Re: The Censhorship Kings Strike Again

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:31:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Look at the etymology of the word.  It stems from the Roman officials in the
> olden days who were responsible for supervising public morals.  Then there were
> the English censors.  It is in that sense I am using the word.  Sure, you can
> expand the use of the word and even refer to self-censorship, but that is not
> the meaning I have in mind here :-).

I tend to go by dictionary meanings when I am unsure, not by what you have
in mind. :-)

> I have sent a few mails here on the topic to highlight the pattern, and the
> pattern is this:  the radical Zionist organizations throughout the world work
> ceaselessly to stop discussions critical of Israel, Zionism and in many cases
> Jews.  This single cartoon is an example of the pattern, if you start paying
> attention to the news you will see the bigger pattern.
> 
> What you don't see is how the news has already been degraded, slanted and tilted
> as a result of past censorship campaigns.

I don't care if they try: they're failing because they lack the proper
authority to censor all discussion. If they want to waste resources on
censorship, that's their problem and not mine.

> The question is one of effectiveness.  Legal censorship is bad b/c it is
> effective and broad-based, and not for any other reason.  So you have to ask
> yourself how effective and broad-based the censorship campaign is.

Non-effective, as there's plenty of criticism on Zionists available, no?

> And if you look at the effectiveness and international breadth of the radical
> Zionist censors, it is IMO more effective and broad-based than many governments
> could be.

Then YHO differs from MHO. :-)

> I have on several occassions removed comments from the dot, most of which would
> be non-controversial (e.g., once someone copied a really long virulently
> homophobic post from Slashdot into the dot's comments).  The one you are
> probably thinking of is where Mr. Stevens was spreading some lies about me,
> authoritatively yet off-topic IIRC, and my other option was to sue him for
> slander I suppose but spreading lies is a bad thing and IMO the shame lies with
> Mr. Stevens on that occassion and as a rule I would support removing slanderous
> material from the dot if the subject of the slander complained about it (and I
> did).  Note that there are plenty of attacks and lies by Mr. Stevens I did not
> remove from the site, BTW, you can probably search for and find them pretty
> easily.
> 
> As noted, I do believe in the slander exception to "free speech", but I have not
> seen how this relates to the campaign I am referring to.

The Zionists could've sued for slander but the editor opted not to publish
such cartoons. What's the difference?

> Navin is completely in charge of the list, and FWIW there are a great many
> people on the list who don't contribute to the site in any meaningful way,
> AFAIK, and Navin has kept them all on simply b/c they are interested and have
> the right to be there, subject of course to complying with the list rules.
>
> I suggest you write dot-editors about that.

Will do when I get home, if I care enough to be on.

> > Now here is something that worries me more than either issue anyway:
> > 
> > http://the-amazing.us/simplyamerican/2173/
> 
> Good luck getting the US State Dep't to speak up for freedom of the press - at
> least on the Internet (the controlled mass media is another story, their right
> to spew official propaganda at every opportunity must be strictly defended).
> 
> You might bear in mind that the US government (executive / legislative) has
> twice tried to censor the Internet, and both times failed, and I am proud to say
> that the Third Circuit struck down both laws in the first instance (and was
> later affirmed by the US Supreme Court in both cases).

Also please bear in mind that my support of the United States of America
does *not* mean an unlimited, blind and unconditional support for each and
every political decision made by its government. :-)

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
[email protected] | temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
www.capsi.com | - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/T8cWtppIl2G1SjcRAjwbAJwLq6LQeznN5Lyio+yd5mvwiB9oYQCfRZSz
H0cMsd2a2s1d2aE0wI7pmJU=
=DRs1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----