Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 37 Comments
This post is in: Democratic Stupidity
For those of you keeping score at home, since this is a difficult issue, I thought I would help you with this little round-up.
This is censorship:
Dozens of people walked out on pioneer TV talk-show host Phil Donahue, as he delivered a commencement speech at N.C. State on Saturday.
This is acting on principle:
About one in every eight graduates walked out of Sunday
Comments are closed.
There is No Liberal Media Bias
John Cole explains why….
What is Censorship?
John Cole attempts to explain exactly what counts as Censorship, and what doesn’t. A Censorship Scorecard
Potato-Potahto
I always wondered what the difference was between censorship and expression of principled dissent. John Cole ‘splains it rather nicely….
No Liberal Bias… Yeah right…
A Censorship Scorecard Pay close attention here, people. There will be a quiz on it later….
“Censorship” and “Activism”
Our Exalted BlogFather explains it to us. We’re still confused, though….
POP QUIZ, HOTSHOT
Can you spot the censorship? Go on, give it a try….
Keeping Score
A Censorship Scorecard For those of you keeping track at home, John Cole – over at Balloon Juice, has a great scorecard of nice liberal definitions of censorship, activism, acting on principle and consumer rights, etc….
Scheer Madness
Roger Simon wrote and Glenn Reynolds repixeled:I think this is all kind of sad actually (small s) because I’m sure Scheer is fundamentally a good guy and a good journalist.I’m not sure of that. When was Scheer a good journalist?
CENSORSH
John Cole at Balloon Juice has a handy A Censorship Scorecard. An excerpt: This is censorship: Some controversial comments made by one of the Dixie…
2003 Blog Round-Up
Some of our favorites from 2003 from other sites in and around the blog world – starting with my top 10 and will make updates as the end of the year looms closer and closer! Censorship Scorecard by John Cole…
HH
Also not censorship:
http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/051003/LOCBushVisit.shtml
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0503/18thomas.html
David Perron
Thanks for clearing that up, John. I was seriously confused; now I is saved.
What’s really amazing is you did it all without one mention of Michael Moore.
zombyboy
Very nicely done.
Tiger
I have commented on why people were chastising the Iraqis for the way they are attacking us during the war, because supposedly “anything is fair in love and war” and then just a few days ago wondered why a Iranian group were labled as “terrorists” when their actions were only done in their home country, and in my opinion, they were only “revolutionaries.” Semantics, however, is such fun to play, huh?
barney gumble
I followed each one of those links, and didn’t find the “c” word once. Are the voices in your head especially loud tonight?
John Cole
So you agree there is no attempt to silence voices of dissent in America, Barney? You agree that those in the blogosphere and in popular media have been lying about Ashcroft’s America? The rise of the new McArthyism regarding dissent is nothing but bullshit? If that is what you are saying, Barney, that this is all bullshit, and that the left is full of it, I am with you.
ChrisL
John Cole,
Of course there’s an attempt to silence dissent, but it happens on both sides – as the story here clearly shows.
John Cole
ChrisL-
I would disagree- I don;t think any of this is censorship or people attempting to silence dissent. It is merely people exercising their own rights to free speech. What irritates me as that whenever it happens to someone on the left, it is “OHMIGOD- Censorship! Ashcroft is killing those who speak up.” When it happens to people on the right, it is treated as a moral obligation (like shutting down that hateful Michael Savage and Dr. Laura).
My opinion is that none of this is censorship- it is just people acting like Americans.
Lamont Cranston
Sure John. I can’t speak for Barney, but I’ll speak. There isn’t censorship in the US. Let me bring it up again.
Your right to SPEAK doesn’t require me to LISTEN. And your right to publish what you want does NOT require me to buy you a printing press.
If I choose not to buy Dixie Chicks CD’s, I can do it because EITHER A) they are talentless bimbos trading on thier looks, or B) because I don’t like thier politics.
In neither case do I deny them the right to speak. I just deny them my money.
And yes, if they had wanted my money, they could have shut the hell up.
Lamont
Andrew Lazarus
I’m with you in principle on all of these except the Sarandon example, where you lose me. (Assuming your summaries are correct.) Sarandon never denies being a political person, but she is just as confused as I am about what this had to do with the Baseball Hall of Fame. As even many conservatives noticed, the only person making a political statement there was its director, the Republican hack.
Can you explain more slowly why the director of the Baseball Hall of Fame is supposed to interject HIS political beliefs into the Hall’s programs?
PS I’m going out to buy a Dixie Chicks CD, and before Iraq, I hadn’t the foggiest idea who they were. Country doesn’t sell that well in Berkeley.
markus
thanks for pointing it out, but, like A. Lazarus you loose me on the Sarandon example, where we’re talking cancelling the celebration of a movie about baseball (on dubious grounds. e.g. Robbins was too political, but IIRC Ari Fleischer was invited to an earlier event) apparently for fear of Robbins speaking out against the Iraq-war. The contrast is Sarandon urging for “equal time” for a more different perspective after something (I don’t know what) happened. Seriously, this comparison is flawed.
Concerning your first example, I missed the Donahue story, and your link does not clarify why this is censorship. Who said so? and why?
Finally, the Dixie Chicks. I feel there is a difference here and I’ll try to point out what it is.
For one, some opinions are less equal than others, e.g. for historical reasons. A case in point would be racism (I have absolutely no idea if this applies to Mr. Savage), where historical facts show that racist talk and thought have in some cases led to crimes ranging from lynching to genocide. The same can’t be said of “being ashamed that someone is from your country/state”. (As a German, I must say I’d actually be alarmed if someone was not ashamed that Hitler was from here (Austria actually))(and no, Bush is not Hitler, I just couldn’t think of a more apt defence of the “being ashamed..” statement. The allusion to the Bush/Hitler comparison is an unfortunate by-product).
Second, censorship is distinguishable from activism by top-down versus bottom-up influence. In the case of the Dixie Chicks IIRC it was decided by executives of radio networks to ban them, not individual DJs. Their sold out concerts and apparently well selling CDs also point to “top-down” here. The range of groups against Mr. Savage could be taken as evidence of a more bottom-up movement, though this is conjecture, and I confess my second argument is weak because it is tricky to decide on it. I still do think however there are clear cases, where no public outrage is visible and someone in power abuses it to crush dissident.
Nonetheless, thanks for pointing this out, it’s healthy to have one’s biases exposed.
Andrew Lazarus
You know, markus has a good point about top-down vs. bottom-up, *especially when the executives passing down these orders to the local level are asking the Bush Administration to push for more consolidation in the media.* Eventually, their view or no view?
michaelm
It’s clear there’s a failure to “walk in the other person’s shoes” with most of this kind of posturing and rhetoric. The thing that bothers me is that the difference between private (i.e. non governmental) and the force of the government. Someone may be legally allowed to come to town in their Klan outfit and have a rally (which happened in my town 2 months ago) but if one of my employees shows up in one they’ll be out on their ass.
PS The Hall of Fame crap brings up the question of how much of our life has to be political. I like many Robbins/Sarandon(weisssslut!!!) films and will continue to watch them. It’s not all about politics and those of us who go to weblogs need to lighten up.
Teri
The thing with Susan Sarandon and Dr. Laura is that she didn’t think Dr. Laura had a right to free speech or a right to be heard, but she does reserve for herself. She didn’t think she was “censoring” Dr. Laura, but everytime someone says or does anything in opposition to her views, it is “censorship.” As far as the Hall of Fame thing, he just decided not to give her a forum to spout her views. It wouldn’t be an appropriate place, but you know she would have used that forum for that, just as she has every other place she’s spoken, so he decided to stop it before it happened. It was his right to “uninvite” if he didn’t want to listen to it, in my opinion, but it didn’t and doesn’t stop her from expressing her views–she just couldn’t there. You are right–baseball has nothing to do with politics, but tell that to Susan.
Marie
But markus is WRONG about the Dixie Chicks business being top-down. That decision was made one disk jockey, one radio station at a time. LOCAL LISTENERS called in to their LOCAL STATIONS threatening to never ever listen again if the station played the Dixie Chicks. The number of calls/faxes/emails to my local country station was unreal, something like 200 an hour. The DJ/station wasn’t even AWARE of the remarks. They were made aware by their listeners.
DC concerts were sold out BEFORE they opened their mouths.
On the other hand, what nearly happened to http://www.boycotthollywood was most definitely attempted censorship – the (attempted) use of government force to shut the voice of an individual. I would love to know exactly which artists were behind Wm Morris agency in that – if it was a Sarandon or a Moore, I would not be surprised.
scotch
Technically, censorship just means the act of censuring, or condemning. So I could practice censorship simply by condemning this site, but it wouldn’t have much of an impact.
Censorship is actually a good thing, if used correctly. I want my news sources to censor stories that are based on unreliable information. For example, Oliver North has been convicted of lying to Congress, and for me that makes him an unreliable reporter. I want my news media to censor him, and I will censor CNN because they do not.
Ideally, I’d like my news media to give equal time to both sides of an argument so I can make up my own mind. Obviously, the anti-war perspective has not been given equal representation in the latest conflict, and the media has not significantly challenged the “information” streaming out of the White House. Not that it ever did – I remember before the first Gulf War hearing that Iraqi troops were massing on the Saudia Arabian border, but somehow the mainstream press failed to retract the reporting of that particular lie. Oh well, we Americans seem to have short memories.
We don’t (yet) live in a country where you can be legally be hauled off to jail ostensibly for expressing your beliefs, but that doesn’t make this a free or just society. You can be shot with rubber bullets (like the peaceful anti-war protesters in Oakland, CA), and look what can happen to you if you lie to congress:
http://www.hereinreality.com/bigbrother.html
markus
Teri, I know this gets partisan, but: the original post quoted S. S. with “Dr. Laura has a right to her opinion…”, you say S.S. “didn’t think Dr. Laura had a right to free speech…” please explain.
The problem with your basball hall reasoning is that it is pre-emptive. An official urge to keep politics out of the Bull Durham celbrations would have done just nicely. Unless you have precognition, you can’t know S. S. (or T. R.) “… would have used that forum for that, just as she has every other place she’s spoken.”
Nonetheless, if the president of the basball hall had let it happen and if it had happened, the blame for injecting politics into baseball would be on S. S. only. As it stands, the blame is his only. (blame, not censorship !)
Andrew Lazarus
If someone gives Susan Sarandon a politics radio show and the head of the Hall of Fame wants it off the air, fine, let him lead a campaign against it, and then I’ll call it almost even with Dr. Laura. I’ll call it almost, not fully, because another distinction is that Dr. Laura’s ONLY shtik is her (late-in-life-conversion to) opposition to premarital or homosexual sex and various other social practices. If you invite Dr. Laura somewhere, it’s ONLY because of her social views. She doesn’t have anything else to offer. Well, I take that back: those internet photos show that once-upon-a-time she was almost as sexy as Sarandon….
On the contrary, Sarandon’s invitation was on the basis of her acting in a baseball movie, and there is little more relevance or endorsement of her views than in the induction of pitcher Steve Carlton (who holds extreme right-wing conspiracy theorist political beliefs, IIRC).
Teri
Actually, Scotch, you are right about the “yet” part. However, it is liberals who will soon be putting people in jail for their thoughts and expression of opinion. All of the hate crime legislation that is becoming so prevalent is the first step. Already, at least in California, you can be assessed huge fines for not hiring someone who is transsexual, bisexual, homosexual, etc. You don’t dare say anything that can be construed as anti-gay (or bisexual or transsexual), anti-black (substitute other races here, and women) or you are labeled as a racist or a hatemonger. So, you’re right, we’re aren’t quite there yet, but it is already occurring to a great extent…and the people fined and eventually going to jail will be white men and, actually, probably anyone, man or woman, who is religious and is thus determined to be “hateful” towards people who are not heterosexual.
scotch
Um…Teri, you can be fined if it can be proven in a court of law that you discriminated on the basis of gender, et cetera. Do you see how this protects you, toots? I don’t think white men are going to jail for the crime of not hiring transexuals. And in any case, you may not like those particular laws, but at least they are laws. This is quite different than powers wielded by governmental organizations that are literally above the law (remember, Poindexter was convicted and then pardoned).
Andrew Lazarus
Teri, even supposing that people were being put in jail for not hiring transsexuals (which is ridiculous, since no open hiring laws carry criminal penalties) this still wouldn’t be a question of speech. Illegal discrimination in hiring is NOT SPEECH.
Incidentally, do you support the right of employers to discriminate on the bases of race and sex? Do you think that is a “conservative” position?
Teri
These are new laws in California, just passed by the legislature there, and there will be many more. They may not be imprisonable offenses YET, but look at what is happening with Brigitte Bardot in France, when she is trying to make people aware of what is happening to her country through her book. We are well on our way to that sort of thing happening here. And Andrew, the point is, no one should be “forced” to hire someone because THEY ARE transsexual (or a cross-dresser or whatever). You should hire on the basis of whether you meet the requirements, but with these new laws, if 2 people come in with similar qualifications and one is a cross-dresser, than should you HAVE to hire the crossdresser? It seems to me that it is forcing business owners to give priority to those who are considered whatever the newest “minority” is determined to be, rather than who they believe would best represent their company. I still believe that qualifications matter more than race or appearance or sexual practices. And I don’t believe that your sexual preferences should give you a protected status by law.
scotch
Terri, even if what you’re saying is completely true, let’s compare and contrast our respective paranoias.
You seem to feel that the liberals are trying to turn this country into a police state by granting equal (okay, perhaps more than equal in your eyes) to groups that you feel should be rightfully discriminated against. Is that about right?
I feel that that the current administration is trying to turn this country into a police state through its actions which include:
1) removing our protections under the Bill of Rights through the so-called “Patriot” Acts, which give the government the power to override the “unreasonable searches and seizures” clause of the fourth ammendment.
2) creating an organization (Total Information Awareness) to monitor citizens headed by a convicted criminal (Poindexter) with extreme right-wing leanings.
3) denying due process to a citizen (Jose Padilla), who has simply been thrown in prison for an indefinite period of time without access to a lawyer.
4) justifying their actions under the guise of a “War on Terrorism”, despite the fact the power to declare war rightfully belongs to Congress, and the obvious fact that a war on an abstract concept like “terrorism” can never be won. See “1984”.
I don’t think that the threat to our freedom posed by restricting the “right” to homophobic, racist and sexist speech in the workplace can even compare to the very real threat to the founding principles of this country.
Teri
Scotch, we can go back and forth, quoting stories of outrages on both sides for eternity. I don’t believe we’ll either of us change our minds anytime soon. There’s one difference between us, though…I see the negatives on the conservative side as well, while liberals (and you?) tend to uphold their leaders, no matter what they do. Should we live up to politicians’ views of us as stupid sheep who don’t know what’s good for us, so let those “who know best” decide for us, such as when Clinton said, about tax cuts years ago, “I could give you back some of your mine, but you might not spend it right.”
I don’t agree with the passing of the Patriot Act, etc. I am willing to criticize those I vote for if need be and do what I can to oppose those things. Are you willing to do the same, or are you a blind follower?
BTW, your assertion, as happens so often, that I am a racist or homophobe or whatever is totally without basis. I just believe that “hate crime” legislation is a serious mistake and that people should get jobs, get into college, etc. on their merit, not on their race, sex, or whatever.
scotch
Teri, I’m glad to hear that you’re not a racist or a homophobe. But I do think it is a racist and homophobic position to allow employers to discriminate on the basis of race and sexual preference. I guess we disagree on that point, and that’s fine – but I am curious if you think that the Jim Crow laws or “Separate But Equal” were racist and unconstitutional or not. Because I don’t see a lot of difference between allowing employers to discriminate openly, and allowing say, the Alabama bus system to require blacks to ride in the back of the bus.
I never called you a blind follower, and I don’t see where you draw the conclusion that I’m one.
There are currently laws on the books that make it illegal in many states for consenting adults (gay or not) to have sex in non-missionary positions. In this context, I really don’t see how an effort to protect people from discrimination in the workplace based on sexual preference moves us towards some sort of liberal thought-policed state.
Incidentally, I voted for Clinton, and bitterly opposed NAFTA (another attack on democracy) among many of his positions.
One last post-script: affirmative action, hate crimes and protection against discrimination are kind of different things, don’t you think?
Ryan Waxx
You seem to feel that the liberals are trying to turn this country into a police state by granting equal (okay, perhaps more than equal in your eyes) to groups that you feel should be rightfully discriminated against. Is that about right?
No, that’s not about right. Do you honestly believe anyone short of a Klansman believes blacks “should be discriminated against”, for example.
No. Your assertion goes beyoned what might be contemptuously dismissed as spin and veers full bore into outright untruth.
You are either insanely partisan or a liar. Which is it?
Ryan Waxx
The first paragraph in the preceding post should have been better marked as a quote from scotch. Apparently italic takes don’t work here.