I think the thing that has scared me most out of all the debates on here lately is the immediate knee-jerk reaction to ban or boycott information that people don’t agree with. We’ve even had suggestions that books should be burnt. A favourite Nazi game.
Now, if you diagree with something and ahve no wish to view it then fine, but you can then legitiamtely say that it should be banned because you don’t like it - as essentially that is free speech for you but not the person you disagree with.
Where do you draw the line?
Do you burn Marx’s Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto becasue you live in a capitalist country?
Considering some of the derogatory comments addressed towards female emancipation and the freedom of sexual empowerment amongst other things, I expect “The Female Eunuch”
is on the hit list.
Don’t forget that nasty terrorist manual ‘The Koran’, while you’re at it.
You can add it to the fire with the nasty Harry Potter books that the Southern Baptists love so much.
Essentially, it comes down to this for me, if you have a reason for something state the reason, not: That Michael Moore is a whiny liberal asshole and should have his funding pulled.
Moore is just doing what the American press is too afraid to do. There’s nothing wrong with that. Why are MORE people getting into his stuff now than before the Oscars? Maybe he appeals to lots of people & maybe he’s getting people to think & talk to each other while they’re still allowed to?
Personally I don’t think we should ban any books. That is what this country is all about. Everyone should be able have their own ideas. Now that doesn’t mean that I won’t think someone’s idea is stupid.
Interesting post. Did you see the (no recent, I know) film Farenheit451 ?
It’s ‘Das Kapital’.
And why watch Farenheit 451, when you can read the book?
Wouldn’t it suck if the government could detain people indefinitely without access to lawyers, the outside world, without charging with a crime, and with NO JUDICIAL REVIEW?
Wouldn’t it suck more if a “temporary measure” allowing the government greater surveillance powers, while simultaneously limiting judicial reviews of those powers were to be conveniently made permanent?
Fortunately, stuff like that only happens in countries like china, not america.
Michael Moore is a whiney jerk. But This is America and I support free speech, even stupid shit.
I don’t think anyone should ban books or burn them, but I also think it is absolutely your duty to not financially support people you believe to be morally repugnant. I’ll never pay a dime for anything Michael Moore does, and I’ll be sure to try to convince others to not support him also.
EMcKee the USA has that coming. It’s called the Patriot Act II or something. People are supposed to willingly give up all their freedoms because they’re supposed to be scared of terrorists. I don’t see what the big deal is with that. Canada has had the War Measures Act for almost 40 years now & it’s even tougher than the Patriot Act II. What’s wrong with that? Oh, right, our leaders trust us, yours are obsessed with spying on you, etc.
Have you ever been to the United States or visited here for a while? You talk all this shit about us but have you ever experienced what you are talking about. You need to stop reading those same bullshit anti-american websites and form your own opinions based on experiences.
LOL JasonL said anti-american.
Actually the law as it stands allows for extra-judicial “detainment” (in maximum security prisons) and survaillence. Here’s a link to one of the fortunate ones (in that he has someone to champion his cause): http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,58326,00.html
Anyone deamed a “national security risk” can be taken, outside the court system, for as long as the government wants. Consider what a little ambition combined with these laws are capable of. Maybe I should run for office… Pro presidential incumbant party of course.
I would like to make a distinction at this point, as I’m getting irritated by the flagrent misuse of language related to this topic. Laws such as these are not “protecting our freedom”, to the contrary, the are exchanging a reduction in freedom for a supposed enhancement in security to life and property. These concepts are not one and the same.
I feel people should have the right to say, think or feel anything they wish, without fear of being beaten or tortured or killed,for their views.
However, that being said, those that express their views should be aware of the consequences of their actions.Therefore, if I disagree, I can express my rights by refusing to support them in any way I see fit.I can further express my freedom of speech by telling those around me that I will no longer support that person in any way and then explain why.Freedom of speech is a two-way street and any that wish to exercise this right should be aware of that.
Thank you, iscariot.
And E Mckee, I totally understand your wry observation. It was a “wry observation”, too, right?
You don’t think Michael Moore is biased in his views? We’re all biased to an extent and no matter how hard we try none of us, not a single person on this planet will ever present truly objective viewpoints. They’ll always be somewhat subjective.
It’s funny because I hear many talking about listening to other media oulets and alternative news sources. For example, news channels from various Middle Eastern countries. Of course if you listen to those news sources you’ll get a different point of view. Much different. Does that mean it’s totally accurate? Hell no. It’s just as slanted as American media coverage.
There are so many alternatives to listen to. An informed person would digest information from all sources, and then form their own conclusions. Many, after hearing Michael Moore’s subjective, biased point of view, simply don’t agree with him. Whether it’s involving guns or the war, many don’t see it his way. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
I’d say it’s a safe bet that usually when people say “(whatever) should be banned/burned!” they’re not actually serious.
If they are, they’re an idiot.
Take home message of this post: calm the hell down and stop taking every single damned word you read so seriously.
Patricia: Of course
I’m reminded of an old line that I believe was attributed to Stalin, it went something like, “You have the right speak freely, and I have the right kill you.”
Obviously it was just a cold war joke, although I believe I heard it from this guy who was the former info minister in 1970’s Romania.
On another note, whenever people talk about book burning, I can’t help but remember that scene in Indiana Jones. I love those movies.
Under the Patriot Act, the government can go to public libraries and pull the records of certain books, to see who was reading what. They can tap your phones and monitor your email.
Also, under the Patriot Act, you can have your citizenship removed (I mean NATURAL-BORN Americans, not immigrants) without a trial, if you give money to an organization who supports terrorism. Even if you didn’t know that they supported terrorism, because they did it in secret, you can lose your citizenship!
Welcome to 1984.
Has anyone on here had their rights infringed upon? I am just wondering since there seems to be a bit of paronia about government monitoring and so forth from posters on this site.
Lets cut the sensationalism/paranoia and demonstrate some real world episodes. Any takers???
Also…I get sick of hearing that there is no such thing as absolute truth. What we had with some of the reporting given by the media were the absence of fact and complete disinformation. Spin is different. News organizations spin things a certain way but most of them reported FACTS. How they could have staged hundreds of people waving American flags for propaganda for example? That idea is ludicrous. (someone on another thread posted that nugget of wisdom)
And I think this Fridays protests says it all. The anti war crowd changed the topic to one of our wrongful occupation for one thing. And you will notice that they had a huge run in with the police in DC. They shoved an officer off a bike and then fought with the police…totally out of hand.
Contrast that with the pro war/American troops rally that G. Gordon Liddy spoke at. They were well behaved and respectful. I think the behavior and demeanor of the two contrasting crowds speaks volumes!!!