Community | January 12, 2011 | 154 comments

Censorship is an absurd answer

source: http://opensourceworld.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2769:censorship-is-an...

Image
Itsbatman_Durr

http://opensourceworld.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i...

In the wake of the horrendous shooting rampage in Tucson, why isn't anyone talking about banning "Mein Kampf"? Or "The Communist Manifesto"? Or for that matter, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "The Phantom Tollbooth"?
After all, unlike Sarah Palin's absurdly infamous Facebook map with crosshairs on congressional districts that some pundits have blamed for the violence, we have some evidence -- suspect Jared Lee Loughner's own words -- that these books were a direct influence on him.
And to listen to partisan ghouls such as Keith Olbermann exploiting this horrific crime, any rhetoric or writing or images that contributed to it must be stopped, and those who don't accept blame and then repent (specifically Palin) must be "dismissed from politics."

Note: It's apparent from evidence found by the authorities and from interviews with the alleged killer's friends and acquaintances that Loughner has fixated on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords since 2007, long before anyone heard of the "Tea Parties" or, in most cases, Palin. Moreover, his grievance with Giffords appears to be unrelated to any coherent -- or even incoherent -- ideological platform. Rather, it drew on the bilious stew of resentments this young man cultivated as he lost his grip on reality.
Indeed, according to a fascinating interview in Mother Jones with one of Loughner's close friends, this twisted soul was apparently an ardent believer in "lucid dreaming" in which he could control an alternate " 'Matrix'-style" reality.
Something similar seems to be taking hold in more respectable quarters. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insists he wasn't surprised this happened because he saw it coming, even though the facts in this dimension don't support his premonitions.
But rather than beat up on those who've migrated from the reality-based community, it might be worthwhile to take them at their word.
If these people seriously believe that the Tea Parties and Palin's "lock and load" rhetoric are to blame, then what shall we do about it?
It's hard to find a serious answer to this question. For most of these ideological ambulance chasers, it seems enough to lay the blame at Republican or right-wing feet in an effort to anathematize ideas they don't like.
But that's shortsighted. Misplaced panics like this have a momentum and logic all their own. Already, Rep. Bob Brady (D-Pa.) has drafted legislation to ban the use of symbols (crosshairs on a map, for instance) or language ("lock and load!") that could foster violence. "The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down," he told CNN.
That opens the bidding. The question is, where will it end?
If the alleged shooter had been inspired by a movie or TV show -- as any number of murderers have been over the years -- would those blaming the Tea Parties join with social conservatives in blaming Hollywood? Would they celebrate new laws to "shut down" such fare?
Mark David Chapman, who murdered John Lennon, claimed to be in part inspired by "Catcher in the Rye." Should that be banned? Or if not banned, should we "dismiss" from public life anyone who doesn't denounce J.D. Salinger?
When the subject of censorship or the "chilling" of free expression comes up in other contexts, the very idea that books, movies or TV can be blamed for the actions of the criminal or the deranged is met with unbridled scorn. I actually disagree with that. If books can inspire us positively, surely they can inspire us negatively, too. But we understand that we don't blame books for the rare demons who feed on them.
No doubt this will cause eye-rolling among those who simply want to keep the focus on demonizing conservatives and never bother to think ahead about the consequences of their misplaced hysteria. One noble exception is Slate's Jack Shafer, who probably goes farther than I would when he writes, "Any call to cool 'inflammatory' speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business or the press that I would trust with that power."
Meanwhile, many proud liberals, not to mention dedicated journalists, see no problem with fueling a mass panic over our "political discourse." The fact that liberal rhetoric and images are often just as "extreme" is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is any violence that might be linked to such rhetoric. The fact that the shooting suspect's motivations may lay in a reality of his own design? That's irrelevant, too.
These critics' aim is simply to exploit this horror as an opportunity to yell "shut up" at their political opponents.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Culture,   current cult,   Current Cultural Issues,   5 more
  2. tags:
    Censorship,  Loughner
  3.     
    |

154 comments // Censorship is an absurd answer

  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • SamuraiDave
    • 0
      SamuraiDave  
    • Itsbatman_Durr:

      "yeah but both deserve equal protection under law"

      no they don't, not anymore than shouting fire in a crowded theater or saying someone ought to shoot the president. No one is going after Catcher in the Rye so you can throw away your strawman

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • ImConcerned
  • ramanan50
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • curtisreed
    • -1
      curtisreed  
    • ImConcerned:

      are you fucking STONED? have you noticed that the ONLY people proposing censurship are the LIBERALS?!

      how can people like you be so damn stupid that you can't see that, not just on this page, but all across the nation, it's you LIBERALS who are proposing censorship, and the republicans are opposing it?

      "the left is too smart" MY ASS

    • 2 years ago
  • ImConcerned
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • ramanan50
    • +1
      ramanan50  

    • Censorship is no solution.This has been tried since ages since Romans through Christianity,but of no avail.
      Books from Lady Chatterley's lover, Lolita,Daskapital are to cite a few.
      More you try to ban, the idea grows stronger.
      This will be much more evident in this age of internet.
      Do not blame media,books or communications.
      Best is to solve the problem by not resorting to empty rhetoric.
      pl.read my blog on the assassination at www.ramanan50.wordpress.com

    • 2 years ago
  • bundlebear
  • remanns
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • learnercurious1
    • 0
      learnercurious1  

    • "End Human Bankruptcy"an idea whose time has come.Out of the muck and mire I have come only to be silenced after millions of years of struggle and now you want to strangle me.My voice is all I have left.What is next?

    • 2 years ago
  • alexandrek
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • curtisreed
  • alexandrek
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • Napalm_Bomb
    • +3
      Napalm_Bomb  

    • The Blame Game generally requires that there be a single primary target on which to foist responsibility for major problems and unfortunate events. Everyone has a different guess as to what/who to blame. The shooter's problems were obviously much deeper and more complex than the words of a former Alaskan governess, so why is censorship even being considered as a so-called solution? It's quite sad that it is believed that American minds are so easily warped, twisted, and distorted. Judging by the reaction of the general public to this story and the story itself...perhaps it is true.

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • Itsbatman_Durr
    • +2
      Itsbatman_Durr  

    • i especially love that a Slate writer had the sense and decency to say:

      "Any call to cool 'inflammatory' speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business or the press that I would trust with that power."

      i think most of us can agree with his sentiment.

    • 2 years ago
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • +7
      WeAreChangeKy  

    • I'm sorry but this is being too marketed and propagandized too soon. We have to keep the Manchurian possibility open. Sure, let's take guns away just before another bottoming out of the economy. More pushes for security, etc., smells like a fascist push to me.

      I think a quick review of history repeating itself might be in order.

      I'm not ruling out the lone gunmen, nut without anyone pushing his buttons theory but it seems more likely that he's been tampered with.

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • ImConcerned
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • curtisreed
  • WeAreChangeKy
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • +1
      WeAreChangeKy  
    • curtisreed:

      You got that right. Fascism comes in many forms and like a virus tries to work its way into all government, countries or positions of power. It is only by being diligent and by having active investigative journalists exposing the truths that any country avoids being fascist.

    • 2 years ago
  • EdJoyProductions
    • +4
      EdJoyProductions  

    • I am against censorship but I have a big problem with supposedly responsible political figures endorsing violence and not being immediately and universally vilified for it. It just justifies what a crazy person is already thinking and now another voice has chimed in with the one in that person's head to say it is okay to kill a human being that does not hold the same belief system.

      I am not for censoring the average person, art, movies or literature, or even video games for that matter. But people that are running for office re supposed to have a higher standard. I know that sounds ridiculous with the clowns that have been in spotlight. I am not even for censoring candidates, but whenever they issue anything that endorses violent acts, they must be called out and vilified publicly for irresponsible behavior. This should never be acceptable campaign practice and it must be demonstrated that the people will not tolerate it. There should be penalties for public figure that suggests that "2nd amendment remedies" are acceptable other than just losing an election.

      Just as a doctor or a lawyer can be sued for malpractice, there most definitely should be a standard and a penalty for overtly irresponsible statements from politicians that could influence violent acts.

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
    • +4
      Itsbatman_Durr  
    • EdJoyProductions:

      ok but a doctor doesnt get sued for malpractice for what COULD theoretically happen, but after an investigation proving responsibility.

      how do you prove someone 'made' someone do something? i mean this kid was spouting this shit well before the tea parties and sarah palin were around

    • 2 years ago
  • EdJoyProductions
    • +2
      EdJoyProductions  
    • Itsbatman_Durr:

      Actually doctors do get sued if a lack consideration for an action that results in something that they should have foreseen.

      I am not even using this particular episode as an example. I felt this way the first time I heard "second amendment remedies", saw Sarah Palin's target sheet and heard Obama talking about bringing a gun to a knife fight. Sure they sound like snappy little political sound bites to normal people but we do not live in a country that is free of the mentally ill. The very fact that someone goes into politics should make them think past the snappy sound bite.

      The more I argue this point, the more I realize that that politicians don't care who gets hurt, as long as they get into office. Conscience will not stop them. That is why we always get such bad leaders.

      Again, I am not for censorship. I am for supposed leaders not inciting violence through thoughtless issuances. I just think there should be a standard.

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
    • +2
      Itsbatman_Durr  
    • EdJoyProductions:

      yeah we should indeed 'get on' those that incite or use doublespeak or lie or play attack politics as well though.. but by get on i think the court of public opinion and outrage is as far as it should go. sure there are a lot of crazy people out there looking for something to trigger them off. but the harsh reality is, and it sounds awful to say after the recent tragedy, it doesnt happen often, or on as grand a scale.

      we need to all learn to keep a civil tongue, and we need to let people know when they cross the line as individuals as to what we are comfortable with. to litigate it or make one standard based on the lowest common denominator is the wrong approach i feel.

    • 2 years ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • curtisreed
  • EdJoyProductions
  • EdJoyProductions
    • 0
      EdJoyProductions  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      True, but it is not something that can be proved really. The shooter is unstable. It will be difficult to know what set him off. It could have been an Arbys commercial for all we know. It may have had nothing to do with anything mentioned by a politician.

      Again, I just think that there should be a standard for politicians. I may be dreaming, but rather than allowing debate to degrade into veiled threats instead of actually discussing issues is something that I think can be a political standard.

      I can say what ever I want here or on my personal time, but I am most certainly not allowed to do that at work. I think that politicians should be held to the same standards as every other civil servant.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
  • EdJoyProductions
  • WeAreChangeKy
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • kennymotown
    • 0
      kennymotown  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      Really? Where is my right too free speech, when threatened by you that your going to turn me into the FBI! Or your unhappy because I have free time on the internet so your going to turn me into the states unemployment division? Just wondering, mr. I'm against censoring free speech! Look in the mirror!

    • 2 years ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • kennymotown
    • 0
      kennymotown  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      There he is again, making a personnel attack! And trying to say his threats of turning me into the FBI and the state cause he doesn't like my free speech is a joke! Funny, the context was very clear too me when you made those threats! I did not know you were a mental health expert as well as a Fascist Sympathizer ready to turn in your fellow citizens.

    • 2 years ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • kennymotown
  • curtisreed
    • +3
      curtisreed  
    • Itsbatman_Durr:

      are you just "throwing rhetorical grenades"?
      was that a "cheap shot"?
      do you think sarcasm will "cut them off at the knees"?
      are we walking "through a minefield" by doing so?
      don't you think they'll just want you "put up against a wall"?

      the Thought Police are out in force and hope to sterilize the language. And they've all exposed themselves gleefully here at Current.

      Fascists parading around as "Liberals". Ooh. Was that redundant?

    • 2 years ago
  • CitizenHill
    • +5
      CitizenHill  

    • It's insanity I tell you, it's insanity - let's suppress all semblance of self determination and yield ourselves to the guidance of the "intellectual elite." After all, they, and only they, are the masters of sophistry, and we are all but inconsequential pawns!

    • 2 years ago
  • Itsbatman_Durr
12
101 - 154 of 154
more from Community:
from the community

top videos