Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : CENSORSHIP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenya AA who wrote (22)	11/26/2000 5:53:46 AM
From: Mao II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 84

K: I think you make the fundamental point (in practical terms): SI gives us the tools to handle speech we don't like. It's the same way in the larger world. If there is a violent television show or a sex drenched movie, we can watch or not. We have the ability to change the channel!! Or pass by the theater!! Amazing isn't it? Most instances of censorship in recent years have involved sex and violence in the media. That's typical in this country and usually there is a larger, unnamed target beyond the immediate subject of attack. The fundamentalist campaign against the arts and the NEA in the nineties, for instance, focused on obscenity and blasphemy. The real targets were women and gays. (And their liberal buddies, natch.) Recent events in Florida, by the way, have taken a bad turn. Don't know if you read the account in the NY Times -- it was in Thursday's paper I think, buried inside -- of the orchestrated violence outside the Miami-Dade counting HQ. Gangs of Republican thugs -- who had been rounded up and directed for just this purpose -- were attacking and beating people outside the rooms where vote counting was going on. According to the Times, at least one canvassing board member was so intimidated by this scene that he voted to discontinue the count. Now I don't know how you feel about this sort of thing, but it seems to me it is a little too reminiscent of incipient European fascism in the 20s and 30s. That's the thing with censors and the censorious impulse, all too easily they boil up something broadly repressive and, ultimately, violent. I can't imagine that most Republicans will sanction this sort of thing. But we shall see. M2

To: Kenya AA who wrote (22)	11/26/2000 3:18:09 PM
From: swisstrader	Respond to of 84

"Since TLC has already served himself up on this thread, I don’t consider it a personal fowl to use him as an example. This is mostly tongue in cheek, but he reads like the stereotypical rejected candidate for the local PD training program." Best post of the week, especially the personal "fowl" bit...if someone were to actually look after the number of TOU violations from TLC, ranging from foul language ("Mao, blow me, I don't give a rat's @ss....") to posting more than 20 times in a 6 hr period, I would guess that he's now looking in a mirror and reporting himself to the SI police....usually, censors and narcs are folks who had some major league unlawful transgressions in the past and look to offset the guilt by finding fault with other's wrongdoings, however minor. In my college days, we had a guy who was dealing heavy drugs in the school report a guy who sold one bag of weed to a friend to the police...he was either a) looking to knock out potential competition or b) looking to offset his own guilt and wrong doings using this other individual...in either case, the detectives phone was ringing off the wall when folks figured out who reported the lesser dealer and they picked up the r@t's ass narc dealer 48 hrs later.