I made a coherent point, it’s just one you disagree with, and that’s fine, but don’t play dumb about who “they” are or what “it” is or some other bullshit eleven to thirteen responses into a comment thread.
blue-haired_lawyer
blue-haired_lawyer
Huh, ah well, I’m sorry you couldn’t follow.
Of course it’s predicated on a particular view of free expression. They are saying that they find something offensive, and because they are outraged it should go away.
So people who would deplatform or censor aren’t making any fundamental statement on how they view free expression?
Hey, I missed your reply last night because I was out and only noticed it now in the notifications. I’d say that both sides (which is kind of silly to say, because we aren’t talking monoliths here, more a continuum) predicate their criticism on contradictory views on free expression, so validity is a strange way of…
Did they find the pee tape? It’d fit with this absurdity.
They do have the power to do it directly, they just haven’t done it since MacCracken was tried on the Senate floor and imprisoned for 10 days in 1934.
Now I’m the one not following, are we talking criticism or heckling, and are you trying to equate some pretty well reasoned arguments on free expression with what Daniel Tosh did like a decade ago?
I gotta tell you, I’m not seeing the disconnect. There’s no tiptoeing. You have a right to take offense and express it in a way that seeks to censor or silence, and they have a right to label that expression outrage culture or cancel culture or whatever else and criticize or dismiss it. Remember, this all started…
If this was just discussion among some, voicing and arguing over issues and criticism, it would be one thing, but it would be disingenuous or naive to not recognize that critique easily devolves into proscriptive outrage fueled by social media and journalists looking to generate further outrage and traffic, all…
You shouldn’t silence your outrage, but then also don’t act surprised, or petulant, or self-righteously complain about what you perceive a public figure thinks they’re entitled to when they use their platform to criticize your outrage and get a sizable audience to agree with them. If you want to treat your outrage as…
Isn’t there a difference between disliking something and actively trying to stop it? In the Chappelle and Seinfeld context isn’t that what cancel culture is, really? Going from I don’t like this thing therefore I’m not going to participate in it or consume it, to I don’t like this thing therefore it shouldn’t exist…
Of course it was fair game. Why are people acting as if this line of attack on Biden won’t be around in the general and won’t affect potential voters? And if he can’t defend himself against criticism from members of his own party, why pretend he could effectively do so from Republicans?
Yes, and it’s worth reading that case and subsequent cases because it clearly spells out why terrestrial/broadcast radio and television were differentiated from, say, newspapers at that time.
The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast licensees, not cable, so it wouldn’t have applied to Fox News to begin with.
Yeah, but then you’d be subjected to its shitty foreign policy.
I don’t recall complaints over government overreach being that noticeable around the tobacco industry lawsuits, even smoking in public places hasn’t gotten effective pushback. Like, people joked about it and complained, but I don’t recall it having serious opposition. Maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention at the…
Cue the start of Republican whinging on debt if and when they lose the Senate and Presidency.
No, Mass uses assisted appointment for judges, a nomination commission suggests the name to the governor, the governor nominates, the Governor’s Council, which is a body of eight elected individuals serving two year terms, then appoints them. Judges serve until they are 70.