Re: [videoblogging] Kaballah discussions "closed for comment"

Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:02:52 -0800

I'm not advocating censorship.  I'm arguing for "equal time" and/or "the opportunity to talk back".  If the KKK were to put up a vlog making racist statements with "no comments allowed", people would be outraged.
 
The whole idea behind vlogging is to give everyone a voice.  A program which essentially implies it is inviting the viewer into a dialogue and then prevents the viewer from participating is being undemocratic and censorious and unfair.
 
If someone thinks one of my vlogs are outrageous, they are welcome to say so in the comments.  I think there should be certain ground rules (very broad ones) regarding vlogs accepted by aggregators.  A few simple ones might include labeling of XXX pornographic content (not censorship-just notification to the viewer) and the opportunity to post comments or answers to contents of a vlog.
 
This is not censorship.  This is the facilitation of free speech.
 
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
Videographer, Writer, Activist
Advisor: The Immortality Institute
Hoboken, NJ
http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
201-656-3280
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Kaballah discussions "closed for comment"

Brad Webb wrote: 
Aren't you effectively suggesting we censor those folks that want to 
censor you?

This is the argument that BSD people use against the GPL. It's a bit too relativistic for my taste though, I'm afraid. There is censorship to promote my ideology and shut out the enemy. And then there is the refusal to play with those who insist on playing with a stacked deck. Censorship shouldn't be confused with the meta-censorship Randolfe advocates.

SPONSORED LINKS
Individual Fireant Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to