Whether you’re in media, or just a media consumer, you need to read this. It may save you from saying very stupid things – How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies
It’s easy to spot overt calls for censorship from the commentariat. Those have become more common in the wake of both tumultuous events (like the violence questionably attributed to the “Innocence of Muslims” video, or Pamela Geller’s “Draw Muhammad” contest) and mundane ones (like fraternity brothers recorded indulging in racist chants).
But it’s harder to detect the subtle pro-censorship assumptions and rhetorical devices that permeate media coverage of free speech controversies. In discussing our First Amendment rights, the media routinely begs the question — it adopts stock phrases and concepts that presume that censorship is desirable or constitutional, and then tries to pass the result off as neutral analysis. This promotes civic ignorance and empowers deliberate censors.
Fortunately, this ain’t rocket science. Americans can train themselves to detect and question the media’s pro-censorship tropes. I’ve collected some of the most pervasive and familiar ones. This post is designed as a resource, and I’ll add to it as people point out more examples and more tropes.
When you see the media using these tropes, ask yourself: what normative message is the author advancing, and does it have any basis in law?
Some school districts wont allow the kids to do the National Antheme becuase school wanks said it might offend forgeirn students as part of the World Community well if the foergn students are offended then who gives a darn they come here to se america not to force us to change our nation to meet their needs i say quit forcing teachers and such to join the NEA or some union and Home Schooling which the leftists NEA opposes is whats needed
Been thinking ‘bout this stuff recently.
What is troubling in today’s communications is that, while people can and do comment, criticise and extoll, here on SDA, which by the way is the one place for unlimited free speech* quite possibly in the whole damn world, and perhaps on few other blogs.
It is not enough for the wide population to know other ideas than those from the mass media cartels.
You absolutely cannot write a letter to the editor with many (a loose term) views expressed by SDA commentators and get it published.
For an example, there is a controversy in Edmonton about a boy in catholic school that think he is a girl or at least his mother thinks that he should think that he is a girl.
The brief story is that the school set up a washroom for him to go to. His mother insists that he should be allowed to go to the girl’s washroom. Of course SGW are on it as we speak.
There is this guy Taylor on the afternoon talk in Calgary. Taylor definitely lost it when somebody opposed to his support for the preference of the boy’s mother. He shut the caller out. End of story.
*The blog is self-correcting, you can get seriously clobbered if somebody does not like what you have to say. You can defend your story nevertheless. And be criticized again.
That would be SJW.
Free speech is only for the holy order of politically corrected scribes, the plebs and little people cannot be trusted with either the language or the free use of it.
Of course you could not convince these fickle defenders of the 1st amendment that the 2nd amendment is the guarantee of the 1st amendment – not even after a 1000 Charlie Hebdos
A recent USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted June 23-25, finds that a majority of Americans support a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and state governments to make it illegal to burn the Americans flag, though support is not overwhelming. Public support is lower for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit burning or desecrating the flag outright. Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to support an amendment banning flag burning.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/23524/public-support-constitutional-amendment-flag-burning.aspx
No. 5, “balancing”, is a favourite red herring eagerly snapped up by the Supreme Court of Canada and others who pontificate about rights in this country, frequently wrongly. As I’ve stated here often enough, the issue is not about balance, it’s about which right takes priority in which circumstances.
No. 6, “this isn’t”, is a favourite of left-wing columnists.
No. 9, “the law is always changing”, is the infamous “living tree”.
No. 2, “shouting fire in a crowded theatre”, is a form of fraud so of course it’s not protected as free speech.