All good Americans hate censorship. Obviously the ACLU favors free expression, as do all liberals. Heck, even evil old Republicans believe in the First Amendment. As a longtime card-carrying Libertarian, I idolize and fetishize free speech, a free press, and free beer.
Censorship is an ugly word. Good Americans lose their mind at the very mention of the word. However, Jonah Goldberg points out that we already have quite a bit of censorship in this country- and that he along with most people readily support it.
I don't have a good 100% answer what to think here, but I write to question my own typical reflexive libertarian response. Thinking about it, there certainly are SOME limits that even I would have to support.
For example, if we really went absolutely laissez-faire, there would certainly be at least a few adult book stores putting up billboards on main street showing scenes from their movies. I'm just not prepared to accept having my young nieces have to see two guys fisting every morning on their way to school. If that makes me a bad libertarian, well so be it.
An obvious big line of demarcation is public versus private display. I'm going to tend to not even consider it any of my business what you are looking at in your home.
But what line would I want to mark in public? Obviously most people would agree that big ol' porno billboards on a public street are unacceptable, but just how far do you want to take it?
I get somewhat uneasy with the public displays that people sometimes make, t-shirts and bumperstickers with curse words. For my part, I can look at anything. Whatever. But when I'm out with a six year old, I'm not real thrilled to see some dumbass who thinks he's clever because he can wear a t-shirt bearing big letters that say FUCK YOU.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dirtgrain
Dammit, man, you've gone and brought up Randy Weaver again. I smell a Diva-Barger showdown coming.
The boob issue is a bit contradictory. Guys can go bare-chested, but women can't for some reason. I attribute some of this to remnants of Puritan values in this country. What is so bad about nudity? Some countries in Europe have no problem with public nudity, and I don't think it has made them any worse off (except for the horror of seeing a 90-year-old's ass now and then). That said, we as a society have agreed these standards. What you say makes sense if you accept these standards (and what you say about porno, as opposed to what I said about nudity, makes sense to most people (in Europe as well)).
I wonder if corporate influence on values is to blame. In my post on the movie, thirteen, I pointed out the role of corporations in the challenging of societies norms about what is acceptable. It seems to be coming down to money and not morals.
2 - JR
I don't know what you can do about obnoxious teenagers, but you can boycott companies when you object to their advertising. You can make it known to the other merchants in that part of town that you won't be patronizing their establishments as long as they've got offensive billboards around. And of course feel free to use the off button more liberally on the TV; I do, and I already feel better.
It seems to be money that speaks most persuasively in this country. I don't like it, but as long as that's the case I intend to use it to my advantage.
And you best get crackin', 'cause apparently large numbers of people are already sending exactly the "wrong" message to advertisers.
3 - Phillip Winn
Al, you owe everybody here a big apology for introducing serious trash into Blogcritics.org. I mean it.
You have the legal right to say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but the tripe you posted in that other thread is just vile.
We aren't the government here, we're a friendly community, and you've violated the community standard of decency as far as I'm concerned. It will be hard for me to ever again read a post of yours in the same way, but I'll try.
Once you apologize.
4 - Shark
A lot of your examples come under the heading of "Manners".
Unfortunately, we can't *legislate manners. We can only teach them.
*BTW: If we could bring in the law, I might reconsider my opposition to the death penalty in certain cases involving cell phones, sales clerks, and talkative theater-goers.
5 - Al Barger
Phil, have you lost your everloving mind? Diva dug up something from somebody else at another site to complain about. I have done nothing bad whatsoever.
6 - Ms. Tek
I have to agree with Al here.
He didn't do anything wrong but show his true colors by linking to a site like that.
He doesn't need to apologize for something like that. He enjoys reading things from racist sites. Nothing wrong with that. It makes all of us see him in a new light- it doesn't mean what he did was wrong.
Now we know. Case closed.
7 - Mac Diva
Phillip: I told you so.
8 - BB
I'm still willing to give Al the benefit of the doubt. I've never heard him cross the line like Yeagley has. I think Al likes to stir up the pot and intentionally tries to be provocative, but my gut feeling tells me that he is not malicious or hateful and that's the difference. Seeing how he has been hurt by all this tells me that deep inside Al is OK. However having said that, do I agree with everything Al says? Of course not. I'm more moderate than Al is and I most certainly disagree with him much of the time. And if I should ever find Al crossing the line I will be the first to let him know in no uncertain terms. I believe more than most I tackled Mr. Yeagley head on and it should be evident that I have no tolerance for his kind. In this case however I believe that Al is guilty at most of showing bad taste and judgment by linking to this Yeagley character, BUT it would make me feel a whole lot better if Al would unequivocally disassociate himself from the likes of Yeagley et al (no pun intended).
Ps: Unlike others I believe that everybody is redeemable. I've put my neck out for you Al so please don't let me down.
9 - CW Fisher
"What exactly should I do?" Well, I guess you'll never ask that question again, eh, Al? Personally I enjoy free speech, the more the better, even a drooling is okay if you're really into it, let go, speak freely. But all this yelling stuff, I'm with you. Earplugs. CW
10 - TDavid
I'm somewhat surprised, Al, that you ignored my questions (#77 and repeated in #83) in that other thread. In fact, you skipped over the comments and questions I directed specifically to you and went to the comments after me. Diss?
11 - Al Barger
Ms Tek- What "case" was that? You and Phil and whoever else wants to is welcome to jump up like the Church Lady and do your little superior dance.
For my part, yup I often visit "racist" websites, though I'm not necessarily always thinking of them in that way. For example, I frequently visit Mac Diva's Mac-a-ronies site, Al Sharpton's campaign site (I'm VERY MUCH looking forward to voting for him in the Indiana primary) and Islamist sites from time to time. I also have been known to check out Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, KKK sites, and the NAACP.
I've been to al-Jazeera's website, Fred Phelps anti-gay website, the RNC page as well as sites by various socialist and communist parties, moveon.org, and even the Democrat National Committee.
I've also been to Yeagley's "Bad Eagle" site at least three or four times. I quoted a paragraph of him suggesting criminal prosecutions over the Superbowl Titty Massacre. I had not noticed that he had a gorilla picture next to another article about Jackson. That wasn't very nice of him. I said so when Diva dug it up and drug it over here.
I fail to see why that was such a uniquely horrible sin on his part. It was mean and hateful, but it doesn't mean much. I fail to see how it indicts ME in any way.
Diva found something that somebody else had written on another website, started invoking it here on MY post, and therefore declared this as evidence that I am a "racist"- whatever that would even mean- apparently through some process of guilt by association.
If you can be declared guilty by association, then you might as well consider me guilty of almost every possible sin. Jesus dined with tax collecters and sinners, as do I. I've "associated" to a greater extent than this with far worse people than David Yeagley, including particularly Mac Diva and the time I shook hands with Ted Kennedy.
Looking closer at Yeagley's site, I see several points that I find particularly distasteful, but nothing violent or inciteful. I do not, however, see how his worst writing rates as bad as Diva's often harsh bigotry, let alone her frequent straight up LYING. I regard direct dishonesty as generally worse than casual bigotry. Maybe I'm wrong.
Yeagley displays what appears to be some kind of wounded pride over what he considers special privileged treatment given to black Americans over his own Native Americans. This seems to lead him to having some unfortunate hateful attitudes towards blacks.
It might do you better to try to engage him nicely. What do you accomplish other than revving up some cheap sense of self-satisfaction by these vicious attacks on Yeagley? If what you wanted was to change his mind or help out society, you'd probably do better to speak respectfully to him. Make nice.
But you have no interest in understanding a non-violent fellow human being. You just wish to grandstand about RACISM. You get all the special feeling of self-satisfaction and superiority- but it's actually good because you are RIGHT and he is WRONG.
I do not approve of any bad, yucky things he may say. However, the worst things I've seen on his site are not nearly as bad as the hatefulness that Ms Tek in particular has beamed his way. She was wishing DEATH on him for having a picture of a gorilla on his page? Are you people hearing yourselves?
I'll note also that he was very civil when he came to the site. Ah yes, specifically note that I actively invited him to come defend himself after Diva started posting LIES about him on MY post.
If she is going to be allowed to continue doing this type of thing, then at minimum the individuals she defames should have a right to defend themselves. I don't see how you could expect less. Christ, it's a wonder we (meaning Eric) don't get sued about once a week over the personal defamations Diva commits.
Yeagley certainly does not do that. He's sometimes hateful over on his site, but I have not seen anything where he LIES (or curses). That at least is a virtue.
Nor, did I mention, does he wish death and torture on people- like Ms Tek among others- polluting MY article with that kind of ugliness.
I ask again: What the hell has come over the whole bunch of you people?
Now, I guess this won't apply to Ms Tek, Diva, and some others. However, some of our Blogcritics claim the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
To those claiming the name of Jesus Christ, regarding your words and thoughts on David Yeagley, What Would Jesus Do?
Somehow this supposedly shows me in a bad light. I utterly, totally fail to see how. I do sometimes purposely write sometimes about things that I know will be considered provocative, and I don't mind taking the heat for my words. But look at the post causing all this ridiculous uproar. What was even controversial there? I was not TRYING to raise hell. I was not offering a partisan political point, or even a legal pronouncement. In this case, I was caught totally unaware.
TDavid, how deep a need there is to check up a source depends on what the use is. This particular issue about public indecency was a simple point that didn't particularly depend on some special credentials. If a site makes some special claim to knowledge, that seems to require more checking. For example, if I'm going to quote some site that claims to know that LBJ set up JFK, then I'd need to see their PROOF.
Yeagley was only making perhaps a broad claim that there are public indecency laws that may have been violated at the Superbowl. I don't think there has even been any dispute whatsoever as to his factual claim that I quoted. That didn't seem like a highly questionable claim to need close checking.
NOTICE: Do not assume that I agree with everything said anywhere and at all times with any person or source I may quote. Duh.
Again, what was it exactly that I did wrong here?
Best I can tell, some of you seem to want me to lead some lynch mob to get the dirty RACIST in our midst- or risk being similarly branded and ostracized. I'm not going to do it however, cause I STILL kind of like Diva.
By the way, I'm out of town this week on what I might call urgent family business. Sorry if I appear to be shortchanging giving a full answer to every thing all of y'all have thrown at me. I'll check back in a couple of days.
Also, Phil cut off comments on the relevant post for no discernable reason, which doesn't help. I do not appreciate that. Apparently he somehow decided to stop MY discussion thread because some of you couldn't control your nasty language and wishes for personal harm to this Indian with a website. Shape up people.
12 - BB
There is a lot that I agree with here and mirrors much of what I have been saying. Being rude and ignorant towards anybody that you disagree with (no matter how repugnant you may think they are) only gives them the moral high ground and you have already lost your case. I have personally struggled over this distasteful affair and think that we all have something to be ashamed of. Racism is ugly, but fighting evil with evil is no answer either.
Yes, we could easily nitpick over each and every word that Al has said but I challenge y'all to move forward and to stop playing the blame game and learn from this experience.
Take care Al and I hope your family business isn't all that serious.
13 - Shark
Aside:
Since I've been playing at Blogcritics, the word "racist" has been tossed around like RPGs at an Iraqi beerbust.
Is this standard stuff around here?
If so, it REALLY gets old.
Throwing that word into a thread is gauranteed to shut down communications. Often, it's the last refuge for inarticulate or lazy debaters.
And besides, on some level, we're all racist. Deal with it and move on to other things.
PS: Shark's way to handle questionable nut-bars:
Either mock the dingbats, ask them serious questions, or ignore.
All of which I did with Yeagley and his angry squaw.
All of which got me nowhere.
in other news...
PS: Bonus joke told me by a Comanche:
Ever heard of a Comanche BLT sandwich?
It's Black Lab on Toast.
===================
14 - Phillip Winn
Indeed, Shark, there is simply no way to deal with some people.
Al, believe me, I cut off that thread for reasons unrelated to criticism of your pals.
15 - bhw
I'm not sure why the comments were turned off on the other thread, even though I said, they should be turned off if the BC owners didn't want more comments. I guess I don't understand the point of asking people to stop commenting at the point they were asked. I think the BC "official comment policy" needs to be updated with a specific, itemized list of what will get a comment thread stopped. It wasn't the death threats or wishes for self-mutilation, because the comments were allowed long after those were posted, so what exactly was it?
That said, Al's protestations of innocence are falling on deaf ears over here.
I had not noticed that he had a gorilla picture next to another article about Jackson. That wasn't very nice of him. I said so when Diva dug it up and drug it over here.
Al, the blog entry with the gorilla photo was more than "not very nice." Your failure to see that speaks volumes. You constantly accuse other BCs of being "unspeakably cruel" and "wicked" in their posts and comments, and yet Yeagley is "not very nice." Gotcha.
Also, on the blog page, the gorilla entry was immediately beneath the entry you quoted. I don't know about you, but as soon as I scrolled to the bottom of the entry you quoted, I could see the gorilla photo and the title of the entry. How did you miss it?
By calling it to your attention, MD was pointing out the other supposedly upstanding opinions of the source of your BC post. She didn't drag Yeagley to BC, you did. MD merely pointed out to the rest of us that there was more to him and his desire to have Janet Jackson imprisoned than mere legalities over nudity. His opinion starts from a position of racial hatred, which he clearly showed in the gorilla post.
And you said you've been to Yeagley's site a few times. Therefore, I can assume you didn't just stumble across his post about Jackson going to jail without knowing the basic racially prejudiced position from which it originated.
I fail to see why that was such a uniquely horrible sin on his part. It was mean and hateful, but it doesn't mean much. I fail to see how it indicts ME in any way.
If you don't see what's so horrible about Yeagley's arguments about race and his posting of the picture and then writing an article related to Jackson's breast, then I can only assume you don't really disagree with him.
It DOES mean much to other people. Does the fact that you're the only one on BC not bothered by Yeagley's gorilla entry mean much to you? If I'd posted something similar about, say, one of your libertarian heroes, I'm sure I'd have been hit with the full Barger lexicon of my unspeakable wickedness. But Yeagley -- no biggie.
Your citation of Yeagley indicts YOU, Al, because you think it's okay to promote the ideas of a man who thinks that white skin is preferable to dark skin [because it's natural to feel that way]. You can't see that his extreme position on putting Jackson in jail for an exposed breast developed from the fact that he is disgusted by her because of her skin color? They're not related ideas? He wants her imprisoned not out of some respect for the law, but because her mere presence on that TV show offended him, but only because she's black and trying to "force" him to find her sexually attractive.
When you add your Yeagley post up with the Signifying Monkey post, I can only assume that at best you are a narcissist who tries to push people's buttons to draw attention to himself. At worst, however ... well, you do the math.
16 - Shark
"If you don't see what's so horrible about Yeagley's arguments about race and his posting of the picture and then writing an article related to Jackson's breast, then I can only assume you don't really disagree with him."
Gawd, THIS IS SO SPECIOUS... and a technique all-too-common on these boards.
see also:
Straw Man: (noun) An opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated
17 - bhw
No, Shark, you just haven't read enough of Barger's excited and over-the-top responses to much, much less offensive postings on Blogcritics. The guy is quite outspoken when he disagrees with someone.
The fact that he is so soft on Yeagley, by contrast, means something to ME. You don't have to agree, however.
Example: When the man has an aneurysm because someone mocks Rush Limbaugh for being a hypocrite, but he lets Yeagley off with a "not very nice," you can see how I draw my conclusion.
18 - Phillip Winn
bhw, I refuse to publish a list of items that will get someone banned. In doing so, I would just miss one that was too obvious to even think about listing.
Basically, it comes down to this: Do the comments on this post make the site a better place? We could argue that point about various people on this board, and believe me, I've heard the arguments against Al and MD both more times than I can count on both hands. But in the end, they each rarely cross the unwritten line into pure offense against the majority.
Believe me, if I could go back and change certain things and disallow certain things I've allowed and vice versa, I might be tempted to change some things. I know that both Al and MD (and others, but 'Al and MD' is short-hand) have caused people to leave the site and not come back. However, both have also contributed great things to the site. So while they're challenging, and can be annoying, they're people with whom I suspect most of us could get along in person, once you strip away the "extra" stuff that the internet tends to produce. Also, they're members, not just commenters.
These last two people are different. Their words are a stain on the site, a cancer that threaten to eat away at the "community" that is Blogcritics. There is nothing to gain by allowing them to continue to post, and everything to lose.
Everybody knows I'm no fan of editing or deleting comments. When MD left the site, I asked her to return. I've also called her on some things when I thought she crossed the line. Ditto Al, both here and in private email. I believe that we can deal with even semi-reasonable people using reason. I do not believe this latest pair even knows what reason is.
Consider, if you will, a possible parallel with terrorists. We can negotiate with foreign nations. We can appease various malcontents. We can stop doing whatever it is we are doing to offend people. And each of those actions is effective against certain threats. But nothing is effective against the terrorist who is satisfied with nothing less than your death. Nothing.
We are all free to disagree on exactly what should get someone banned, and I do tend to be more liberal in what I accept than many others, but there is where I draw a line. Debate it if you will, but it is done.
19 - bhw
Besides, if Yeagley's ideas aren't so horrible, then what ARE they?
20 - Ms. Tek
"I do not approve of any bad, yucky things he may say. However, the worst things I've seen on his site are not nearly as bad as the hatefulness that Ms Tek in particular has beamed his way. She was wishing DEATH on him for having a picture of a gorilla on his page? Are you people hearing yourselves?"
Actually, it wasn't JUST the gorilla picture. It was his whole racist stance. I can't stand people like that. The point that irritated me the most, however was when he decided to talk about suing people. That is the sign of a coward, who wee-wees in his pants when things get rough.
I have no time for hate mongers who call foul and as as a coward when they don't like the heat.
As far as you and racist websites.
I, too read racist websites. I did a search recently for racist tattoos so that I could laugh. HOWEVER, even if there is something in the post on a racist site that may for a few sentences go along with what I might be thinking, I know that EVERYTHING on that site is to further along a racist agenda and that is the ultimate goal. Therefore, I will NOT link it, just to prove a point. I don't want be associated with such filth... besides being known for giving it a good kick to the groin when I see it.
This is probably what you and many other critics on here fail to see. I know that most people on this site don't like me. I also don't give a flying f*ck because I am here to have fun, sometimes take the mickey out of something that is stupid, and sometimes bing a view that is not "hyped up" and is from where people like me come from. (Yes, there are more than one... I just declared myself the leader because it fits into my "smug bitch, elitist" persona that I adopted from here. Hey, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.)
When it comes down to it, I do try to remember what most people have to go through each day. What most people have to feel. I happen to believe that most people find racist views repugnant and for me to link to any such thing will dampen my credibility and what "trust" I have on the internet. This is not something that is too hard to figure out.
And cry me a river, Al. I have never said I was a saint, nor claimed to be one. I like a bit of fun in my life. I try not to be so serious.
I'd rather die on my bike, or die with a beer, than to die in church. I wanna go with a smile on my face.
21 - Shark
Thank God, thank God!
I'M NOT ALONE!!
(screaming in ecstasy)
Anyway, I'm gonna have to start paying more attention, 'cause BOY, am I learning a lot today!
Diva and Al are infamous for their activities around here---not to mention evil yin-yang twins...?
She was banned...?
Ms. Tek sees herself as a smug elitist bitch...?
Winn has the power to slap a post/poster into that long good night of online oblivion...?
Could somebody email me a Dummies GUIDE to Blogcritics.org personalities???
Thanks in advance,
Shark (the virgin)
22 - Ms. Tek
LOL... no, I don't see myself as smug and elitist! As I said, I see myself as someone who will take the piss sometimes to either lighten the mood or because something is stupid.
I AM very happy about my well rounded education, however. I will stand up to people and in the case of doing so, I have been called a "smug bitch" and have received hate mail from some blogcritics.
The truth is that I am a pretty laid back person, but am opinionated. I don't back down when I feel I am right and I don't scare.
So that makes me a meanie.
*whips my devil's horns out so you can see them* They go great with my angels wings. ;)
23 - Phillip Winn
Shark, MD was never banned. She chose to leave, and was convinced to come back by people (including me) who think that what she has to say is a valuable addition to Blogcritics.
And yes, I'm the site technical administrator (note the top left of the page), so along with Eric, I can do things to people. Fortunately, I rarely do.
There was a quick guide to popular personalities around here posted a while back (by TDavid, maybe?) but I can't remember the details. Anyone?
24 - TDavid
That would be this one, Shark: Blogcritics has many compelling characters
25 - BB
For the record - I like you Ms. Tek :-)