"Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.... However you define cancel culture, Americans know it exists, and feel its burden. In a new national poll commissioned by Times Opinion and Siena College, only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely. The poll found that 84 percent of adults said it is a 'very serious' or 'somewhat serious' problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.... 'There’s a crisis around the freedom of speech now because many people don’t understand it, they weren’t taught what it means and why it matters,' said Suzanne Nossel, the chief executive of PEN America, a free speech organization.... This editorial board plans to identify a wide range of threats to freedom of speech in the coming months, and to offer possible solutions... Free speech demands a greater willingness to engage with ideas we dislike and a greater self-restraint in the face of words that challenge and even unsettle us...."
From "America Has a Free Speech Problem" by the New York Times Editorial Board.
Okay, good start. I will continue to keep track of what the NYT is doing in relation to freedom of speech. I'll just note here that if Americans haven't been "taught what it means and why it matters," the NYT bears some responsibility. It's not a neutral observer of the culture, but a very active participant.
Posts
78 comments:
Baby steps.
Good start. Suggests they are worried about the midterms. Comments are predictable- lots of lefties braying about “false equivalence “ because clearly it is different when they do it.
Since the ACLU went woke, I know of no organization on the left that is in favor of free speech. Even the NYT, which more likely means "free speech for me, not for thee." That is what is meant by "free speech" in every single leftist institution.
The Times says it is the right that wants to "ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms..." This is projection on a colossal scale. Read the news every day of the week to find examples of leftists doing exactly those things - but don't read the "news" in the NYT to learn of them.
"...with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms" they said without evidence.
Damage control.
Correction: belated and inept attempt at damage control.
Joe Rogan isn't going away and the NYT wants some of his action.
"Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms"
Ah, yes, the extremely censorious right is the problem.
"Free speech demands a greater willingness to engage with ideas we dislike and a greater self-restraint in the face of words that challenge and even unsettle us...."
It's an interesting sign that the NYT at least feels the need to fake a bit of liberal commitment, but of course it prefers to crush "ideas we dislike" and promote the power of the people doing the crushing. See Hunter laptop story.
"It's not a neutral observer of the culture, but a very active participant."
Considering that its own reporters are cancellation victims and that it has hired plenty of wokesters.
Teachers have never been allowed to teach what they want. There job is to olllw an approved curriculum.
I'll believe the NYT is serious when they drop the false "the right is worse" stock phrasing when they observe a problem with the left's approach to civil society.
laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms
2 of those 3 are outright lies. The third ("stifle teachers") is just scare tactics. There is nothing new or controversial about teachers being expected to follow a curriculum.
This and her grudging admission of the Hunter Biden wayward laptop story is just the Grey Whore’s wet feet. The water on her deck is already above her ankles and rising fast. SS Slowjoe is holed below the waterline and going down by the head. Her idiot captain stands on the bridge wondering why the horizon misbehaves so contrary to good navigation, while the panicking passengers are trying to launch the lifeboats themselves.
Expect much more of this as the NYT and other leftish fish wraps struggle to evade Slowjoe’s massive undertow.
Okay, good start. I will continue to keep track of what the NYT is doing in relation to freedom of speech. I'll just note here that if Americans haven't been "taught what it means and why it matters," the NYT bears some responsibility. It's not a neutral observer of the culture, but a very active participant.
Okay. Good start...
Yes the right is censoring speech. Right. Let’s for a moment agree they are. If they are it is above board and written into law. Not at the whim of someone ??? Sitting behind a computer at Facebook.
I would suggest the hidden censorship that can not be impacted by anyone is much more dangerous. PEN would be well served to quit talking about the right wing boogeyman, it makes them sound like just another democrat front.
Well......In my opinion, it's not 'baby steps' and it's not a 'good start', and since the editorial board hasn't changed, it means that the NYT is taking on a different tack for business reasons that are rooted in their ideology. And if you think they have changed their ideology, well...OK then. There's an election coming, and the NYT is trying to find the right wave. Trust me, they still think you're stupid.
Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society....
I guess they're not too familiar with Issac Newton.....
Many on the left refuse to acknowledge...
Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture...
One of these things is not like the other.
Plus, point to the "even more extreme censoriousness" employed by those "many" on the right. More extreme than threatening - or eliminating - people's livelihoods? More extreme than calling for the destruction of an entire news agency? More extreme than demanding viewpoint-loyalty pledges of aspiring college students as a condition of application - not even entry?
Show me.
There is a huge difference between these two things:
1) Censoring expression engaged in by adults in various forms of publication, especially when the government has a heavy thumb on the scales.
2) Establishing through legislative means a school curriculum for minors being taught in government schools.
Here's a hint: #1 is a bad and unnecessary thing, and #2 is a good and necessary thing (although school choice would minimize the conflict and improve the results).
People have been brow beat, and dare I say "brainwashed" for so long they live in a self censorship bubble and don't realize it. Acceptable words, rhetoric, and social issues are now defined by the left. Conservatives are content to fight their battles within those parameters.
I see it here on Althouse all the time. The pitched battle over the Florida "don't say gay" law is a classic example. Perverted teachers can no longer groom 3-8 year olds into their sick and twisted cult, but 9-18 year olds...well, that's just fine.
We won!
"an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms"
"even more extreme": I only care about what I care about. Telling a teacher that they should not proselytize in the classroom is "way more extreme" than firing someone who disagrees with me.
The left expresses beliefs, the right brays.
---Okay, good start. I will continue to keep track of what the NYT is doing
That's sweet.
Except, it isn't a start and it wasn't good. If you've been keeping track, you already know the score.
Aggie has it right.
A couple of precepts:
Freedom of speech is an alternative to violence.
One does not exercise freedom of speech, one affords freedom of speech.
I wouldn't be able to graduate college if I were a student toady.
I'd either be flunked by every woke professor or I'd quit in abject frustration.
'The left expresses beliefs, the right brays.'
No, the right 'pounces.'
Former NYT reporters Bari Weiss and Donald McNeil could not be reached for comment.
As we speak, cancel culture in Wisconsin, from the left wing ECLA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in American), private college, Concordia.
"Rev. Dr. Gregory P Schulz, a philosophy professor and Lutheran pastor, was suspended from Concordia University in Wisconsin following the publishing of his Feb. 14 article "Woke Dysphoria at Concordia."
https://campusreform.org/article?id=19102
The left expresses beliefs, the right brays.
Nope. The Left brays. (That's why their the jackass party) The Right trumpets.
"Free speech demands a greater willingness to engage with ideas we dislike and a greater self-restraint in the face of words that challenge and even unsettle us...."
So I assume the NYT, which just now begrudgingly admits to the Hunter Biden laptop story, will go after Facebook/Twitter/etc. who in lockstep banned any and all speech relating to said laptop?
Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms
Which laws? We don't want middle-schoolers exposed to pornography or being subjected to propaganda from mentally-ill teachers about gender identity and sexual relationships. Protecting one's children from grooming attempts isn't censorious or cancel culture, it's simply good parenting.
Nope. The Left brays. (That's why their the jackass party) The Right trumpets.
Yes, the NYT loses style points for braying truth through misinformation.
The NYT already had good start with Bari Weiss. A good start is the last thing the staff of the NYT wants.
"Free speech demands a greater willingness to engage with ideas we dislike and a greater self-restraint in the face of words that challenge and even unsettle us...."
True, but also leaves plenty of room for "Anybody who disagrees with us needs to shut up and listen."
'So I assume the NYT, which just now begrudgingly admits to the Hunter Biden laptop story, will go after Facebook/Twitter/etc. who in lockstep banned any and all speech relating to said laptop?'
Here is the problem I have with this: Free Speech is not MANDATED speech. For example, I am Free to congratulate the NYTs on discovering the sky is blue, water is wet and that Free Speech is a Right even for speech they do not like.
I am not, however, taking advantage of that opportunity.
The NYTs no mentioning Hunter Biden before the election is not a Free Speech issue.
As a supposedly professional journalistic organization, it is an INTEGRITY issue...which they failed.
But yes, suppressing the speech of others re FB et al re Zuck is certainly an issue.
But I am betting they find more issues with parents criticizing indoctrinating teachers than they are taking Zuck to task.
open discussion in classrooms
In kindergarten classrooms ? About transgender sex?
Oh please. The New York Times, after spending the last 15 years censoring news, holding out facts, ignoring huge stories, knowing the rest of the clones in the media will follow their lead, now finds that we may have a cancel culture?
I remember when a very Liberal friend of mine came to me a couple of years ago to lament that his son was being cancelled on social media. He asked me if I had ever heard of this thing called 'cancel culture'. Literally two years ago. He is a very bright man, a successful businessman, has seen a lot in this world, but...he gets his news from CNN and MSNBC. And like good soldiers for the cause, he and his wife know nothing.
The Times is the standard for all of this media. They are the Manual of Style for what gets reported, how it gets reported, and IF it gets reported. Think about that.
And yes I know the right does some censoring of it's own. But it pales in comparison to the reach and scope of the left. Banning Books? Really? You mean like this one? Abigail Shrier
How many bestselling conservative books never even appear on the NY Times Bestseller list? It's almost comical how often that happens. We all watch it and understand that half the country lives with half of the information. They are functioning on half of the information. So what do we expect from them?
That's rich, coming from the New York Times.
From the article:
"Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms..."
More extreme than:
- banning Dr. Seuss from schools and burning (or composting) J.K. Rowling's books?
- stifling parents, to the point of arresting the ones who dare to speak at school board meetings?
- using classrooms to indoctrinate young minds with critical theory?
N.B. no one so far on the Left has lost livelihood or reputation for thoughtcrime. A few have been (righteously) MeTooed, but they were collateral damage from the attempt to use MeToo against you-know-who.
It's not a free speech issue.
It's a 'wrong-speech' issue.
Controlled by the social media mavens who can disrupt corporate profit.
Opinion and Siena College, only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely.
So 34 percent of Americans believe you can freely use the n-word?
No, 34 percent of Americans don't believe restricting your use of words constitutes restrictions on speech.
And that sounds about right to me.
"Okay, good start. I will continue to keep track of what the NYT is doing in relation to freedom of speech."
I'd like to believe this is sarcasm.
If the NYT is serious (they're not) they will call for Twitter to reinstate Trump's account. Whether you like him or not, he was the President of the United States, for Pete's sake.
Public school teachers and administration are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and, as such, are ultimately at the service of the public. If the public at large see's fit to wrest control away from what they see as corruption or perversion of the schools mission, that's their prerogative. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES who don't like that are free to leave or be fired, if necessary.
Parents wanting to restrict or remove access to age inappropriate books as school curriculum or in school libraries is NOT cancel culture.
Telling teachers they cannot conduct what amount to sex grooming sessions with 5 to 8 year olds isn't a violation of anyone's 1st Amendment rights.
'Oh please. The New York Times, after spending the last 15 years censoring news...'
It's been a helluva lot longer than that.
Walter Duranty anyone?
There’s a crisis around the freedom of speech now because many people don’t understand it, they weren’t taught what it means and why it matters
People understand that if Social Media deems your viewpoint "wrong", you can suffer.
And this understanding starts in Public Schools, where extraordinary efforts go towards protecting victims.
Lemme translate. Cancel culture is cancelling too many on our side but we still need it - only, we need to keep the target on the horrible, terrible right wing who occasionally uses a different form of cancel culture.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"The left expresses beliefs, the right brays."
All the left has are beliefs. Not very fact based. The right doesn't bray. The right points and laughs. I wonder if Hunter Biden's laptop has driven the NYT to now examine free speech.
Well. In any case I'm sure the NYT will soon distill its new discovery into something you'll be told to believe. After all it's the NYT and tu Le monde reads the NYT.
"Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned."
Somehow the unnamed editorial writer at the NYT hasn't figured out that "shaming and shunning" are mild acts of (Yes!) free speech, and so there is no constitutional law that actually permits governmental prohibition of a shame or a shun.
Now that the main point of a badly conceived editorial has been shot down, we can continue our naps.
Here's how stupid censorship can get. Amazon recently killed ads for a guy's book that he had been advertising on their site for 5 years, plus a box set which killed his sales.
Amazon claimed that the book was "non-compliant" because it "related to sensitive events such as natural disasters, human-caused disasters, health emergencies, incidents of mass drama, or the death of public figures."
Whelp, there goes advertising Michael Critchon's books.
When he ask for clarification, he was told, "Entertainment ads, including books, Video and Audio (fiction and non-fiction) with themes related to Soviet military conflicts/War, references to WWIII, The Cold War etc are prohibited on all placements."
His book, BTW, is a 1950s Cold War action-adventure spy book.
So I guess John LeCarre's publisher can't advertise his books now? Nor anyone who writes studies of the Red Army?
Now, you can say it's not a big-deal cancellation, but this guy lost a chunk of his future income from this book thanks to Amazon.
Plus, everyone who reads this could begin to self-censor themselves, worried that Amazon's AI will flag their books and throw them off a platform responsible for the majority of ebook sales.
It's one thing to be worried about political censorship; but chances are you're going to be tagged by stupid censorship, like in the movie "Brazil," when a misprint (caused by an insect caught in a typewriter) targets an innocent man.
Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry), Inequity, and Exclusion. A double-edged scalpel, so you would think. All's fair in lust and abortion.
Joe Smith, if you were a student toady you'd do fine!
If you're a teacher in a public school K-12 classroom, you do not have freedom to just say whatever the hell you want to your students. Your job is to teach the curriculum, not push your leftist/racist/Democrat political propaganda. If the curriculum pushes that, then it ought to be explicitly barred. Too many school districts think their jobs is to turn students into woke activists and trannies.
States are finally waking up to what's been going on in public schools for decades and making changes - not cancelling teachers for their speech, but ensuring children get an adequate, objective, and apolitical education. If teachers refuse, that's insubordination and they need to go. We simply can't leave it up to the woke education establishment to determine what children ought to be taught. They're commies who shouldn't be trusted one bit.
State legislatures are finally doing their jobs and putting an end to it. This isn't an "more extreme version of censoriousness." The left doesn't have the right to use government resources to push its radical agenda on impressionable children. That goes doubly when their agenda is hateful fucking racism.
Of course, the NYT thinks its job is to push the Democrats' agenda, so we can't expect them to be honest about it either, which they're not.
Meet the new NYTs.
Same as the old NYTs…
“… an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms....”
Mendacity.
… &verbatim what Temujin said.
…. Again:0)
"Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms...."
To be frank, this is bull****. It is such incredible bull**** that it completely eliminates the speakers' credibility. And, yet, "paper of record."
That said, when there is a universal right that is supposed to apply to all individuals equally, but it is obvious that the right has been stripped from certain portions of the population due to obvious bias of the powerful, it is a hard sell for the targeted to prize a right that they are not allowed to actually use. I tire of the typical "concern troll" response articles to the backlash. You know the articles that warn that if Side A continues down this path then Side B will then use the same tactics against them, despite the fact that Side B is already using said tactics on Side A with gusto and big business and government approval, the author apparently being oblivious to the obvious, being the genius political commentator he or she is.
Lying liars lie and lie,
Doo-dah! Doo-dah!
Lying liars lie and lie,
Oh, the Doo-dah day!
"Braying" is a sound made by donkeys, not elephants. Elephants 'trumpet'
"against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would [ban books]no books banned, just books chosen, [stifle teachers]Need to be stifled, at least refocused and [discourage open discussion] should be discouraged because it is not the appropriate venue in classrooms..."
America’s government schools are and always have been political institutions. They must always serve the ideological-political interests of some individual or group.
https://cbradleythompson.substack.com/p/when-bolshevik-schooling-came-to?s=w
The NYT didn't print my comment.
"Sic probo," said Faustus. "Thus I prove."
Is this the same New York Times editorial board that called Citizens United a "blow to democracy"? Hmm…
Remember, that's the decision that allowed a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton to be released. She later argued on the campaign trail in 2016 that it was a bad decision because it was bad for her as a political candidate.
Is the New York Times really as principled and even-handed about free speech as they're making themselves out to be?
Senator Cotton and James Bennet were unavailable for comment.
Well, actually, Senator Cotton and Ex Editor Bennet's comments were unprintable.
The left expresses beliefs, the right brays.
Ironic, considering which party uses the donkey as their symbol...
There is concern about teaching children about sexual matters in elementary school or teaching that the US is evil and whites are devils. The Left wants to call this concern "censorship". "with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms." This is not "open discussion in classrooms" it is far left indoctrination of children in Marxism and critical race theory. The single "ban book" by conservatives case I have heard about is "Maus" a cartoon book about Nazis germany but it contains semi-porn illustrations. Show me any other right wing censorship.
In order to get a job now at most universities or even an NSF grant one must supply a written statement of your anti-racism beliefs and activities. You can't say you are colorblind. You can't say that your research on math has nothing to do with race. It is an ideological litmus test of allegiance to the far left.
A number of university libraries are purging "old books by white men"--that is, the classics of our civilization, and not just literature. It isn't "censorship", it is just housekeeping. right
"Free speech demands a greater willingness to engage with ideas we dislike and a greater self-restraint in the face of words that challenge and even unsettle us...."
Let me translate that: they are referring to critical race theory and how white people should "engage" with it and have more self-restraint while being called devils and racists. This is NOT about listening to those who view abortion as murder or who think gang culture is a self-inflicted wound.
From "America Has a Free Speech Problem" by the New York Times Editorial Board.
An honest headline would be "American Has a Censorship Problem" which should be an indication right there.
"Now that the main point of a badly conceived editorial has been shot down, we can continue our naps."
Except that you kind of missed the main point altogether. The editorial is talking about modifying a culture through the changing of attitudes, not making laws. Maybe we shouldn't encourage the canceling of people who use what some fringe group calls the wrong pronouns. Maybe we shouldn't be using corporate power to censor news stories that challenge our world view. Maybe we can all agree that trying to remove someone from all facets of modern civilized life because they voted for the wrong guy is a bad thing. Just an idea.
"I will continue to keep track of what the NYT is doing in relation to freedom of speech."
Doing? Or saying?
gadfly said...
["Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned."]
"Somehow the unnamed editorial writer at the NYT hasn't figured out that "shaming and shunning" are mild acts of (Yes!) free speech, and so there is no constitutional law that actually permits governmental prohibition of a shame or a shun."
"Shaming and shunning are free speech."
"Freedom is slavery."
"War is peace."
Shaming and shunning that result in loss of livelihood or defamation of character aren't anything like free speech.
I have to agree with the first sentence after the quote in Gadfly's post at 12:33.
The offending quote:
"Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned."
There is no such right. Gadfly is right.
A twitter thread from David French retweeted by... Eliezer Yudkowsky! (which strikes me as really weird) concludes with: "but a culture of public shaming has its own negative consequences". Yes, it does, but sometimes the commies have it coming, other times it turns around and bites you on the ass.
NYT is one main avenue. NPR is another. "Busy" lefties have it on in the car wherever they go. May not have the time to spare reading the fishwraps. Listening to NPR after reading the language analysis on this blog, the language bias blares out of the speakers like the airhorns on a Freightliner. NPR is the radio equivalent of Wapo and NYT. It is, however, couched in some of the most beautiful music known to the ear. The definition of "Velvet Hammer"?
The left expresses beliefs, the right brays.
We also 'pounce'.
Let me see if I've got this straight.
1. During the 2020 Presidential Election campaign, the NYTimes (and almost all the mainstream news media) buried a story that suggested that one of the Presidential candidates, during his previous term in public office, may have been involved in an influence-selling scheme, and that candidate won a very close election against the incumbent, the outcome of which might have been different if the voters had known about that story.
2. Parents of elementry school students object to their children being taught lessons that normalize behaviors that the parents believe to be immoral and perverse.
Therefore, 1 and 2 are the same.
Have I got that right?
"Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech."
There is no such thing as "hate speech". There's only free speech that you don't like.
"Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.
Bzzt, thank you for playing now get lost
1: It is not "banning books" to say "this public school should use this book."
Or, if it is then every single teacher is a book banner.
2: Being a public school teacher does not give you special rights.
They're employees. if they don't like teaching what they're told to teach, t they're welcome to quit
They are NOT welcome to decide it's their right to push their bullshit ideas on the rest of us
3: As the left is the avowed enemy of "open discussion" (see their desire to ban "hate speech"), there is no "open discussion" for us to ban.
There's just left wing political indoctrination
And yes, we want to, and have every right to, ban that indoctrination
The noses of The NY Times editorial board members grew to Cyrano de Bergerac dimensions after writing that first sentence. To my knowledge, conservatives have not banned a single book from school use, just pushed their use to more age appropriate classes. The only laws passed against teaching a subject is against the teaching that one race is bad and essentially irredeemable and others are victims. To my knowledge, the teaching of actual history has not been banned by law, including the history included in the CRT-inspired curriculum so long as both sides of the issue are presented. That stimulates open discussion, the opposite of what NY Times alleges. Other than that, the first sentence was terrific.
Small wonder why the ONLY reason to read the NY Times is to see what the left is up to. Not for information or facts. The editorial board shows their fact-less style of journalism is the template for all of their reporters when leftist beliefs are involved in the story.
Oh, oh, how horrible, the Left is losing, and it doesn’t like it! Because that’s what this is all about.
Where was the Times when people were forced off campuses for expressing right-wing views? Nowhere. They were fine with that. But now, *shudder*, their freedom to use the educational system to indoctrinate the young is in jeopardy! That must be protected!
Just yesterday I read part of The Cause of Japan, in which Tōgō Shigenori relates how he complained to Soviet ambassador Malik about the USSR going to war with Japan before the end of the neutrality pact. Japan’s going to war with Russia in 1904, and the U.S., Britain, and the Commonwealth in 1941, all without declarations of war, is somehow not mentioned. And I’m reading A World at Arms, a history of the entire war, in which the Germans complain about the awful Allies bombing their cities, something the Germans did first and whenever they could get away with it. Friggin’ hypocrites.
When the Times hires some real right-wingers, and tells their employees that feel “unsafe” as a result to quit, let me know. Till then I say it’s all horseshit from losers.
Oh, oh, how horrible, the Left is losing, and it doesn’t like it! Because that’s what this is all about.
Where was the Times when people were forced off campuses for expressing right-wing views? Nowhere. They were fine with that. But now, *shudder*, their freedom to use the educational system to indoctrinate the young is in jeopardy! That must be protected!
Just yesterday I read part of The Cause of Japan, in which Tōgō Shigenori relates how he complained to Soviet ambassador Malik about the USSR going to war with Japan before the end of the neutrality pact. Japan’s going to war with Russia in 1904, and the U.S., Britain, and the Commonwealth in 1941, all without declarations of war, is somehow not mentioned. And I’m reading A World at Arms, a history of the entire war, in which the Germans complain about the awful Allies bombing their cities, something the Germans did first and whenever they could get away with it. Friggin’ hypocrites.
When the Times hires some real right-wingers, and tells their employees that feel “unsafe” as a result to quit their jobs, because the Times supports free speech, let me know. Till then I say it’s all horseshit from losers.
No other group peddles hate and lies better and more often that the corrupt collective LEFT.
23 PM
Blogger Bill Peschel said...
Here's how stupid censorship can get. Amazon recently killed ads for a guy's book that he had been advertising on their site for 5 years, plus a box set which killed his sales.
As ubiquitous as Amazon is this is really a horrible situation. The ONLY solution is to create parallel markets. Booksellers, financial transaction systems, banks, legal tender.
It would be great to see republicans tear down these monopolies but there are few, exempting Marjorie Taylor Greene, who have the stones for it.
I expect failure on the part of the republicans and our corrupt government, so alternative mechanisms must be created.
America DOES have a free speech problem:
You're not free to point out Obama campaigned with Oprah and nobody said anything - AND HAVE IT MEAN SOMETHING. Like America's corrupt, or gullible, or resistant to reason - or even it's enemy - as the left's media moves you from topic-to-topic each day to avoid the reality of what they've all done to us.
Only at the end of "Alice In Wonderland" was she allowed to make sense - and that's a terrifying realization about living with the NewAge Movement.
Post a Comment