My Photo

The Out Campaign

Atheist Blogroll

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2005

« Perpetrators and Victims: Religion and "Marjoe" | Main | Sex -- The Great Exception »

Comments

Raging Bee

"Did he just go on national television and equate consensual sadomasochism with Nazi Germany?"

Actually, no, he didn't do that. But he did do something just about as offensive: he said, in effect, that "we," as a society, have a right to shield ourselves, our children, and everyone else within our reach, from ANYTHING "we" find offensive or troubling, including the explicit depiction of true events like the Holocaust.

Which should remind us all where any policy of censorship will inevitably lead us: from keeping out disturbing BS, to keeping out disturbing truth.

Thanks for reminding us, yet again, what an overdressed, overrated sack of manure Buckley always was. All he ever did was give a pseudo-intellectual sheen to the same old right-wing anti-intellectual BS. (Ever notice how his most adoring fans NEVER provide anny actual examples of his alleged genius?)

Nurse Ingrid

Sorry, Raging Bee, but Greta is right. I saw the clip too, and Buckley DID say that a society has a right to put a stop to "obscenity" just like Germany had a right to put a stop to the Holocaust.

NOT images of the Holocaust. The Holocaust itself. That's really what he said. The man was insane.

ErinM

Sorry to have to dip into the lexicon of religion to adequately express my reaction, but: Amen, amen, amen!

That the First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech cannot be repeated enough, and you have (as usual) found a particularly eloquent and well-illustrated way to make the point. Thank you.

Sarah

Thanks for reposting this - I loved it first time, love it even more now. And it's timely for me: I've been thinking a lot about acceptable and unacceptable forms of speech and publishing, and I'll definitely need to work this post into my ideas.

arensb

I imagine this is why the ACLU has such a bad rap in certain circles: because they stand up for people's right to free speech. But no one gets sued for saying that apple pie is delicious, and even if they did, they wouldn't need the ACLU's help. So of course they're always seen defending Nazis and pornographers.

UNRR

This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 3/25/2009, at The Unreligious Right

hoverFrog

I love the word "kerfuffle".

I agree wholeheartedly that the right to freedom of speech should be protected, not just when we agree with what is being said but when we disagree. Especially when we disagree. There should be few, if any, special cases beyond public safety (yelling Fire! in a theatre), defamation (slander) or incitement to commit a crime. I'm not even sure that these should be entirely exempt.

Timmyson

I heard a TED talk recently (not a recent talk, though) by Eve Ensler who talked about a high school student in Minnesota who was threatened with expulsion for wearing an "I <3 My Vagina" button to school. Now I'm fairly certain I know how you feel about the sexual/feminist expression aspect of this (and I agree). Furthermore, I agree with your statement as far as adults are concerned; I feel that adults do not have the right to keep themselves from being offended. But what about children?

To what extent do you believe that parents have the right to protect their children from the free expression of others? And I'm not talking about easy situations like porn on television late at night, I mean a situation in which the only way a parent can protect the kid is by preventing the public performance.

I realize the odious uses to which "Think of the Children" has been put, but I'm interested in where you feel that line should be drawn.

Raging Bee

To what extent do you believe that parents have the right to protect their children from the free expression of others? And I'm not talking about easy situations like porn on television late at night, I mean a situation in which the only way a parent can protect the kid is by preventing the public performance.

Personally, I can't imagine any such situation. If a public performance contains obscene material, then do it in a venue where access can be controlled and kids can be kept out of it.

PS: I guess I interpreted GC's paraphrasing of Buckley's blithering wrongly. My bad. Not that that makes what he actually said any more defensible...

rie

what we so often forget in this country of "majority rules" is that important necessary condition that goes with it: "protection of the minority voices." this country is all about checks and balances -- not simple "majority rules." majority rules without any checks is mob rule. with checks, it is a balanced way to allow the many to speak, while protecting those who disagree.

one ban will lead to others -- and it will quickly come to pass that it is not just the phelpses of the world who are getting banned.

CroMagna

I'm black and it offends the crap out of me when black men say that the word nigger should be censored. I say what about other words like cunt. Then they come up with some excuse that essentially makes racism seem worse than sexism. A professor once said that the discrepancy is justified because slavery was institutionalized. Huh?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe/ Donate to This Blog!

Books of mine

Greta on SSA Speakers Bureau


  • Greta Christina is on the Speakers Bureau of the Secular Students Alliance. Invite her to speak to your group!

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz


Powered by Rollyo

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Atheism

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Sex

Some Favorite Posts: Art, Politics, Other Stuff