I want to talk about the different types of freedom of speech. First I want to set comercial speech in a different category. Thus a pregenerated comercial spam is something liberals and conservatives agree on. That category is the only posts I will
delette. The reason is it is manufactured and has zero to do with anything.
Artistic expression should also be free but not subsidized in any manner. If the artist accepts a subsidy he is responsable to community standards. If you want blasphemous art do it on your dime. I wonder what the reaction to the left would be of a brilliant artist like the Beak creating a cat dung like painting of Noam Chomsky
or using urine on Mohammed. No I would never do such a thing but there is a double stsndard at work.
Political speech in non comercial forums should be uncensored. I do not know of a single conservative or moderate blogger who delettes posts. I do enjoy a creative attack with wit something the Duck is incapable of. Woe onto those that attack Mr Beamish seriously. I also enjoy an intellectual reparte with patriotic liberals like B or the mercurial Justin Morris.
The Constitution talks about political speech expressly. Thus when anti semites of the far left want to stop zionists from their right as Americans this is hypocritcal.
The fact that jihadists and Communists are grantged freedom of speech unquestioned by the far left is an obvious comedic point.
Now TV shows is an area where I agree with B I am not in favor of censorship. However Desperate Housewives is not political speech and falls somewhere in between comercial and a low class artistic exposition of bad taste. I do not see it as sacrosanct as free expression in Universities and the public arena.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Leave my Desperate Housewives outta this! Thems fightin' words, lol. I love that show! :)
Ban the Poets!
-FJ (for Plato)
So beak, when Diogenes the Cynic strolls naked into the Agora and begins to masturbate, should he be told to go back to his bowl by local authorities, or should parents just have to put their hands over their children's eyes if they don't them to watch?
-FJ
FJ,
I am firmly of the opinion that a well placed kick will serve the purpose.
B
I have not endorsed any kind of censorship. However I am far more outraged at the pulling of classic litteratue Huck Finn then by a second rate TV show. Hmmm lets see a great work of fiction by Mark Twain vs a second rate TV show. Who banned that loveable Speedy Gonzales fellow. Funny he remains popular in Mexico but Ted Turner is not a Conservatives. Have you seen Alfalfa or Spanky ? Some day you will not be able to see Good Times or Sanford and Son.
A odd movement to ban a second rate show is nowhere near the PC censorship. Mark Twain is banned for the use of the N word that can be found in Rap Videos. Ask these good PC types why Eugene ONeil gets zero critique for using the same word 30 times in the Emperor Jones played on screen by a good Commie traitor Paul Robeson. Lets see Robesoncan say the N word 30 times as a key dialouge but Twain is a pariah for using the word in passing.
Funny I do not remember Jews complaining when we read the Canturburry Tales or Shakespear.
Nobody wants to "ban" Desparate House-skanks. We just want to make it "harder" for children to turn it on. And so the TV Sets already embedded V-Chip should have a "default" "G-Rated" setting. And if you like "X-Rated", you need to spend $19.99 EXTRA to get the Playboy chip installed. That's all. Or is that TOO much censorship for your delicate sensibilities?
-FJ
warren,
a well placed kick is exactly the remedy called for and exactly what we should all be dishing out.
-FJ
b,
I would never ban a book. I would only make sure that children cannot get their hands on some of them until they're in a position to be able to act responsibly upon what they see and read. ie- Playboy, Penthouse, etc. And if that means making patrons of a video store move to a "back room", so be it. Your "freedoms" do not extend to corrupting my kids by misuse of the "public/ common" areas we share.
-FJ
THAT AIN'T MUD THEY'RE SLINGIN'*
by Terpsichore Lipschitz
Monkeys are funny
like monkeys will be.
They swing from their vines
and they hang from their trees.
But the funniest thing
that monkeys will do,
is get into fights
with their own monkey poo.
They'll spend hours it seems
just volleying clumps,
back and forth at each other,
like monkeys are chumps.
And the rest of the monkeys
watch intently and chatter,
like slinging means something --
like poo slinging matters.
And as it turns out
there is something more to it.
Something much deeper,
that makes them go to it.
It seems that the monkeys
aren't just slinging poop.
It's a battle for power --
for reign o'er the troupe.
See monkeys don't worry
about campaigning funds.
They just use what's handy --
what's fresh from their buns.
They don't worry about image
-- it would be hard to do --
when you're struggle for might
is centered 'round poo.
They just get to business
and stake out their claim,
and in the end choose the monkey
that has better aim.
And when it's all over,
this crusade of poo,
the monkeys get back to
the things monkeys do.
Like grooming each other,
cleaning poo from their fur,
and the whole troupe's just happy
that the troupe is secure.
It's not important to monkeys
which chimp's top banana,
while lions and tigers roam
round the savanna.
No, monkeys arenít are bothered
by which chimp is king.
They realize, that really
it don't mean a thing.
In the end all the monkeys
get back to their lives,
protecting their babies,
bananas and wives.
So admire their poo fights
even if it seems wrong,
cause no matter the outcome
monkeys still get along.
Better yet, let's be monkeys
and do what monkeys do.
Let's get Bush and Kerry
a big bucket of poo . . .
and let them fling poo
til all the poo's flung.
Til their Brooks Brother's suits
are all sullied with dung.
Then we'll choose us a leader
and we'll be monkey-giddy,
about choosing the one
that's a little less shitty.
It would be a great system,
this choosing with poo.
A little malodorous,
but that's nothing new.
Monkeys get it.
I draw it at FAIL-SAFE, not FAIL-PERFECT.
Internet regulation is fine, but there should be a front end filter built in to every home computer's ISP access package or web-browser that sets it to Rated "G" sites by default (over-ridable by the paying adult subscriber/ purchaser). Rate books, music, paintings, games, billboards as well. My Nintendo should have a default "G" setting. In other words, if it's cultural, rate it.
No special air/water regs/ controls are needed for children. Whatever the EPA decides is dangerous... set at causing say "x or 1,000" additional deaths nationally per year... is fine.
How many people die from exposure to lead paint? If it's over 1,000 regulate it. If not, who cares? A "warning label" on the paint can should be enough. Same with Asbestos. Same w/DDT.
Tobacco and alcohol adverts are fine. Just don't sell products that literally cause hundreds of thousands of deaths to kids under penalty of a severe beating by a parent. And Rate the televised ones 'M' so my V-chip will filter the television and internet ones out
Advertise all the food you want. But if you can prove BigMacs kill over 1,000 people a year, then perhaps BigMacs should be regulated.
There's nothing wrong with "regulation" as long as it achieves some public "good". And future Americans raised in a "moral" environment are just one such "good" legislators should always have in mind.
Extra profits for COMCAST instead of VIACOM are not a public good. That is what most needless "regulation" really adresses.
-FJ
Great poetry Terpsichore!
-FJ
b,
You obviously have NO idea as to the real extent of government regulation in our daily life, do you? I suggest you open up the Code of Federal Regulations one day and read how many regs there are on a can of beans. It might open your eyes a little.
mr. ducky,
There's bound to be a few bad apples, raised improperly, in EVERY bunch.
-FJ
Peruse this b...
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/21cfr155.120.htm
-FJ
Duncy
I could easily have pointed out performance artists that cover themselves in chocolate and invite the audience to lick it of or Mapplethorpe. No Duncy I am not am artist but I think a urine covered portrait of Fidel, Chomsky and John Communist er Kerry would be in order.
B
I have to disagree with you on the book censorship and editing is almost entirely a left wing enterprise. I do not use the N word but to ban Huck Finn a great work of literature is sick.
You seem awful quiet about the removal of Speedy Gonzales. The beloved Speedy is a far greater loss then Desperate Housewives. The cartoon is a hit in Mexico but Ted Turner decided it is unfit.
I do not like censoring books but this is way more prevalent on the left.
Bring Back Speedy Gonzales .
There are two paths. One moves us towards more regulation, the other towards less. You want the freedom to live however you want, whatever multi-cultural lifestyle you chose, be it pornographic entrepeneur or welfare queen. Yoy also demand the federal government provide the means for you to acquire and live that lifestyle, free of risks, and a great big social safety net to fall in if you should fail. Therefore, you require that I help subsidize these freedoms.
But if you want my payments for that universal safety net, I'm afraid your going to have to agree to certain limitations on your chosen lifestyle. The first is that you live it in private, not public. I have a rather substantial (on the order of $400K per child) investment in America's future that I am personally responsible for. And I will not have you ruin my investments and freedom to pursue my own selfish interests.
Therefore, since you insist that the FEDERAL government provide all these "supports" and "freedoms" universally for everybody, I must insist that the FEDERAL government limit your behavior in public, because it takes me about 18 years to educate my kids to the point that they can be exposed to your degeneracy and understand it enough to know to reject it.
Now if you simply wanted "geographic" zones of deviancy, like the state of gaytopia, instead of a universal right to live in the combined state of gaytopic-amishland, I suspect we could reach an accomodation that might significantly cut down the number of laws required, since we wouldn't need a law to cover EVERY possible situation, just enough to regulate either gaytopia or amishland.
In other words, the pre 1860 northern states would have to "tolerate" slavery in the southern states, and the southern states would have to tolerate the fact that runaway slaves were NOT the federal government's problem. In other words, a LIMITED federal government.
Now I favor the latter course of action, and therefore favor a DRASTIC reduction in federal governmental powers. But "politically", you are too "intolerant" of "intolerance" to accept that option. You want world-wide UNIVERSAL human rights.
I'm open to a few of those. But not the freedom to do "anything" in my own neighborhood.
And so yes, I do argue two ways. One towards my "ideal" pre-1860 federalism idea, and the other towards the political reality of a post 1865 un-restrained and unlimited federal government.
And you argue both directions too. One for more "freedom" that requires, I'm afraid, more government. More government so that I am still willing to live in the same country with you, and don't start "lynching" every progressive in sight.
All democracies ever born end in totalitarianism. What makes you think this one will be the exception, instead of prove the rule?
-FJ
And as to my "inconsistency", as Ralph Waldo Emerson once said...
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of LITTLE minds, adored by LITTLE statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do."
-FJ
I do believe this whole debate hinges on two things.
1. A moral compass (which sadly is grossly lacking in todays society)
2. Good comon sense (which also is grossly lacking in todays society)
As far as the left not banning. Which side is hell bent on regulating and restricting religious beliefs in this country?
By the way Beak thanks for the mecurial handle I really do like that. And that is not sarcasam I do.
mr. ducky,
I'm aiming just a "little" bit farther back. Sorry.
-FJ
Justin
I never said you were a bad guy and friends do disagree at times. I do not like censorship left or right but I see far more political censorship on the left.
That being said will B adress Speedy Gonzales . I want Speedy back and Ted Turner has played politics with the charming fellow long enough.
Eppa Ariba Mr Beamish in 08. Silly Gringo Gato.
I guess Speedy is a fan of Mr Beamish as well.
B
Lets see a far left kook bans a beloved cartoon charachter and this is not censorship. I think we should start a poll which cartoon charachter is more beloved by Americans Ted Turner or Speedy Gonzales. The looser can remain in Cuba or Berkley CA.
Turner should sell those cartoons and stop screwing around with the Little Rascals. He has gotten away with murder while the left has been crying about Fox.
Ted Turner should let the American people decide which Cartoon Charachter we want .
I vote for Speedy Gonzales.
Lets find out what Bill Clinton thinks.
Bill Clinton When Speedy Gonzales came over in the raft I knew the right thing to do was reunite him with his family in Cuba. He was the only illegal alien I ever wanted deported.
Wrong Gonzales.
Hillary : Lets form a focus group to study how people think of both rats.
Ayeeeeeeee eppa hondala muchacos Speedy Rocks eppa eppa.
For the record, I think Road Runner is hella faster than Speedy Gonzales.
That's right Farmer, get rid of those regulations. I want to go back to the Upton Sinclair days. That's the ticket.
Upton Sinclair? The Jungle?
Not his best fictional work.
Hey, hey!
The Great Justin!
Hola!
Well Beak, B's got you there. Three cartoon characters (The Dixie chicks) vrs one (Speedy).
Hasn't the PC crowd decided that its ok to ban the chicks since Dixie is a insensitive racist term?
BTW, none of the items you are mentioning are censorship. To be censorship it must be under the purview of the government and its agents, not individuals or groups of private citizens.
Its just another case of far leftist ideologues re-defining a word. (And no B, I not referring to you).
Insidious, isn't it.
B
I was not a fan of that move by clear channel.
That being said I refuse and have not seen a Sean Penn films in a decade. In fact I have not been to a movie in three years and I do not miss them. The reason I do not go is I am tired of the Hollywood traitors like Penn and Johnny Depp.
My boycott is that of a private citizen and the reaction to Hollywoods disgusting anti american element.
Hollywoods declining box hints that I am not alone. It is time for actors to go to work like the rest of us. If I want to hear a pundit George Will or Eleanor " Hillary Is God " Clift will do.
Most of these actors are barely HS graduates and belong in a museum of overindulged types.
b,
Since you can't tolerate slavery, then I guess you'll just be forced to liberate the entire world. Now tell me again why you are against the war in Iraq? When do we go into Sudan?
-FJ
b,
What you fail to notice, is that slavery in America HAS ALREADY BEEN ABOLISHED and likely NEVER to come back. The seed of destruction sown with the original Constitution is "gone". The principles inherent in the Declaration, that ALL men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights (the thoughts in their heads) including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
To say I would impose slavery on people is a red herring. I said I was okay with certain American universals, did you not get that part?
Your intolerance of intolerance leads logically to one world government. You are the NWO, not me. I'm happy to tolerate intolerance. For intolerance is the only way one can truly hold ANY value dear.
-FJ
mr. ducky,
Both. Hence you may delete the word "random".
-FJ
"Don't blame the culture for your neuroses"
I don't. Like Freud, I blame our civilization for those. (Freud, "Civilization and its' Discontents" and "Totem and Taboo")
-FJ
ps - I am currently reading "Paradise Lost". Perhaps I'll follow it up with Aeropagitica. And I've nothing against free speech, provided people exercise it responsibly. When they stop doing that, I simply require they do it in appropriate forums. Kinda like a separation of church and state. Does any of this ever find a resting spot in your head? Or does it sound like some kind of moving target everytime I do say it? Or is the "Ban the Poets!" crack that set you off? Should I have qualified it to say "Ban the Poets to the Private Sphere"?
Whatever happened to Adams "Alien and Sedition Act" anyway. Wasn't Adam's one of your heroes... local boy does good?
-FJ
Hey, after my kids go to bed, have at it mr. ducky. In fact, I'm willing to give you all of Bourbon Street 24/7. Just stay off Main 16/7 (You've got 10 pm to 6 am, then clear out w/ALL traces). Oh yeah, isn't that how it used to work, before I had to start making laws and regulations? Stupid duck. You lost your "common" sense. Must have been temporary(???) insanity for you to expect to run rampant on BOTH Bourbon AND Main 24/7.
-FJ
Perhaps you've been hittin' the upsidasium a little too hard duck. Did the "little" man Timothy Leary molest you on your last boat ride?
-FJ
Post a Comment