Who's more likely to support censorship?

Post Reply New Topic

In experience, it's more likely religious groups and people who advocate media censorship on moral issues than non-religious people. Why is there a difference here? I support free speech, but is there any reason why non-religious people will complain about something on television or radio that was "inappropriate"?

Why is there also a double-standard on the free speech issue on the media with liberals and conservatives?

Well..yah..historical evidence suggests they censored Jesus..

So i would expect ..particularly the fundamentalist type ..literally thinking folks..

For doing that kinda thing almost everywhere in life...

Daughters can't dress sexy and all of that 2....

Statists are most likely to support censorship.

There's no place for obscenity ANYWHERE…period. And not much point to it, either.

In a free society, you HAVE to allow for ideas you don't agree with. I'm a religious person and take plenty offense to a range of things atheists have about what I supposedly "believe." My views on homosexuality and marriage would be considered grossly offensive to many. OK, so we all have the right to be offended. What a concept! There is nothing wrong, in a free society, with Christians expressing their views, atheists expressing their views, gays expressing their views, Pastafarians expressing their views, whatever… And we're free to have discussions and talk about things that offend us. There's no law that requires us all to agree on everything.

It becomes a problem when religion is imposed on those who don't want it, when religious people are NOT free to openly practice their beliefs (within reason), when gays are NOT free to say they're being treated unfairly, or anyone anywhere at any time cannot express whatever opinion they have regardless of how reasonable or absurd. I should be able to say "homosexuality in practice is morally wrong" without fear of being thrown in jail for "bullying." A gay person should be able to say "I think gays should have the right to marry" without fear of harm. If I were to say "all ph@gg*tz is stupid perverts who need to be rounded up and gassed," and my intention is incite an incident designed specifically to murder people based on sexual orientation, I'm doing something that blatantly marginalizes the rights of a group of human beings. That's well and good in a society or culture that doesn't allow homosexuality, but that culture is not a free one. If a gay person files a defamation suit on me for saying "homosexuality is an abomination" based on religious beliefs, my freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech is being marginalized and the gay person would be no better than I would be if I were purposefully bullying them. It is a frightening thought that things like that happen and are allowed to happen, and people who do seek to marginalize the rights of others, especially freedom of expression, don't seem to understand that the pendulum swings both ways. Take affirmative action in regards to race…it will become increasingly difficult to accept university students based on "minority status" since universities are not allowed to have preferences based on race. Public universities that are historically black ALSO have so-called "diversity scholarships." The original point was to encourage blacks to attend "white" schools. Black schools, however, receive MEGA funding and often have excellent grad programs. White and want a virtually free Ph.D.? Get a "diversity scholarship" and go to a black school for free. The point being not everyone is happy that this has become the legacy of affirmative action, but it IS a dirty little secret of it. Any time you have laws that marginalize the rights of others based on some imaginary "protected class," there is potential that the "protected class" can ultimately be harmed or treated unfairly based on the very mechanism that was intended to protect them. EVERYONE loses with absurd censorship.

As long as speech is not blatantly disruptive and harmful to society--and I mean terrorist activity, mass uprising, and death all around--say what you want.

I think censorship is a personal responsibility. We recently gave up cable television. We have a few movies that we let our kids watch, but otherwise we don't watch television. We listen to radio sometimes, and that's it. We can EASILY control what our children are exposed to. If we don't want our kids hearing filthy language, language that promotes lifestyles we disagree with, etc., we are not obligated to expose either ourselves or our children to it. Sure, I miss getting to watch True Blood and Game of Thrones--but from what I understand the books are better, anyway. And it's not worth the expense every month when, for the same amount of money, I can just buy the entire series when it comes out on DVD. If I don't like what someone has to say on the internet, I can turn off my computer. We have a few games our kids play on the iPad, but we shut off WiFi every time they do it. Our kids will have a lifetime to decide for themselves what garbage they want in their lives. We don't have to bother them with it at this stage.

But that doesn't mean that anyone out their in news and entertainment isn't free to say what they want because it might hurt someone's virgin ears. They have no control over that. Parents do.

The person who's more likely to support censorship is the one with a dog in the fight. Gays don't like to hear that they can't get married just like straight folks. The cool thing to do right now is shut up those who believe that homosexuality and gay marriage are harmful to society under the rubric of "hate speech" and "bullying." IF those things really are moral issues and really are detrimental to society, then, no, nobody has the right to engage in those things because of the harm they do to society at large. There are a whole bunch of murderers in prison…do THEY get to be a protected class? No? Then if something else…anything else…is shown (IF it is indeed shown) to pose a threat or harm to society, then the right thing to do is speak out against it. Murder, homosexuality, spitting on the sidewalk, whatever… That doesn't mean we're all always going to get our way, obviously. But censorship has consistently worked in favor of those with agendas.

It appears to me that the agendas being pushed the hardest with the greatest calls for censorship are statist agendas, and this has historically often been the case…classic example being the Stalin regime. And don't even get me started on North Korea. I'd say coming in at a close second would be theocracies.

My life experience says that today it's "liberals."

1. The modern Democratic Party has been taken over by socialists.

2. Socialism heavily believes in controlling the message.

3. We see routinely that the strategy of the Democrats is to shout down or change the topic if they aren't winning a debate.

4. Only the Democrats have pushed for "hush Rush" laws or other "equal time" nonsense to silence opposing viewpoints. In spite of the media being largely liberal, that conservative shows have larger audiences in spite of being fewer in number is a simple matter of the message and the free market. It is an abomination to promote that if you express an opinion on A that you must give equal time to the other side(s) of the debate when liberal media hasn't done this in decades.

Censorship isn't just about saying you can't express an opinion, it is also about saying you must express a given ideology....it's also known as "thought control" or "thought policing." We are getting ever closer to that being the reality in America. Right now, it's called being "politically correct."

Well..here's the thing friend you do have freedom of expression..

But this is an issue of human empathy and compassion...

For those people who do understand that homosexuality as science now clearly suggests is one both of biological and environmental determinants..it is often not a choice...

And for those individuals..many on this internet site..tHere is a clear correlation with alternate biological sexual orientations..and even a propensity toward androgyny for so called 'higher functioning' folks that live on the spectrum...

I'll be completely clear with you here NOW..

When I went to middle school..i was an extremely androgynous child..and one who did not have any father figures in my immediate family....

So i came across as extremely feminine to my class mates...

And yah..my mother was always singing..happy..and smiling...

So that IS what i had to imitate..in life..so i was a boy full of joy...or literally gaY ABOUT LIFE...

BUT YA..SEE..NOW.. I LIKED GIRLS ALL MY LIFE..AND HAD ROMANTIC ATTACHMENTS TO THEM AS LONG I CAN REMEMBER..KINDERGARTEN AND BEFORE EVEN..AND NAH..NOT THE I'M GONNA HAVE SEX WITH YA ATTACHMENT..AS OBJECT OF INTENT..

But anyway..middle school folks don't think that deep obviously..so the smiling boy who went to play tennis at the local parK or the middle school was greeted by you can't smile here boy..only fa***ts smile all the time.

And yes those were the super religious kids raised by fundamentalist folks...

But at least at the Catholic church..with the fact that a substantial number of priests are gay..and that is no hidden fact in the real life of priests...

I didn't hear any of that stuff in the church i went too..until recently..that i and my priest personally nipped in the bud...from someone living far .. far in the past...a deacon there..giving a homily about how gays aren't suited to raise children.

So for only the reason of my appearance as a smiling androgynous child..i was rejected by almost everyone in school at the time...and almost all of them were raised by fundamentalist religious folks..except for the kids in my catholic church.

My friend was my dog..and that's about all outside my mother..as even my grandmother..suspected i was a homosexual cause i looked so much like a female..and was soft and all of that...

And my sister was busy dealing with the same abuse..as she too was androgynous...

Well anyway..that was our biology and our environment..that created the androgynous children we were...

And while i was not a homosexual..the abuse was equivalent..that the actual homosexuals were receiving...

So it makes me very angry to see any person who is homosexual abused or rejected for any rights in society by anyone..

Simply as i can feel their pain...

And yah friend you can voice your opinion all you want but i will tell you NOW ONE THING SERIOUSLY.. THE REAL HISTORICAL JESUS WOULD NOT LIKE IT IF YOU OPPRESSED HOMOSEXUALS..AS HE WAS MORE LIKE A ZEN BUDDHIST..THAN ANY HOMOPHOBE PATRIARCH..THAT ISN'T SURE OF THEIR OWN MASCULINITY...AS THAT IS MOSTLY WHERE THIS HOMOPHOBE STUFF COMES FROM ANYWAY..GUYS WHO ARE AFRAID THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE GAY LEANINGS...AND ARE MORE AFRAID OF THEMSELVES THAN ANYTHING ELSE..IN REALITY..PER THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE...

AND WHILE YOU COULD VOICE YOUR OPINION..ON IT..MOST PEOPLE ON THIS SITE..ARE GOING TO EXPRESS THEIR DISSENT TOWARD IT..AS THEY TOO HAVE EMPATHY FOR THIS ISSUE..WHETHER IT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE OR ARE ANDROGYNOUS AND HAVE RECEIVED THIS SAME KIND OF OPPRESSION..ABUSE..AND REJECTION IN LIFE..SIMPLY FOR THEIR BIOLOGY..OR IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY HOMOSEXUAL AND PERHAPS HAVE EVEN CONSIDERED SUICIDE FROM HEARING RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS FROM THEIR PASTOR..at one point or another..THAT THEIR BIOLOGY AND ASSOCIATED RIGHTS AND BEHAVIORS..ARE IMMORAL..AND YES..EVEN ONE LOCAL PASTOR..A POPULAR RADIO PERSONALITY...CALLING IT DEMON POSSESSED BEHAVIOR...in my area.as recently as last year...living still in that historic past of hate.

So please do move on with your criticisms..of homosexual behavior or the rights they should or should not have in society...

As YOUR ARGUMENT does HOLD NOT CREDENCE..WITH THE REAL HISTORICAL JESUS..

OR SCIENCE..

MY FRIEND..WHEN IT COMES TO HOMOSEXUALITY AND OR THE RIGHTS OF THESE FULL HUMAN BEINGS...

BY THE WAY.. HERE IS A LITTLE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR TO YOU TO FIND OUT WHO THE REAL HISTORICAL JESUS WAS LIKELY..AS ZEN BUDDHIST..AS THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS CLEARLY RELATES..ANYWAY....FOR ANYONE WHO CAN DISCERN THE TRUTH....

http://www.bffct.net/id59.html

AND AS YOU SHOULD ALREADY UNDERSTAND EVEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT WAS WRITTEN AT LEAST 40 YEARS AFTER JESUS WAS REPORTED TO HAVE DIED..AND EVEN WITH ALL THE CHANGES AND MANIPULATIONS THEREOF..OF THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE OF JESUS...THERE IS STILL NO WORDS THERE IN THE GOSPELS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS AMORAL...

SO WHAT THIS MEANS FRIEND..IS FOR ALL YOU KNOW..JESUS COULD HAVE BEEN ASEXUAL..BISEXUAL..OR YES..EVEN HOMOSEXUAL...

IF SO ..AND IF HE COULD EVER MEET YOU ONE DAY..

HE AIN'T GONNA BE VERY APPROVING OF YOUR OPINION..FRIEND..and as a ZEN BUDDHIST..EVEN IF NOT.. HE AINT' GONNA AGREE WITH YA...AS OPPRESSING FOLKS IS NO PART OF THAT PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE..THAT COMES THROUGH LOUD AND CLEAR..BY THE WAY...OF WHAT IS LEFT ..IN HIS TRUE HISTORICAL MESSAGE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT..ANYWAY...

TRUST ME..ON THAT ONE.

AS I DO WALK IN HIS SHOES..THE REAL SHOES..NOT THE MAKE BELIEVE JESUS.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAaW6BYhfNM[/YOUTUBE]

AND JUST CONSIDER THIS MY FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FRIEND..ON THIS SITE ..THAT IS REALLY GOOD AT NOT CENSORING OPINIONS..AS LONG AS THEY ARE A DISCUSSION..AND NOT DIRECTED PERSONALLY AT THE INDIVIDUAL...

I JUST THINK YOU ARE MISGUIDED AS A HUMAN BEING..AND YOU KNOW NOT WHAT YOU DO ..ON THIS ONE...

THAT IS ALL...

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF EDUCATION AND TRULY UNDERSTANDING..TRUTH..SOMETIMES THAT TAKES NO WORDS AND NO LOGIC BY ....

THE WAY

It brings a whole new meaning to this song by Led Zeppelin..KaSHMIR..PER THE POTENTIAL LONGER HOMESTEAD OF THE 'RETURNING REAL HISTORICAL JESUS'...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvmuDH8cgG0[/YOUTUBE]

AND OF COURSE..AND ON COURSE..THE FUNDAMENTALISTS WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CENSOR LED ZEPPELIN AS THEY WERE ACCUSED OF BEING DEVIL WORSHIPPERS .. MASKING REVERSE MESSAGES AND ALL OF THAT IN THEIR SONGS...

AND TO FOR THE CASE THAT JIMMY PAGE FOLLOWED THE TEACHINGS OF ALEISTER CROWLEY..ANOTHER TRUE CHRISTIAN IN TOTAL EFFECT..PER THE BUDDHIST LEANINGS OF HIS TEACHINGS 2....

PER DO AS THOU WILT WITHOUT HARMING ANOTHER ONE..UNDER THE TRUE WILL OF LOVE...

OR BETTER PUT....
THE GOLDEN RULE..CONSISTENT..IN ALMOST ALL TRUE ETHICAL RELIGIOUS leanings....

WELL ANYWAY JUST I CE...

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT..MY FRIEND..

HAVE A GREAT DAY....

Last edited by aghogday on 13 Jan 2014, 11:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

I've found almost everyone supports censorship of something.

Religious people like to censor anything that doesn't agree with their religion. Put pornography on tv? Hell no. Censor that s**t.

Progressives like to censor anything that doesn't fit their world view. Talk about how you disagree with gay marriage? Hell no, make that a crime.

Dissent is not censorship..it is freedom of expression...

Literally speaking if that's not just a metaphor about the crime thingy...

There is absolutely no evidence that the progressive movement wants to make any freedom of expression a crime.

They might strongly disagree..chastise..cuss about it..or whatever....

But that too..is freedom of expression..

When the so called other side says cut off the porno..make it illegal..as it don't suit my religion...

That my friend is censorship..and it too...breaks the constitution..as viewed NOW..by majority US legal opinion..per separation of church and state too..

The supreme court ain't ever gonna rule that some can't voice their opinion...

At least not under the constitution we have now...

That's just idle banter as far as i can see..for folks that think..it's gonna seriously be a crime one day....

The right wing religious types in general are most likely want to censor sex, homosexuality, profanity, and violence. Liberals tend to be in favor of censoring political messages not inline with theirs or whatever they consider "hate" and/or "intolerance".

Personally i see no reason why anyone who is secure in their truths about life..should be personAlly worried about any freedom of expression of anyone else...

But..empathy and compassion..does dictate..that people stand UP to the REAL HARM OF OTHERS...

THAT SOME PHILOSOPHIES CAN BRING...

BUT AGAIN..STAND UP ..MEANS DISSENT..NOT CENSORSHIP...

I PERSONALLY THINK IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT..

AND THE GREATEST PART OF MY PERSONAL PATRIOTISM..

AS A US CITIZEN...

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION...

AND YA BETTER BET BABY..I TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THAT IN REAL LIFE..AND DON'T GIVE A f**k WHAT ANYONE ELSE THINKS...

AS DANCE WALKING AIN'T HURTIN ANYONE IN REAL LIFE..ANYWAY..EXCEPT IN FANTASY OF REPRESSION..AND ALL OF THAT....

I DID 23 MILES IN A LOCAL MALL LAST DEC 21ST..UNTIL THE OPERATIONS DIRECTOR CENSORED MY APPROACH..OF MOONWALKING AND ALL OFTHAT...

AS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIS PRIVATE TASTE..IN 'HIS' PRIVATE MALL...

SO I GO ELSEWHERE WHERE I AM NOT CENSORED PER THE PRIVATE RIGHT TO CENSOR...

WHICH IS EVERYWHERE ELSE BUT THAT PLACE..

AS MOST PEOPLE DO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION..AND YES WILL DEFEND IT IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS..

MY EXPERIENCE WITH DANCE WALKING AS ALSO AN ACCOMMODATION UNDER THE ADA FOR SPINAL STENOSIS..SEVERE SPINAL ARTHRITIS..AND OTHER PAIN DISORDERS..

PROVES THIS OUT OVER AND OVER IN THE REAL WORLD..2....

AND PART OF WHY I LIKE MILEY CYRUS..AND HER OUT OF THE 'BOX' EXPRESSIONS OF HER PERSONAL LIBERTY AND FREEDOM...

SHE LETS FREEDOM RING..T&A AND ALL THAT TOO...;)

SHE COULD BE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY..AND FIT IN QUITE WELL MY FRIEND...:)

of course just my opinion..

i ain't imposing or censoring my will on anyone...

it would make my skin crawl...

That is all....

In my opinion, the La-li-lu-le-lo are the ones most likely to support censorship.

Last edited by The Bilderberg Illuminati New World Order Elders of Freemasonry on Fri Nov 22, 1963 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

haha...:)

and hehe..i am a real free mason..not part of some friggin organization...;)

and yah that real illuminati too..

That aint' looking to please anyone .. but to find the truth..

For the True Will of each single individual..not a friggin group....

Otherwise it is literAlly impossible to escape group or herd think....... :)

So that makes me a maverick..

not necessarily 'herd'....

and that's ok2....

pArt
of THE gAme....

of
LIFE

No, it hasn't. Every political philosophy wants to "control the message." Every single position since the dawn of mankind has had a supporter who shouted down others who disagreed. I also find it extremely odd that you acknowledge conservative dominance of platforms like radio, yet you then go on to say that the media is overwhelmingly liberal.

"Political correctness" is marketing. Whether you're trying to earn votes or make your maximize your consumer base, nobody selling themselves or a product wants to alienate an entire group of potential customers/voters. That's just democracy and the free market. Attitudes about things like homosexuality are changing. You can be openly homophobic, like Chick Filet, but you stand to make a lot more money if you decide not to be.

If 1) is true, then why is the current Democratic president (in his second term) a conservative?

2) and 3) are true. However, they are no more true of socialism or the Democratic party than almost any other ideology or party (with a few possible exceptions such as pacifists).

Leaders who want to suppress any knowledge of Freedom and Justice.

Celebrities who want to keep their pasts in the past.

Nostalgiacs who want society to revert to "The Good Old Days".

Those who benefit from the ignorance of others.

Self-appointed moralists who want to impose their brand of morality on others.

Parents who don't want their children to "grow up too fast".

People for whom the truth is a threat to their credibility, livelihood or social status.

Um....wut?
Never mind. I'm sure the explanation would be equally nonsensical.