet another 20-something that doesn't want to listen to any bullshit - other than his own - as Ken's Popehat article points out.
Here's an excerpt:
Chris Broussard is a dinosaur snarling at the oncoming asteroid. Even opposition to gay marriage is doomed in the long term, let alone dwindling opposition to gays and lesbians living openly. If they are angered by people like Jason Collins, Broussard and his ilk are destined for lives of increasingly marginalized bitterness and resentment.
But that's not enough for some who think Chris Broussard's views should be suppressed by force of law. For instance, over at Pacific Standard, Nicholas Jackson uses Chris Broussard as an opportunity to call for censorship and be thoroughly wrong about free speech and the First Amendment. It's typical for people to react to obnoxious speech by waving their arms and proclaiming vaguely there oughta be a law; that's banal. Jackson distinguishes himself by asserting authority and then promoting disinformation about the law, all in the service of an argument that the law should prohibit Broussard's speech.
Read the whole article here.
)