Joe Dees wrote:
> >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.
YOU're back again? Still lying through your teeth, too, I see.
> >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.
There is a difference between offensive speech and sedition, Joe, as
well as between simple offensive speech and advocating the commission of
a capital crime by impressionable youngsters.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:47 MDT