('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:17:08 -0500
>From: Michael Lorrey <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Heston speech
>Loree Thomas wrote:
>> --- Michael Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > Brian D Williams wrote:
>> > >
>> > > No, What Heston did was call Time-Warner on
>> > profiteering on Ice-T's
>> > > song. He called into question their ethics.
>> > Quite. Ice-T was not once told to stop rapping.
>> > Time-Warner was told by
>> > its stockholders that they didn't want to
>> > Time-Warner to profit from the
>> > promotion of illegal activities like cop killing and
>> > the statutory anal
>> > rape of Al Gore's 12 year old nieces. Publisher's
>> > do, in fact, have the
>> > free speech right to choose what they publish.
>> They certainly do! And Time/Warner was exercising
>> that right when they published "Cop Killers".
>And Time/Warner's OWNERS was exercising that right when they pulled it
>from the market.
Under PC pressure, just like the kind that Charleton Heston himself said that he had experienced. Just as list moderators can exercise their rights by labelling certain threads off-topic for a list. They can, and are, fully expressible elsewhere.
>> Heston took it upon himself to use the tactic of
>> PCness to stop Time/Warner from continuing to
>> associate with Ice-T. I have no qualms with
>> Time/Warner's actions or the actions of the Board of
>> Directors. My point is that Chuck used PCness and
>> BRAGGED about in an anti PC speech.
>Being against cop killing isn't PC. Cops are 'fascist pigs', 'nazi
>thugs', and regular beaters of blacks (who just happen to be resisting
>arrest), according to the PC left.
And 'jackbooted government thugs' to the radical right. G. Gordon Liddy was practicing un-PC free speech when he advised the populace to shoot ATF and DEA officers in the head in order to bypass their bulletproof vests. He was telling all those Ice-T fans how to be an effective 'cop killer.'
>> This is what makes PCness so powerful... when it is in
>> alightment with your (general case) own values, you
>> don't even think of it as "PCness". It's only when
>> your values are different from the current PC values
>> that it becomes "thought control".
>Ah, no. Political Correctness is not about being in line with my values
>about who it is acceptable to kill or not kill. Political Correctness is
>about using excessive legal force to generate conformity with a
>political agenda by criminalizing previously minor innocuous behavior.
>Cop killing has never been minor innocuous behavior, neither has
>publishing music that advocated killing cops.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It is exactly offensive speech that is in greatest need of constitutional protection; no one objects to innocuous speech. Part of free speech is, of course, the right to object to the offensive speech of others. In a laissez faire economy, it is the marketplace that is supposed to decide what flies, not PC pressure upon corporate executives, from either political wing. Each wing has its own version of PC which it refuses to acknowledge as such, meanwhile lambasting the other wing for its PC-nesses. When people don't wanna hear music that is offensive to them, they won't buy it; when they don't wanna hear propagandizing list abuse, they will protest (speak against) and/or delete it.
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:46 MDT