Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Freedom of Speech is Anti-Republican

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Freedom of Speech is Anti-Republican

    Okay, I had to start a new thread because a comment by the now elusive "helmeteye" threw the [broken link]Pat Robertson thread way off track. I begin this thread with an obtuse comment made by helmeteye:

    Originally posted by helmeteye in another thread
    The lefties are the ones who would rid us of that pesky free speech thing.
    This is patently untrue. It is interesting to note that no one, including helmeteye, ever replied to the following inquiries:

    Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran in another thread
    What about Senator Ted Stevens' "indecency" bill designed to strip radio and TV broadcasters of their freedom of speech?

    Why can't journalists photograph caskets returning from Iraq?

    Why didn't the movie "The Reagans" ever see time on CBS?

    Why aren't we hearing more about Rove outing Valerie Plame?

    Why did Dubya say there should be "limits to freedom" in response to Zack Exley utilizing his freedom of speech?

    Why is any American who speaks out against this war accused of being unpatriotic?

    ...tell me why the feds are not allowing photos of the dead in the wake of hurricane Katrina?
    The lack of responses to my questions only reinforces the notion that conservatives will say anything, no matter how utterly untruthful, in hope that people will believe them on their conviction alone. It also reinforces the fact that Republicans hate freedom of speech except where it serves only them.

    Hurricane Katrina revealed new examples of how much the right hates freedom of speech. Not only are journalists not allowed to photograph the dead (for that would paint a painfully clear picture of what happens when the feds ignore a massive disaster for five days), but the only reporters who are even allowed to enter the AstroDome are hand-picked by thwe feds. Not surprisingly, Fox and CNN are allowed in whereas most others are not.

    See what I mean?

    Here are some more reports of how the right that is raping freedom of speech. Blogger Jason Applebaum reports from the AstroDome:

    "Fox News is down on the floor. I'm in dome, hiding in seats. They're allowing some media on the floor, not others..."

    "Just met members of the Polish press, they are being stopped from entering floor. Says this is like the former USSR..."

    "CNN have no problem getting in. Nobody's stopping them from accessing the floor, but other credentialed press who already have press badges are being stopped..."

    "Harris County will not allow any radio station inside without a FEMA form even if operator has FCC permission..."

    Applebaum later posted the following, with regard to the radio station denial:

    RW Royal Jr. Incident Commander of the JIC (Joint Information Commity) has denied Austin Airwaves the ability to run the emergency low power FM radio station inside of the dome. This is contrary to the FCC licenses that have been issued to Austin Airwaves. However RW Royal Jr is a member of the JIC. He has decided to deny the request. When they asked why they were being turned down, they were told that the Astrodome could not provide them with electricity. When the Austin Airwaves team offered to run on battery backup, they were still denied.
    Make no mistake, people, the right hates freedom of speech! It strips their sheep's clothing from them and they don't like that at all!

    "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
    --Thomas Jefferson
    Last edited by Rothgo; 04-09-2010, 11:26 AM.
    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

  • #2
    Great topic Phychic War Veteran!

    One that will piss off a lot of the right-wing religious bastards who are afraid to hear anything that might jeprodize their precious narrow-minded thoughts.

    Off topic, sorry all. The government is so afraid of the truth because it will make it so that all the proganda about the terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and everything else that they lied about. There too many subjects that are not being talked about and censored.

    As far as Helmeteye goes... Man you gotta open your eyes and really look who is taking your rights away. It is deffanantly not the left you should look to the right they are the one's that are truely taken away your personal liberties of Free Speech. The right is just waiting for another terrorist to strike so that America will be even more traumatized so that they can control everything that is going on that we don't know about! I have an idea let's censor all journalists and make it so we know nothing of what is going on in the USA!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sky
      The right is just waiting for another terrorist to strike so that America will be even more traumatized so that they can control everything that is going on that we don't know about!
      This is a VERY important point. Note that when the planes slammed into the twin towers, we were treated to that image over and over and over again. We saw people leaping from the windows to their deaths. We saw people burned by jet fuel. The right didn't censor any of that because it served their purpose: scare the sh*t out of the entire country so that no one opposes a corrupt and misguided attack on Iraq.

      But now that the photos and news reports do not serve their crooked agenda, suddenly we have massive censorship. There is no good reason to disallow photos to be taken of the dead or to prohibit factual, first-hand reports on what it's like inside the AstroDome. The only reason Fox and CNN have carte blanche is because they toe the Republican line. Period.
      "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
      --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

      Comment


      • #4
        Wow, it's good to know that there are other people like out there that are not blinded by the complete disreguard for the truth! Thanks PsychicWarVeteran you are one of the good guys/girls?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sky
          Thanks PsychicWarVeteran you are one of the good guys/girls?
          [broken link]I'm a guy. :P And thanks for the kind words. Believe me, there are plenty out there (including at this site) who would readily disagree with you on your analysis of my personality. But they're mostly Republicans, so...
          Last edited by Rothgo; 04-09-2010, 11:26 AM.
          "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
          --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

          Comment


          • #6
            It's great to find a group of people that are like-minded.. I should have known that it would be amoungst one of the best writers I've had the enjoyment of reading!


            Don't worry about the Republicans one day they will figure it out when there isn't a planet anymore!

            Comment


            • #7
              I think both sides are guilty of this to an extant; although, admittedly in the last few years the Conservative Right has been guiltier of this than the Left. Still, though, I think it is dangerous to present gross generalizations such as:
              Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
              It also reinforces the fact that Republicans hate freedom of speech except where it serves only them.
              The bottom line is that the willy-nilly censorship has less to do with party lines than the personalities of the power-hungry people who are the most vociferous examples of their respective sides. They are all primarily concerned with serving the their parties or viewpoints and doing anything they can to damage the possition or reputations of the otherside. Of course, admitedly, the Democrats haven't had to work very hard to damage the Republicans lately, at least in the eyes on the general American populous. In the end it boils down the that deplorable institution of Politics called "Spin."

              Personally, I'm against all censorship save the censoring of gross, inflamatory statements based entirely on the desire to mar the image of the attacked rather than actual evidence. A good example of this is the censoring of that man (I can't remember whom) who said (and I paraphrase) that the authories had orders to shoot blacks in New Orleans. That was an inflamatory and potentially dangerous statement with no evidence to back it up that would only serve to worsen an already bad situation. I must add, that I am only somewhat comfortable with this form of censorship and the moment I feel the American puplic are informed, intelligent, and discerning enough to wade through statements such as these without becoming instantly biased, then I say, "anything goes."

              In the end we can only do our own research and discover facts ourselves. The trouble is getting pure information, as most of what is available to the public has been filterred by one side or the other, whatever others would have you belive.

              Oh, one last thing...with any political debate/discusion, I believe it is esential that one understand what side, if any, the descusors are on in order for people to filter what they read/see/hear properly. I would have to say I'm torn between the two sides...which mean basically I don't agree with either entirely and I think the whole system is a nightmare people have to wake to up from and finaly take a look at the sky without sunglass of any tint!
              "In omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro"
              --Thomas a Kempis

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm gonna wade in here as a partially indifferent observer because being from the UK I'm not overly up to speed with US politics and so know not of what I speak but I've got a big mouth and a bundle of opinions, which in my experience is a dangerous combination.

                It strikes me that while I'm not overly suprised at PWV's observations and am inclined to nod my head and geneally go 'Yup, doesn't surprise me in the least', I do wonder if what he describes is not so much a effect of the Right/neo-cons as much as it is the natural actions of those in Power.

                In other words, I'm not convinced that the Left wouldn't behave in more or less the same way (albeit to a different extent and perhaps in different circumstances).

                It all comes down to this thing called 'Spin'. Politicians of all persuasions - Right-wing, Centralist, Left-wing, Monster-Raving_Loonies, whatever - aren't necessarily interested in the Truth but rather in how the Truth can be manipulated so they can bask in their own imagined Glory.

                Here in the UK we have a rather notorious saying: 'This is a good day to bury bad news'. Now I'm not sure how far our North American cousins are familiar with the origins of this saying, but needless to say it can be firmly dated to September 11th 2001. As news of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC was being broadcast around the world, a 'Special Advisor' to the Secretary of State for Transport emailed her colleagues suggesting that if they had any press releases that were unfavourable to the Government it would be sensible to get them out now and hopefully they would go unnoticed as the media focussed on the events in New York.

                Nobody here needs telling what this tells us about the state of Politics in the UK. This practice is not limited to the Left or the Right - it is simply how Politics is practised in the 21st century where the aim at the heart of any political party is not how do they best serve the will of the People but how they achieve - and then hold on to - the Reins of Power.

                Now much of how politics is practiced in the UK is influenced by the way Politics has been practiced in the US - just as the state of our TV is about 10 years behind America's. I'm inclined to think that bandying around terms like Left and Right isn't particularly helpful, just as Mike was suggesting in 1961-2 that terms like 'good' and 'evil' couldn't be applied to concepts of Law and Chaos. In the Elric novellas, Chaos isn't essentially Evil, nor is Law intrinisically Good, and I'm inclined to believe that its not as simple as saying the Right are Duplicitous and the Left are Trustworthy.

                We live in a Dichotic society where Those in Power delight in maintaining an 'Us and Them' perspective on Life. Tony Blair used to - before he Came to Power (and we can only hope he will Ascend to Glory sooner rather than later) - used to talk about 'The Third Way' about how there ought to be a middle way between the post-war/Cold War dichotomies of Left and Right. Here, many of us thought, was a return to the Aristotilian principals of the Mean, of the Median, of not being to one extreme or the other, but finding a Middle Way. Even Clinton iirc used to talk that way, but like all who are essentially unprincipled, Blair is unable to resist the gravitational pull of forces bigger than himself. So while Billy the Pants was in the White House he was a Democrat, but now the Squinty-eyed Pixie is encumbant there all of a sudden he's a Republican.

                Umm, I'm sorry, what was the question? I seem to have digressed there somewhat.

                The point is, I'm no longer convinced that watching two opposing sides engage in point-scoring and 'he said, she said' grandstanding is particularly useful or helpful. We endured 18 years of Conservative, Right-wing, Thatcherite politics in the UK and what changed when (New) Labour replaced them? I'll tell you what changed. Nothing. Oh, sure there was a slight change in emphasis here and there, but the Left in Britain has essentially not done anything that the Right wouldn't have. (Alright, there's an argument to be had that the trick that New Labour realised was that the British are essentially a conservative nation rather than a socialist one and that it wasn't that in 1997 they didn't want a Conservative government, they just didn't want the old Conservative government. But (again) I digress.)

                I'm sorry, I suspect I've drifted off my original point somewhat, and maybe not really addressed the state of US politics at the moment, but I always remember what my old Politics teacher once told the class: 'It doesn't matter whether they're Right-wing or Left-wing, conservative or socialist, Fascist or Communist - when you take each of them to their absolute extreme, they are all the same and they only want one thing: Control.'
                _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by demos99
                  I do wonder if what he describes is not so much a effect of the Right/neo-cons as much as it is the natural actions of those in Power...In other words, I'm not convinced that the Left wouldn't behave in more or less the same way (albeit to a different extent and perhaps in different circumstances)...It all comes down to this thing called 'Spin'.
                  Not only did we post at the same time, we presented about the same argument. :clap:
                  "In omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro"
                  --Thomas a Kempis

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by EverKing
                    Not only did we post at the same time, we presented about the same argument. :clap:
                    Yeah, I noticed that as well.

                    Must have been something in the Ether. :)
                    _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                    _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                    _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                    _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by EverKing
                      I think both sides are guilty of this to an extant... The bottom line is that the willy-nilly censorship has less to do with party lines than the personalities of the power-hungry people...
                      I'd love to see examples of how the left in the US has championed this level of blatant censorship. The best anyone can come up with is Tipper Gore's desire to put a Parental Advisory label on CDs with "offensive" lyrics, which isn't even censorship at all but in fact a further dissemination of valid information.

                      I agree that both sides are corrupt. Politics is funny that way. This thread is about censorship specifically and is predicated on a prior gross generalization by helmeteye.

                      Originally posted by demos99
                      I do wonder if what he describes is not so much a effect of the Right/neo-cons as much as it is the natural actions of those in Power.
                      Again, I completely welcome any evidence that the left in the US has utilized this level of obvious censorship. If there are examples, post them. I can handle being wrong on this, I just don't think I am. I got to hear every minute detail about Clinton's blow-job; no one censored that!

                      Sorry if I come off as an arrogant ass, but let's just say that a sarcastic statement like "the lefties are the ones who would rid us of that pesky free speech thing" is going to get you in trouble with me every time.

                      Again, I notice that helmeteye is suspiciously silent.
                      "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                      --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We can all agree that most parties in the USA are greedy as all hell! People, want what they want, when they want it.. It's as easy as that. American's want everything now!

                        We have the worst obesity problem in the whole entire world. We butt into other countries wars, steal there shit and think that we've done a good job. All and all, it sucks being american for the most part.. Whoever told you that we were free in America is full of shiat it's just not true! Freedom of choice well maybe sometimes if it fits the mold we want at whatever special interest group there is at the time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
                          Originally posted by demos99
                          I do wonder if what he describes is not so much a effect of the Right/neo-cons as much as it is the natural actions of those in Power.
                          Again, I completely welcome any evidence that the left in the US has utilized this level of obvious censorship. If there are examples, post them. I can handle being wrong on this, I just don't think I am. I got to hear every minute detail about Clinton's blow-job; no one censored that!
                          Let's take it as read that since I'm not a US citizen nor live in the US and that most of my information about US politics is filtered through the UK media (mostly the BBC - which some consider to be a left-wing organisation anyway) I'm not really in a position to offer the evidence you're asking for.

                          Perhaps by definition, the Democrats in America are more libertarian than the Republicans who are more conservative, which is why the sort of censorship you identify is maybe more readily apparent among the Neo-Cons. The Right always seems to have this concept that the 'enemy' is out there, that it is the Other, the alien; all of which seems to me to hark back to the pioneers circling their wagons against the pesky indians who sought to rape their women-folk and steal their goods. The Left, on the other hand, has been described (by John Carpenter if you must know) as being more prepared to acknowledge that the 'other' is already amongst them, sort of 'we have met the enemy and it is us' kind of stuff.

                          Here in the UK we don't have a constitutional Freedom of Speech although we seem to get along alright without one. Strictly speaking you have a theoretical 'freedom of speech' in the US rather than a practical one. For evidence of this you only have to look at how 'political correctness' ran rampant in your Universities and Colleges in the 1980s and 1990s. AIUI much - if not all - of the PC movement was originated by left-leaning bleeding heart liberals. The Right never had any trouble calling negroes 'n*ggers' for instance. (See I'm even censoring myself because I don't want to cause offence to anyone by typing the word 'nigger' - doh!)

                          In the aftermath of Columbine, was it the Left or the Right who called for tighter gun control laws (effectively a kind of censorship when you think about it)? I suspect - though I don't know - that the Left would have been more likely to be anti-gun than the Right with their 'From my cold dead hand' bumper stickers.

                          Back to the murky realm of US politics, I think we can generally assume that had Al Gore won the 2000 US Presidential election (oh alright, he *did* win the popular vote just not the Electoral College votes) that even had the events of 9/11 (the 4th anniversary of which is almost upon us) still happened, then the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq. And therefore 'censorship' in the media of US soldiers returning home in body bags wouldn't have arisen. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Gore had for some inexplicable reason decided that he *was* going to invade Iraq that a Democratic administration wouldn't - in some way - tried to control how the war was reported back home?

                          I do think that unlike the Squinty-Eyed Pixie, Pinnochio (he's made of wood, geddit? :)) would have attended the funeral services of US soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan (as I think Billy the Pants would have too). I think Bush was badly advised that attending soldier's funeral would remind people that his war was having real casualties (as opposed to the unnumbered innocent men, women and children that the US have killed in Iraq). Apart from the fact his absence *didn't* prevent anti-war feelings propagate, more seriously it made him look like he didn't care that he was/is sending young American men and women to their deaths.

                          Anyway, I've rambled on enough. I probably haven't developed my points very thoroughly but perhaps this Limey has given you something to ponder?
                          _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                          _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                          _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                          _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As a point of detail, in part of your argument, when you describe gun control as a form of censorship, you have fallen into error.

                            Censorship is when authorities "censor" print or speech. "To censor" is defined as "To examine and expurgate."

                            Gun control is a social control concerning the overall public welfare. It's rather like saying that "nuclear weapon control" is a form of censorship to categorize gun control in this way.

                            LSN

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg
                              As a point of detail, in part of your argument, when you describe gun control as a form of censorship, you have fallen into error.

                              Censorship is when authorities "censor" print or speech. "To censor" is defined as "To examine and expurgate."
                              Well, quite. I dare say you're right. What I think I was trying to do was widen the terms of reference in PWV's original post by moving beyond mere print or speech censorship. Gun control *is* a form of censorship in my book because it's basically saying 'you can't do this'. That may not be a dictionary definition of the term, but then I've always disliked dictionaries ever since the French invented them. (I mean, you think you can control language by putting it in a book and saying this means 'this'? I think I have a closer affinity to Humpty Dumpty - when I use a word it means what I want it to mean. :P)

                              I also think there's a sense in which PWV has limited the parameters of his initial question by selectively picking an area in which his favoured side come off best almost by default. 'Show me,' he says, 'an example of how the Left in America are as censorious as the Right'. Well, by their nature (ie being liberal rather than conservative) that's going to be difficult -though not I suspect wholly impossible. He further limits the case for the Prosecution by saying that Tipper Gore's 'Parental Advisory' stickers aren't censorship but 'a further dissemination of valid information'. That's right. The Left don't 'censor' they just restrict who can have access to certain things.

                              In the UK we don't have a film censor anymore, instead we have a 'film classifier', who says 'this group of people can watch this film but not that film because we know better than they do what's good for them'. I'm not saying that I disagree with this stance - after all, I don't let my daughter watch DVDs that are rated '18', which is the equivalent of your 'R' rating - and even there there's a cultural difference because our 18 rating prohibits anyone under the age of 18 seeing such a film, whereas your R rating only limits children/teenagers unaccompanied by an adult from seeing those types of films. Of course, on the other hand, R films tend to be 'cut' for the US audience but released 'uncut' in Europe (inc. the UK) so we see stuff that even your adults are prevented from seeing. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

                              But even if I can't demonstrate how the Left-wing in the US censor stuff, I can show you examples of how the Left in other countries restrict the personal freedoms of individuals, starting with the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc regimes of the Cold War era. There was massive censorship by the Soviet state of the media, artists, authors, free thinkers, etc. I'm probably wrong but I believe Alexander Solzenitzen was sent to the 'gulag archipelago' because the authorities didn't like what he wrote. One of the biggest jokes in Russia was that the main state newspaper was 'Pravda' or 'truth', when the actual content was far from being that.

                              Here in the UK, we have an on-the-face-of-it 'left-wing socialist' government (alright we all know that Tony Blair is a Conservative at heart so maybe New Labour can't really be tagged with the 'left-wing' badge anymore) but it is doing more to restrict and limit our civil liberties than any right-wing government before it. Why? Because Politics is all about Control these days. Controlling what we can see, controlling what we can hear, controlling what we can read, what we can do, what we can do. Controlling us from ourselves.

                              Look, I have a tendancy to jump into an argument without properly thinking through my own case (usually because I have so many ideas bouncing off each other that it's difficult to formulate a coherant argument). So much of what I'm typing probably doesn't make any sort of sense, or doesn't conform to some sort of Hegelian dialectic or something, in which case I apologise for any weakness in my arguments. (I don't even know why I'm arguing because I'm probably closer to PWV's own politics than maybe I'd care to admit. It's just I don't believe this whole 'Good guys/Bad guys' dichotemy that he's positing.)

                              I'll shut up now. Thanks for listening. :)
                              _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                              _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                              _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                              _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X