--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > The three of you have claimed that those > > who have called on ABC to fix the falsehoods > > in "Path to 9/11" or cancel the broadcast > > are advocating "censorship." > > > > That is appallingly ignorant, and a > > misconception that is actually dangerous > > to free speech. > > > > Censorship is when some authority--usually > > a governing body--*requires* an entity to > > remove material it finds offensive and has > > the power to enforce its order. > > This self-serving, hypocritical crap is so > dangerous as to require a second post.
Which post will, I'm pretty sure, be just as inaccurate as the first one. > Censorship does not require any "authority" > to impose it. It can just as easily be imposed > by a group of people with no authority what- > soever, using either legitimate or illegitimate > means of exerting pressure on the people or > publications they want to censor, or the > distributors of those publications. No, that's not censorship, sorry. The people, publications, or distributors have the choice to resist any pressure. > A classic ploy in many communities regards the > sale of magazines like Penthouse and Playboy. > Groups of "concerned citizens" (read "uptight > Christians with a bug up their ass about nudity > and sex) send threatening letters to every store > in town that sells magazines, telling them that > if they sell Playboy or Penthouse, this group > will initiate a boycott and keep anyone from > buying *anything* from the stores that still > sell these magazines. Voila. No more sales of > these magazines. This has been done (successfully, > sadly) in *hundreds* of US small towns. Boycotting is not censorship, sorry. Anybody has the right not to buy a particular product or shop at a particular store. Boycotts are fully legitimate forms of protest. Boycotts are a form of free speech, in fact. > Now let's look at what Judy herself proposed for > this 911 TV special. She advocated pulling it off > the air and then showing it *after* the election > on pay TV. This is clearly in *exactly* the same > ballpark as the Playboy scam above. Well, no, it's not. I didn't advocate a boycott of ABC or Disney. But I would have been fully within my rights if I had. I would have been exercising my right to free speech. It's an attempt > to censor *material* that the critics don't like > by controlling *access* to that material. No, I have no control over access to the material. Advocacy is obviously not control. > And in > both cases, if the ploy is successful, the material > itself has been censored (failed to reach an > audience), with absolutely no "authority" involved. And therefore is not censorship. > There are MANY ways to censor. All of them exercised by *authorities*, not by the general public. > Judy is trying > to present a stilted, dishonest, and hypocritical > "definition" of what censorship [sic] No, actually that is the *standard* definition of censorship. It's Barry who is presenting a dishonest and hypocritical definition. Here's the dictionary definition of "censorship": a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively Obviously neither of these applies to advocacy. > to weasal out > of the obvious fact that SHE advocated censor- > ship for political reasons on this forum, only > a few days ago. No, I never advocated censorship for political or any other reasons. I would have fought any attempt at censorship tooth and nail. In Judy's world, if she can > rewrite the definition of being a True Believer > she can pretend that she's not one. <belly laugh> I'm not a True Believer *by Barry's own definition*, the one he posted from Eric Hoffer. Similarly, > it seems that she believes if she can rewrite the > definition of being a censor, she can pretend she's > not one of them, either. As noted, I'm using the standard definition of "censorship." Barry's definition is the rewritten one. > She is. The facts stand on their own. Only a > few days ago, Judy was calling for pressure to > be put on a national TV network to pull the > show that she didn't like off the air and *not* > allow it to be broadcast before the elections. Actually, I made no such call. Barry's fantasizing again. > *Then* she wanted it shown only on pay TV > channels with a limited and much smaller > audience. > > That's censorship, folks. No, that's advocacy, folks. It's *exactly* the > same ploy as the Playboy scam. Right, advocacy. You censor not > by editing the content of the article or show > or magazine you object to (although she advocated > *that*, too) I advocated correcting the factual errors, yes. but by making the article or show > or magazine UNAVAILABLE. Nope, it's not those protesting that are making the show or magazine unavailable. > THAT is what she advocated. Check the archives. > Judy's definitely a censor, and not even honest > enough to admit it. So much for her rants about > honesty and truthfulness... I'm sure I don't have to explain to anybody who reads this forum that Barry's pretended outrage is motivated solely by his need to try to "get" me. As usual, he's unsuccessful, in this case because his understanding of the principles of free speech is seriously lacking. But not knowing what he's talking about has never stopped Barry before. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
