The Left and Censorship

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

One of my misgivings about a Democrat Supermajority involves the issue of censorship. While lefties love to trash the right over First Amendment issues, the truth is that the left doesn't have such a great track record either. This article showed up in my feed today:

http://americasfuture.org/conventionalfolly/2008/10/richard-dawkins-scourge-of-fun/

Now, I don't agree that necessarily studying the negative effects of fiction upon children immediately leads to censorship and banning books. Examining such negative effects are necessary so parents can evaluate the possibilities and help to make decisions for their children and possible to help inform and educate them about certain things. Information is never an enemy.

I am of the opinion that my first priority as a citizen of the US right now is to elect individuals who stand the best chance of ending an unjust war, abolishing the Patriot Act, ceasing the torture of POWs, stop the denial of habeas corpus for suspected criminals, and stop spying indiscriminately upon its own citizens. After that, my next set of priorities involve the economy and issues of a civil nature. I find it really depressing that I have to lower the bar so much that I'm down to picking which candidate I hope will end torture, but that's moot.

The left has a bad history with censorship. Most people conveniently forget that Tipper and Al are the ones responsible for warning labels on music (Prince's Darling Nikki is so tame in retrospect...) and everyone seems happy to forget Hillary's little crusade against video games not so long ago.

Given that I'm sure the next wave of hardcore censorship is coming at the Internet, is this on anyone else's radar for those voting left this election? Or, like me, are you just so desperate to undo the damage of the last 8 years, worrying about things like this is just a luxury we can ill afford?

[MannyIsGod]

One of my misgivings about a Democrat Supermajority involves the issue of censorship. While lefties love to trash the right over First Amendment issues, the truth is that the left doesn't have such a great track record either. This article showed up in my feed today:

http://americasfuture.org/conventionalfolly/2008/10/richard-dawkins-scourge-of-fun/

Now, I don't agree that necessarily studying the negative effects of fiction upon children immediately leads to censorship and banning books. Examining such negative effects are necessary so parents can evaluate the possibilities and help to make decisions for their children and possible to help inform and educate them about certain things. Information is never an enemy.

I am of the opinion that my first priority as a citizen of the US right now is to elect individuals who stand the best chance of ending an unjust war, abolishing the Patriot Act, ceasing the torture of POWs, stop the denial of habeas corpus for suspected criminals, and stop spying indiscriminately upon its own citizens. After that, my next set of priorities involve the economy and issues of a civil nature. I find it really depressing that I have to lower the bar so much that I'm down to picking which candidate I hope will end torture, but that's moot.

The left has a bad history with censorship. Most people conveniently forget that Tipper and Al are the ones responsible for warning labels on music (Prince's Darling Nikki is so tame in retrospect...) and everyone seems happy to forget Hillary's little crusade against video games not so long ago.

Given that I'm sure the next wave of hardcore censorship is coming at the Internet, is this on anyone else's radar for those voting left this election? Or, like me, are you just so desperate to undo the damage of the last 8 years, worrying about things like this is just a luxury we can ill afford?

We're going to be in such a shit storm with the economy and job loss for a good deal of time no matter who takes office in January that issues like this simply fall on the back burner. I think there's a lot of legislation that can potentially be thrown on riders for major legislation in the coming period, but I also think that the fight for securing our rights is rarely fought within the legislature but more often with the judiciary.

[byrontx]

The reason the dems have done well is that they moved to center while the repub let the wingnuts take over their party. I expect a centrist-type approach to governing, like Clinton.

[101A]

The reason the dems have done well is that they moved to center while the repub let the wingnuts take over their party. I expect a centrist-type approach to governing, like Clinton.

You've bought the hype.

OBAMA'S campaign has moved to the center - he did not vote moderately while in the Senate; Pelosi and Reid are certainly NOT moderate voices in the wilderness - they are both VERY partisan Democrat/Liberals. Yesterday Kerry called for a "New New Deal", and B. Frank wants an immediate 25% reduction in defense spending. Those are NOT moderate views.

What "Arch Conservative" legislation, btw, has been passed under Bush? The only tax cut Obama wants to retract amounts to a measly 3% increae for 5% of tax payers - if that's "Arch, far right conservatism" vs. "Profound Moderation"; there certainly isn't much room between them.

[DaDakota]

Repealing the Patriot act would be a very nice start.

DD

[DarrinS]

The reason the dems have done well is that they moved to center while the repub let the wingnuts take over their party. I expect a centrist-type approach to governing, like Clinton.



Are you fuckin high? McCain went left (with the exception of choosing Palin) and Obama/Biden are FAR left.

[DarrinS]

Repealing the Patriot act would be a very nice start.

DD


Would you be for the Patriot Act if it foiled a redneck racist plot to assassinate Obama?

[DaDakota]

Would you be for the Patriot Act if it foiled a redneck racist plot to assassinate Obama?

Nope....it has to go.....

A person willing to sacrifice freedoms for temporary security deserves neither.

DD

[DaDakota]

Are you fuckin high? McCain went left (with the exception of choosing Palin) and Obama/Biden are FAR left.

What?

McCain has moved so far to the right this election it is not even funny.....

His stance on Pro Choice has not become Pro life.

He all of the sudden is touting his faith.

He has moved far to the right to try to get his core support solidified.

DD

[DarrinS]

What?

McCain has moved so far to the right this election it is not even funny.....

His stance on Pro Choice has not become Pro life.

He all of the sudden is touting his faith.

He has moved far to the right to try to get his core support solidified.

DD


Didn't he recently say he wanted to govt to buy up all the bad mortgages?

Fuckin lame.

[DaDakota]

Didn't he recently say he wanted to govt to buy up all the bad mortgages?

Fuckin lame.

Agreed on that part, that is a desperate out of touch man trying to reach out to the public.

It was a failed "Turkey in every pot" moment.

DD

[DarrinS]

Agreed on that part, that is a desperate out of touch man trying to reach out to the public.

It was a failed "Turkey in every pot" moment.

DD


McCain sucks and so does that other douche.


Our country is in for a world of hurt. Get your things in order.

[xrayzebra]

We're going to be in such a shit storm with the economy and job loss for a good deal of time no matter who takes office in January that issues like this simply fall on the back burner. I think there's a lot of legislation that can potentially be thrown on riders for major legislation in the coming period, but I also think that the fight for securing our rights is rarely fought within the legislature but more often with the judiciary.


You got it wrong Manny. Fairness doctrine is on the stove right now,
front burner.

Pelosi, Reid and Obama want the right shut up. And they can do it with
this one bill. And it is one of their priorities. Just like Barney getting
things ready for the military cut. And the lefties will go for it.

Like Global warming is another their little pet projects. But first and
foremost, hang on to your wallet, the tax increases are going to come
shortly after they take office. All in the name of getting the government
back on it's feet. To hell with the citizens. Government "investments"
are the name of the game.

Always remember something. Part of the game plan is to throw something out to the media and see how the country reacts and right
now they are not getting any bad vibes about tax increases and
fairness act.

:depressed

[clambake]

You got it wrong Manny. Fairness doctrine is on the stove right now,
front burner.

Pelosi, Reid and Obama want the right shut up. And they can do it with
this one bill. And it is one of their priorities. Just like Barney getting
things ready for the military cut. And the lefties will go for it.

Like Global warming is another their little pet projects. But first and
foremost, hang on to your wallet, the tax increases are going to come
shortly after they take office. All in the name of getting the government
back on it's feet. To hell with the citizens. Government "investments"
are the name of the game.

Always remember something. Part of the game plan is to throw something out to the media and see how the country reacts and right
now they are not getting any bad vibes about tax increases and
fairness act.

:depressed

i haven't heard rush lately. thanks for catching us up. :toast

[ElNono]

While this might be a legitimate concern, I think most of everything that has to do with the 1st amendment has been thoroughly protected by courts, so I don't expect much of this, if anything, to fly.
What's really hypocrite is to hear some of these right-wingers cry foul on this when the current administration has been one of the most secretive ever. Censorship also applies to the information that the public has a right to know, but it's thrown under the 'national security' blanket, or the overreaching executive privilege. We have a right to know if our civil rights were destroyed in the illegal NSA wiretaps. We have a right to know if state prosecutors were fired for political reasons.
I didn't see the right-wingers alarmed when all that shit happened. Truly sad.

[boutons_]

"I'm sure the next wave of hardcore censorship is coming at the Internet"

Dem's as censors is just another red herring hate-media has created.

warning labels on music?
warnings about video game gore, misogyny, sex?

Is that really what you call censorship? Do you think the religious right "Christian" supremacists would complain about those two items, or hesitate not only to warn, but interdict them?

[The Reckoning]

but the Dems invented the internet...

[boutons_]

"hardcore censorship is coming at the Internet"

It is coming from the corps, not the Dems, who want to stop free access to any Internet site, and cripple those users who don't pay extra to access all sites, to go as fast as anybody (which is different from paying to get online).

[SnakeBoy]

"hardcore censorship is coming at the Internet"

I don't think so. I do expect a national sales tax on internet commerce though. One of the few taxes I would actually support.

[Anti.Hero]

They will try to butt into the private sector of conservative talk radio.

They know this is the last thing standing between them and nation-wide brainwashing.

[Tully365]

One of my misgivings about a Democrat Supermajority involves the issue of censorship. While lefties love to trash the right over First Amendment issues, the truth is that the left doesn't have such a great track record either. This article showed up in my feed today:

http://americasfuture.org/conventionalfolly/2008/10/richard-dawkins-scourge-of-fun/

Now, I don't agree that necessarily studying the negative effects of fiction upon children immediately leads to censorship and banning books. Examining such negative effects are necessary so parents can evaluate the possibilities and help to make decisions for their children and possible to help inform and educate them about certain things. Information is never an enemy.

I am of the opinion that my first priority as a citizen of the US right now is to elect individuals who stand the best chance of ending an unjust war, abolishing the Patriot Act, ceasing the torture of POWs, stop the denial of habeas corpus for suspected criminals, and stop spying indiscriminately upon its own citizens. After that, my next set of priorities involve the economy and issues of a civil nature. I find it really depressing that I have to lower the bar so much that I'm down to picking which candidate I hope will end torture, but that's moot.

The left has a bad history with censorship. Most people conveniently forget that Tipper and Al are the ones responsible for warning labels on music (Prince's Darling Nikki is so tame in retrospect...) and everyone seems happy to forget Hillary's little crusade against video games not so long ago.

Given that I'm sure the next wave of hardcore censorship is coming at the Internet, is this on anyone else's radar for those voting left this election? Or, like me, are you just so desperate to undo the damage of the last 8 years, worrying about things like this is just a luxury we can ill afford?

The question of deciding what books are right for children is a really tough one. Every teacher I've ever spoken to talks about this issue incessantly, and I don't think that it's a problem that can be solved, but rather one that must constantly be addressed, managed, debated, revisited, and readdressed. I have trouble sometimes recommending books to actual adults because it's so hard to gauge what people will or won't like. But with children, the issue is obviously more nuanced. Most adults can read Lolita or Death in Venice, or Hamlet without thinking that these authors are advocating child abuse or suicide, but I don't think most children are really sophisticated enough to understand the issues being presented, and so, just as in the case of putting off the Santa Claus talk, the birds and the bees talk, or the beer bong talk, I don't consider it "censorship" when some raise an objection as to what kids are given to read. If I had an eight year old, I don't think I'd want him reading Charles Bukowski.... of course, to be honest, I don't like to see anyone reading Bukowski because i think he's a hack, but that's a a debate for a different thread.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

While this might be a legitimate concern, I think most of everything that has to do with the 1st amendment has been thoroughly protected by courts, so I don't expect much of this, if anything, to fly.

You're kidding, right?


I don't think so. I do expect a national sales tax on internet commerce though. One of the few taxes I would actually support.
Well, it's going to require a constitutional amendment, but I suppose it could be possible. I'm not sure they'd have the public support they need for the vote. I actually don't support this, but it's another issue entirely from censorship.



Dem's as censors is just another red herring hate-media has created.

warning labels on music?
warnings about video game gore, misogyny, sex?

Is that really what you call censorship? Do you think the religious right "Christian" supremacists would complain about those two items, or hesitate not only to warn, but interdict them?

I don't consider labeling materials for persons under the age of 18 to be as serious as other censorship issues, but I do consider them censorship. Liberals have just as much egg on their face historically in issues of censorship than conservatives, and most of it is all done in the name of protecting children.


The question of deciding what books are right for children is a really tough one.

I have no issues with schools and parents revisiting reading materials and such. Censorship in schools, while a determent to the education of children, doesn't remove the materials from mainstream consumption. But when someone tries to censor something from mainstream consumption on the grounds of protecting children, that's when things get ugly.

I had a really hard time voting for Gore in 2000 because of this issue and considered voting for Nader or simply not voting. In the end I voted for Gore and I'm glad I did. But I have absolutely no misgivings this time around.

[ElNono]

You're kidding, right?

I was referring to the Fairness doctrine.

[LnGrrrR]

I am of the opinion that my first priority as a citizen of the US right now is to elect individuals who stand the best chance of ending an unjust war, abolishing the Patriot Act, ceasing the torture of POWs, stop the denial of habeas corpus for suspected criminals, and stop spying indiscriminately upon its own citizens. After that, my next set of priorities involve the economy and issues of a civil nature. I find it really depressing that I have to lower the bar so much that I'm down to picking which candidate I hope will end torture, but that's moot.

Hear hear! Those reasons, along with dismantling the 'unitary executive', the cronyism in the Justice Dept, and the way Bush has used 'signing statements' to imply he's above the law, are all reasons I'm voting D this year.

I'm still pissed at Hillary Clinton for her crusade in the 90's against Body Count and violent video games.

[cool hand]

Vote Libretarian.