It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Censorial Left meets the Censorial Right

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I had to laugh a nervous laugh when right-wingers rushed the stage during a rendition of Julius Caesar in order to disrupt it. It is a reminder that censorship has always been a bipartisan affair.

The reason for the protest, as daft and unconvincing as it was, was to blurt out in the middle of a scene “stop the normalization of political violence against the right” and “because of liberal violence like this, a congressman this week was shot in Virginia”. It might have served better, knowing the audience, had they wore vagina hats and carried “Love Trumps Hate” signs. But given the all too typical falsities uttered, it turned out to be no more than the same puritanical virtue-signalling we’ve seen a thousand times before.

Then there was poor Kathy Griffin, who, in order to remain relevant, took pictures of herself holding a severed head that resembled her president. She was subsequently fired from CNN for her artistic expression. A CNN spokesperson described the expression as “disgusting and offensive”, while Griffin’s co-host Anderson Cooper called it “inappropriate”, revealing the feelings-based logic behind her censoring.

There was Reza Aslan—also of CNN—who was fired for the egregious crime of calling President Trump a “piece of #” on twitter. The outrage circus continues.

One of the main reasons civil rights proponents defend the free speech of views they disagree with (for instance a Jewish lawyer defending the free speech of nazis, or a black lawyer defending the free speech of a KKK grand dragon) is because to do otherwise is to incentivize censorship. Had they have been silenced, it is more likely they would have done the same given the chance. This is why, I suspect, the censorial Right is using the same tactics as the censorial Left.

Invective and satire and the ridicule of leaders are the signs of political freedom and societal health, which is quite contrary to political violence. In fact, censoring such expression breeds more political violence than letting it echo away in silence, or debating it, ever would. History itself has shown us that. As Heinrich Heine noted, and noted rightly, wherever they burn the books they will also burn the people. Freedom is precisely freedom for those who think differently, and we should do best to remember that before we succumb to the tyranny of our feelings.

LesMis




posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I would be surprised, and disappointed, if anyone here disagrees with you. Supporting free speech is not about supporting what you agree with.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
There are better ways to make your point although I understand the impulse to fight fire with fire, I really do.

Remember the lady who wore a Trump tee into Starbucks and got mocked by the baristas?
This was how the local pro-Trump groups responded. It probably made their point a lot better than to try to straight up fight fire with fire. In this case, people sat in, but they were paying customers too. They did it to make a couple points:

1. They are normal people

2. They are also regular customers



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I have disagreed with you ever so slightly on rather groups calling out someone is censorship.

But I agree with you on this topic 99.9% of the time.

People on the right rushing the stage at that play was every bit as bad as what they complain about. Those that give up their principles to get a quick "win" have already lost.

Although both sides can resort to censorship, the good news is that their are people on the left and right that disagree with almost everything coming together over protecting free speech.

I think this may be an area where we can start seeing through partisanship, and it may end up working out for the best.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The one thing that should be unequivocally absolute, but never will..



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I couldn't agree more Les, this is really well written as are most of your threads even if I don't like to admit it sometimes.

I think once we start seeing how similar and hypocritical both parties act do we start to see the charade for what it really is: political theater fueled mostly by bipartisanship and bias on both sides.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




the free speech of nazi


The moment you use your right of free speech to destroy the right of free speech is the moment you've lost it completely. Written history, ya know.
They literally burned books, which is the moment at which your point lands on his head. Moot as it is. How can you not see this?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I have to slightly disagree here, now I agree with you that the people rushing the stage was tantamount to censorship, however CNN firing Kathy Griffin and Reza Aslan I don't believe have anything to do with censoring free speech, I think it was more of a business move. Both Griffin and Aslan are still free to express there 1st amendment right just not with CNN anymore.

If you take it from a business stand point, what both of them did was bad for business. As much as a lot of people dislike CNN (myself included) they are still a business who have investors and a board.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




the free speech of nazi


The moment you use your right of free speech to destroy the right of free speech is the moment you've lost it completely. Written history, ya know.
They literally burned books, which is the moment at which your point lands on his head. Moot as it is. How can you not see this?






That case in particular I was referencing was the one of Aryeh Neier, director of the ACLU, who stood up for a new-nazi group to hold a rally in an area filled with predominently Jewish people.

Hitler's nazis were persecuted under Weimar's strict hate speech laws, and they ended up using their persecution as an excuse to enact the enabling act of 1933. To paraphrase Hitler in his debate against Otto Wells, "you did it to us first".



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: caf1550
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I have to slightly disagree here, now I agree with you that the people rushing the stage was tantamount to censorship, however CNN firing Kathy Griffin and Reza Aslan I don't believe have anything to do with censoring free speech, I think it was more of a business move. Both Griffin and Aslan are still free to express there 1st amendment right just not with CNN anymore.

If you take it from a business stand point, what both of them did was bad for business. As much as a lot of people dislike CNN (myself included) they are still a business who have investors and a board.


I get it, but that doesn't matter to me. Their expressions were made on their own time, and a horde of puritans complained at their place of work until they were fired. No matter who censored them, a business or the government, it is still censorship.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's quite ironic that they chose to make this statement during the scene of a play where a man who took control of an empire by armed force and ruled dictatorially is slain by the only group of people who could be considered (somewhat) democratically elected. Just laughable.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Not only that but it is bloody Shakespeare. The play was written long before right or left even existed, and it has depicted other leaders including Obama.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As if all of them were persecuted... you really believe that?

There are different tribes of neo-nazis, many of them are pretty close to the original. We've had the NSU murder spree in Germany - that's your Rouge Khmer bunch of right-wing Stalinists right there. There's no way I'm going to let any of those murderers exploit human rights just to take em away.

Non-genocidal right-wingers? Whole different story, and given a democratic and civil discourse I have absolutely no qualms with them.
edit on 28-6-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The point is, as I have already stated, that censorship incentivizes censorship. It turns out the Nazis were one of the most censorial regimes of all time. Why you would want to adopt their techniques is beyond me.
edit on 28-6-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The point is, as I have already stated, that censorship incentivizes censorship. It turns out the Nazis were one of the most censorial regimes of all time. Why you would want to adopt their techniques is beyond me.


I shouldn't have to explain it to you and I don't think I do. I think you know darn good and well why they do it.

For those on the left, like the ones on campus, they really and truly don't see what they're doing as censoring speech. They don't think of it as speech at all. Who knows what sort of mental gymnastics they did to arrive at the conclusion that it isn't speech, but they arrived there and it's a strong belief. So they aren't actually censoring anything. There is no speech to censor.

For the right, I suspect they are fed up with talking up a blue streak about how no speech should be censored, watching murderous dictators like Ahmadinajad (sp?) speak all he wants at elite institutions, and then watch the behavior if Ben Shapiro wants to give a speech somewhere. So they've decided that maybe an object lesson or two is in order ... a "see how you like it approach" and when they squeal about censorship, you know what will be said. I don't agree with it, but I get it.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I get it too. It feels good to rub someone's face in their own hypocrisy. And it is often a the oppressed adopt the tactics of their oppressors.

Not only that but it is difficult to defend the views and expressions of those we disagree with.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Problem is that I don't see how to fix it because the ones who don't see it as censorship aren't like to suddenly have an epiphany and see the light, not if they don't really believe they are engaging in censorship to begin with.

And I don't think they do.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

By all counts, CNN was simply exercising their own free speech in firing Griffin and Aslan.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Completely agree. People have the right to speak freely.

Period.

There may be consequences for that speech, but we should not attempt to censor it.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
right-wing Stalinists


While not exactly topical to this thread, I'm fairly certain one cannot be right-wing and socialist at the same time. The two would seem to be in total conflict with each other.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join