Free Speech Disappearing In Face Of PC

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
The following looks simple, but if you've been reading the news you'll know that these articles are more than worrisome. Links to both at site:

http://instapundit.com/archives/030949.php
June 19, 2006

THE D.C. EXAMINER says goodbye to Freedom of Speech.

Apparently, it's in short supply even at the ACLU these days.
posted at 07:22 AM by Glenn Reynolds
 
"Newspeak". "Doublethink". The "memory-hole". "He who controls the past, controls the future". The world is without excuse, for George Orwell's "1984" plainly and transparently laid out the template for this tyranny fifty-seven years ago. How blind can we be?
 
musicman said:
"Newspeak". "Doublethink". The "memory-hole". "He who controls the past, controls the future". The world is without excuse, for George Orwell's "1984" plainly and transparently laid out the template for this tyranny fifty-seven years ago. How blind can we be?

Ya think the ACLU has got somebody getting pretty close to where they "live"?
We can only hope !
 
dilloduck said:
Ya think the ACLU has got somebody getting pretty close to where they "live"?
We can only hope !

Liberals who stray from strict orthodoxy soon learn that there is a distinct victimological pecking order in the PC religion. Tammy Bruce found out about it when, as head of the L.A. chapter of NOW, she attempted to highlight the spousal abuse issue - in light of the O.J. verdict - and was promptly told to STFU. She is now one of my favorite authors/columnists. There's nothing sweeter than the sound of scales falling from the eyes of a Former Socialist Dupe. We might have some new FSD's in the making here!
 
Neither Glenn Reynolds nor the D.C. Examiner will explain what's really going on: a race war in which white men who think clearly are the biggest threat to be neutralized. Everything else flows from that, resulting in the pecking order musicman describes. White women rank below black men.

The governor is worthless coward. Typical of today's Republicans.
 
William Joyce said:
Neither Glenn Reynolds nor the D.C. Examiner will explain what's really going on: a race war in which white men who think clearly are the biggest threat to be neutralized. Everything else flows from that, resulting in the pecking order musicman describes. White women rank below black men.

The governor is worthless coward. Typical of today's Republicans.

I think your looking too narrow. The objective is to make everyone dumber and more maleable. The more minds that are full of mush, the easier they are to brainwash. The PCification is merely a way to empower stupid people to speak up and silence smart people. The more stupid people band together to silence the smart people, the easier it is again to control the stupid ones.

Creating stupider people is the goal. Not just making whites love blacks.
 
insein said:
I think your looking too narrow. The objective is to make everyone dumber and more maleable. The more minds that are full of mush, the easier they are to brainwash. The PCification is merely a way to empower stupid people to speak up and silence smart people. The more stupid people band together to silence the smart people, the easier it is again to control the stupid ones.

Creating stupider people is the goal. Not just making whites love blacks.

I agree with you about his being too narrowly focussed.

PC masters control a lot more than just racial issues

PC masters control gay issues (I agree the Republican governor cowardly bowed to the PC masters)

PC masters control multicultural issues including immigration issues.

PC masters control abortion issues including parental issues, euthanasia, etc.

PC masters control media issues such as the press, film, TV, art, pornography, education, etc.

PC masters control religious issues

PC=Policing Commie :fu2: The goal of the radical Left is for the STATE to rule completely, therefore they must tear apart our culture first with their PCness.
 
William Joyce said:
Neither Glenn Reynolds nor the D.C. Examiner will explain what's really going on: a race war in which white men who think clearly are the biggest threat to be neutralized. Everything else flows from that, resulting in the pecking order musicman describes. White women rank below black men.

The governor is worthless coward. Typical of today's Republicans.
Well write them about that. In this case it was on a Catholic with a differing point of view than the governor regarding gays. Now he was in a position of serving at the pleasure of, so it's only the principle, not law.

The other on the ACLU, that's trickier:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/us/19aclu.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

A.C.L.U. Warned on Plan to Limit Members' Speech
By STEPHANIE STROM

A lawyer in the New York state attorney general's office informally warned the American Civil Liberties Union that his office had concerns about proposed standards that would limit the group's board members from speaking publicly about policies and internal operations, according to three board members.

The executive committee of the A.C.L.U. board was told about the warning on Friday, the day before the board met in New York for its quarterly meeting. Board members, who discussed the proposals on Saturday but took no action, had no knowledge of the warning and the meeting ended on Sunday without the executive committee revealing it.

"What if we had voted to approve the proposals?" said Wendy Kaminer, a board member who has criticized the proposals and other actions taken by the board and the A.C.L.U. leadership over the last couple of years. "We had a need and a right to know that if we passed them, we might get into trouble with the attorney general's office."

Nadine Strossen, the board president, confirmed in an e-mail message that "someone" in the attorney general's office had called in his personal capacity to tell the A.C.L.U. of concern about the issue and that the executive committee had discussed it.

"It determined that these details were not germane to the board's general discussion of the issues raised" in the report on the rights and responsibilities of board members that contained the controversial proposals, she wrote.

Ms. Kaminer, who is leaving the board, and two other board members who were granted anonymity because they were afraid to speak publicly given the pending proposals, said an executive committee member had told them that Gerald Rosenberg, the assistant attorney general in charge of the New York State charities bureau, recently had spoken with Antonia Grumbach, a lawyer for the A.C.L.U., and told her the proposals might raise issues for his office if they were adopted.

In a telephone interview from France, Mr. Rosenberg declined to say whether he had spoken with Ms. Grumbach. "There is no pending investigation of the A.C.L.U. by my office at this time," he said.

Speaking in general terms, Mr. Rosenberg said he would have concerns if any nonprofit organization limited its board members' ability to speak publicly about policies. "If a public charity did adopt as a bylaw or a binding resolution that barred its directors from discussing public policy outside the boardroom, it might well be of concern to us," he said.

The proposals are in a report on the rights and responsibilities of board members that includes a description of the bylaws pertinent to directors and proposals that address conflicts of interest. But the board discussion on Saturday was primarily on the provisions related to board members' ability to speak publicly about the A.C.L.U.

I guess that's why I usually chase down all the links. :coffee3:
 
OMFG! Talk about blowing something out of proportion. It's difficult to justify having someone representing your business who advocates discrimination against an entire segment of the population. Would you be making this same argument if the guy had said" I think Christians are stupid sheep." No. How about if he had said "Black people are inferior to white people" Probably not. Perhaps if he had said"All cripples should be locked up and kept out of decent society"? No, you wouldn't defend that either. Attempting to compare that to someone calling another person's views "ancient and archaic" is ludicrous.

As for the ACLU part of this, I can't honestly tell what they are talking about. If the proposed by-law was about restricting what members can say about internal operations (i.e. personnel issues, books, business methods) than I have no problem with that. That's how businesses do business. Also, the ACLU is not considered a "charity".

acludem
 
acludem said:
OMFG! Talk about blowing something out of proportion. It's difficult to justify having someone representing your business who advocates discrimination against an entire segment of the population. Would you be making this same argument if the guy had said" I think Christians are stupid sheep." No. How about if he had said "Black people are inferior to white people" Probably not. Perhaps if he had said"All cripples should be locked up and kept out of decent society"? No, you wouldn't defend that either. Attempting to compare that to someone calling another person's views "ancient and archaic" is ludicrous.

As for the ACLU part of this, I can't honestly tell what they are talking about. If the proposed by-law was about restricting what members can say about internal operations (i.e. personnel issues, books, business methods) than I have no problem with that. That's how businesses do business. Also, the ACLU is not considered a "charity".

acludem

The fact of the matter is, that homosexuality IS filthy and deviant behavior. But for just voicing that FACT, a person lost his job. Why? Because the rotten godless left and the PC police they bow to don't want to hear the truth. They want... DEMAND, that EVERYONE be pistol whipped into submission. If you disagree with them, you better keep your damn mouth shut about it. Yes, that's the "tolerance" of the left. Tolerant so long as you tuck your tail in between your legs and lick their boots. Well fuck that. You "tolerant" left lunatics are the biggest sons a bitchin' hypocrites this earth has ever seen. What I'm truely thankful for is places like this, where when nutjob liberal crack pots like yourself spew your "tolerance", we can tell "YOU" to shut the hell up. We're not having it. You talk a line of shit from here to eternity.
 
acludem said:
OMFG! Talk about blowing something out of proportion. It's difficult to justify having someone representing your business who advocates discrimination against an entire segment of the population.

An entire segment like - say - Christians?

acludem said:
Would you be making this same argument if the guy had said" I think Christians are stupid sheep."

But advocacy for the legitimization of homosexuality is directly at odds with Christianity. Why does the homosexual advocate enjoy free speech, but the Christian doesn't?

acludem said:
How about if he had said "Black people are inferior to white people" Probably not. Perhaps if he had said"All cripples should be locked up and kept out of decent society"? No, you wouldn't defend that either. Attempting to compare that to someone calling another person's views "ancient and archaic" is ludicrous.

So, why are you doing it? Skin color and physical disability are not choices, acludem. And, no one needs to conduct any studies in order to let this man know he's black, or that man know he's crippled. They know what they are.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is what a person DOES. And, although much time and treasure have been spent in loaded, desperate attempts to make it appear otherwise, there is not - and never will be - any proof that it is anything but a choice.
 
musicman said:
An entire segment like - say - Christians?



But advocacy for the legitimization of homosexuality is directly at odds with Christianity. Why does the homosexual advocate enjoy free speech, but the Christian doesn't?



So, why are you doing it? Skin color and physical disability are not choices, acludem. And, no one needs to conduct any studies in order to let this man know he's black, or that man know he's crippled. They know what they are.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is what a person DOES. And, although much time and treasure have been spent in loaded, desperate attempts to make it appear otherwise, there is not - and never will be - any proof that it is anything but a choice.

There's a huge difference between pandering to a religion's group mores and condoning discrimination against individuals. We have laws against that here. And the reason Christian religious values get short shrift in the workplace and in society in general is because we don't discriminate, at least not legally, in this country.

How do laws prohibiting gays from being discriminated against keep Christians from practicing their religion? That's really what it comes down to, mm.

And there's a lot of proof that one is born homosexual or that it is at least some combination of nature vs nurture.

Christianity is a choice, though. :)
 
jillian said:
There's a huge difference between pandering to a religion's group mores and condoning discrimination against individuals. We have laws against that here. And the reason Christian religious values get short shrift in the workplace and in society in general is because we don't discriminate, at least not legally, in this country.

We most certainly do. The legitimization of homosexuality is at direct odds with Christianity. The homosexual advocate gets to spread his gospel. The Christian loses his job.

jillian said:
How do laws prohibiting gays from being discriminated against keep Christians from practicing their religion? That's really what it comes down to, mm.

Forget "practicing their religion". How about "exercising their right of free speech"? Is that what a discrimination law does - prevent population segment A (who earn that designation solely on the behavioral choices they make - choices which fly directly in the face of segment B's beliefs) from ever hearing a discouraging word? Even to the point of segment B members' rights being trampled? Isn't segment A then receiving preferential treatment? Isn't its version of the truth being promoted to the exclusion of segment B's beliefs?

jillian said:
And there's a lot of proof that one is born homosexual or that it is at least some combination of nature vs nurture.

No, there isn't. There's a lot of frantic activity, signifying nothing. The LeVay study is my favorite; a laugh a minute.

jillian said:
Christianity is a choice, though. :)

It most certainly is!:thup:
 
Pale Rider said:
The fact of the matter is, that homosexuality IS filthy and deviant behavior. But for just voicing that FACT, a person lost his job. Why? Because the rotten godless left and the PC police they bow to don't want to hear the truth. They want... DEMAND, that EVERYONE be pistol whipped into submission. If you disagree with them, you better keep your damn mouth shut about it. Yes, that's the "tolerance" of the left. Tolerant so long as you tuck your tail in between your legs and lick their boots. Well fuck that. You "tolerant" left lunatics are the biggest sons a bitchin' hypocrites this earth has ever seen. What I'm truely thankful for is places like this, where when nutjob liberal crack pots like yourself spew your "tolerance", we can tell "YOU" to shut the hell up. We're not having it. You talk a line of shit from here to eternity.

Damn, Pale, wish I had your way with words. Awesome. :finger3:


Sorry couldn't rep ya.
 

Forum List

Back
Top