Stung by anti-war criticism, Hall cancels `Bull Durham' festivities

[Docta]

such crap!

___


Stung by anti-war criticism, Hall cancels `Bull Durham' festivities

By BEN WALKER, AP Baseball Writer
April 10, 2003
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Hall of Fame president, a former official in the Reagan administration, canceled a 15th anniversary celebration of ``Bull Durham'' because of anti-war criticism by co-stars Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.

Dale Petroskey sent a letter to Robbins and Sarandon this week, telling them the festivities April 26-27 at Cooperstown, N.Y., had been called off.

Recent comments by the actors ``ultimately could put our troops in even more danger,'' said Petroskey, a former White House assistant press secretary under President Reagan.

Reached Wednesday night, Robbins said he was ``dismayed'' by the decision. He responded with a letter he planned to send to Petroskey, telling him: ``You belong with the cowards and ideologues in a hall of infamy and shame.''

The weekend affair, planned months ago, also was to feature ``Bull Durham'' actor Robert Wuhl and Ron Shelton, who wrote and directed the 1988 film.

Instead of commemorating the movie, the Hall canceled the celebration in a letter Tuesday sent to the scheduled participants.

``In a free country such as ours, every American has the right to his or her own opinions, and to express them. Public figures, such as you, have platforms much larger than the average American's, which provides you an extraordinary opportunity to have your views heard -- and an equally large obligation to act and speak responsibly,'' Petroskey wrote.

``We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important -- and sensitive -- time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict.''

Robbins and Sarandon, his longtime partner, have been active in peace rallies to protest the war in Iraq.

In his letter, Robbins said he'd been looking forward to ``a weekend away from politics and war.'' He said he remained ``skeptical'' of the war plans and told Petroskey he did not realize baseball was ``a Republican sport.''

``I am sorry that you have chosen to use baseball and your position at the Hall of Fame to make a political statement,'' Robbins wrote. ``I know there are many baseball fans that disagree with you, and even more that will react with disgust to realize baseball is being politicized.

``To suggest that my criticism of the president put the troops in danger is absurd. ... I wish you had, in your letter, saved me the rhetoric and talked honestly about your ties to the Bush and Reagan administrations.

``You invoke patriotism and use words like 'freedom' in an attempt to intimidate and bully. In doing so, you dishonor the words 'patriotism' and 'freedom' and dishonor the men and women who have fought wars to keep this nation a place where one can freely express their opinions without fear of reprisal or punishment.''

Robbins signed his letter with a reference to an old World Series champion.

``Long live democracy, free speech and the '69 Mets -- all improbable, glorious miracles that I have always believed in,'' he wrote.

[Duemellon]

So, get in line folks, because the amount of bitterness towards anti-Iraq War people is about to get turned up to the highest degree.

After all, the defeat of Saddam will be equated with the defeat of the naysayers.

Wasn't even the same war, but they'll be linked together.

[tobedawg]

Sad but true.. Now the Bush Administration can milk the 9/11 blank check for every cent because of the "victory" in Iraq.

As for the "Bull Durham" thing. It's a sign of the times. If you love Murder, Death, Bombing, and Destruction, It's a Great Time to be An American!!

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by tobedawg
the "victory" in Iraq.

capital "V" beyotch....b/c there's no question about it..... :)

"Coach: Excuse me... what the hell's goin' on out here?

Crash: Well, Nukes scared, 'cause his eyelids are jammed and his old man's here. We need a live... is it a live rooster?.... we need a live rooster to take the curse off Jose's glove, and nobody seems to know what to get Millie or Jimmy for their wedding present. That about right? We're dealing with a lot of shit.

Coach: Well, ah... candlesticks always make a nice gift...and maybe you could find out where she's registered... maybe a place setting, or a silverwear patten. OK? Let's get two."

[Docta]

Nuke: "Give me the glove, I'll take the curse off the f'n glove."

[Docta]

so, will they not let me get into great american ballpark sunday because of my anti-war stance too? like Petroskey, Linder is good buds with this damned administration.

[BigSugar]

Docta....sorry....on your way in, you have to take a blood oath to support the war AND all of the Republican platform....if you mention the secret code phrase "Blue fish likes Andicot Steel", then you get a free tiny batting helmet filled with delicious sofserve icecream! topped off with a little american flag!

[DudeMan]

More backlash, as reported in Page 6:


April 10, 2003 -- The high cost of Bush-bashing

JANEANE Garofalo's relentless bashing of President Bush might have doomed her new ABC sitcom.

Garofalo is set to play a producer of a TV newsmagazine on "Slice O'Life." But ABC has been deluged with calls and e-mails from patriotic types threatening to boycott the network and its advertisers if the sitcom gets on the schedule, reports MSNBC.com's Jeannette Walls.

"We do not wish to see the faces of liberal Hollywood, particularly those that provided aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein," one protestor, Jon Alvarez, e-mailed ABC. "We will stand up and fight for our right to request their exclusion from shows and sponsors that seek our attention."

ABC reps had no comment.

The war "is a manufactured conflict for the sake of geopolitical dominance," Garofalo declared to the Washington Post in January, in one of her many outbursts against the president. "There is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. You never even get that idea floated in the mainstream media. If you bring it up, they hate the messenger. You've ruined everyone's good time.

"I won't stick my head in the sand and have history roll right over me," she declared. "I refuse to allow my government and the mainstream media to bully me into accepting a war that is immoral and illegal. If it means people make fun of me or think I'm a jerk, or I lose a job here and there, that means nothing to me."

Meanwhile, an ad the Dixie Chicks shot for Lipton Brisk iced tea might never air. The commercial was filmed before lead singer Natalie Maines told a concert crowd last month they were ashamed that Bush hails from their home state of Texas.

Radio stations around the country banned the Dixie Chicks' music and their new album suffered a 40 percent decline in sales.

Chicago-based ad agency Leo Burnett created the Lipton commercial which - unbeknownst to Lipton or the Dixie Chicks, sources say - was shot at the former Spahn Movie Ranch outside L.A., the infamous Manson family hangout.

Brisk is a joint venture between Pepsi and Unilever. Execs at both corporations fear a Dixie Chicks endorsement might actually hurt sales and are debating whether to air the spot. A Pepsi rep referred to it as a "Unilever situation" and referred calls to their rep, who could not be reached.

[Danosaur]

Man I got pissed about protestors laying down on city streets while others were trying to get home from work, abuse of power to stop our freedom of movement. But, this is much worse. When will we ever learn that we can disagree on a slue of things, it doesn't mean Janeane Garofalo isn't one of the best damn, most funny actors of our day. Damn. God damn assholes.

[Docta]

damn this is some scary stuff. but a free tiny batting helmet filled with delicious sofserve icecream topped off with a little american flag sounds just delightful.

[tobedawg]

Nice to know Censorship is alive and well in America!!!

Anybody heard about the Patriot Act II yet??

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by tobedawg
Nice to know Censorship is alive and well in America!!!

Anybody heard about the Patriot Act II yet?? Don't let IPFS try to add the subtitle. It'll get confusing having GW2: Electric Boogalo & PA2: Electric Boogalo.

[IPrayForSound]

Nonono...it's Patriot Act II: the New Batch

[tobedawg]

The Patriot Act Strikes Back!

[Darth Sandmich!]

Originally posted by tobedawg
Nice to know Censorship is alive and well in America!!! Are you saying I am obligated to pay for products from idiots? Are you saying their should be a law that I be forced to be around a friggin sock o' rocks like Tim Robbins? Should you be forced to be around me for the very reason that you may find me unlikeable?

Screw them and the Dixie Checks. If they want to open their fat mouths and show off how stupid they are, they should be grown up enough to deal with the consequences.

[BigSugar]

LOL! it's a bitch when the freedom of speech "shoe" is on the other foot, huh! ummm....last i looked, in a capitalist society if a company feels they are going to harm themselves by putting something into the public domain, then they have the right NOT to put it out there to keep from the harm.....

if ABC thinks they're going to piss off a lot of potential viewers, it's bye bye Ms. Garafolo....happens all the time.....claiming it's censorship is just dumb....it's life.

besides, she ain't all that damn funny....and more and more, i just find her to be a cranky, whiny bitch......

[tobedawg]

Are you saying I am obligated to pay for products from idiots? Are you saying their should be a law that I be forced to be around a friggin sock o' rocks like Tim Robbins? Should you be forced to be around me for the very reason that you may find me unlikeable?


No.. I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that these groups that try to censor or blacklist people are spending alot of time and energy into stepping on other people's rights to have an opinion.

Choosing not to buy someone's products or choosing not to see someone's movies is one thing, but putting effort into "Blacklisting" and boycotting musicians and celebs because you disagree with what they have to say is another.

And I feel the same way about this regardless of whether it comes from the "right" or "left".

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by tobedawg
No.. I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that these groups that try to censor or blacklist people are spending alot of time and energy into stepping on other people's rights to have an opinion.

Choosing not to buy someone's products or choosing not to see someone's movies is one thing, but putting effort into "Blacklisting" and boycotting musicians and celebs because you disagree with what they have to say is another.

And I feel the same way about this regardless of whether it comes from the "right" or "left".

The same thing happened when Dr. Laura Schlesinger was syndicated. Stations that were goimg to carry her show were besieged by gay-rights activists demanding that the station not pick up the show. The activists further threatened to boycott any and all advertisers. In the end, many stations capitulated and didn't carry Dr. Laura's show.

Of course, when this happened you were decrying the gay-rights activists for "stepping on other people's rights to have an opinion." Correct?

[tobedawg]

Actually I was.. And the same when GLAAD picketed against Eminem. I went out and bought the Eminem CD the next day (which I ended up giving away to some little kid on a skateboard, I dislike Eminem for his lack of musical originality and negative vibes not for his right to free speech).

I also don't feel right wing talk show host Michael Savage (the newest target of GLAAD) should be censored either. I disagree with the man's politics, but I think he's pretty funny to listen to.. I love listening to right-wing talk radio and laughing my ass off at some of the reactionary views the hosts and callers hold.

[Docta]

Originally posted by dcXhc

The same thing happened when Dr. Laura Schlesinger was syndicated. Stations that were goimg to carry her show were besieged by gay-rights activists demanding that the station not pick up the show. The activists further threatened to boycott any and all advertisers. In the end, many stations capitulated and didn't carry Dr. Laura's show.


there is a bit of a difference here. dr. laura's whole premise for her show was based on her rants against anthing she deems unacceptable. these others being blacklisted are in projects which have nothing to do with their political stance. tim robbins and susan surandon were going to the hall of fame to celebrate baseball and a wonderful movie, not to tell everyone that bush and his war sucks.

[Duemellon]

there is a bit of a difference here. dr. laura's whole premise for her show was based on her rants against anthing she deems unacceptable. these others being blacklisted are in projects which have nothing to do with their political stance.interesting point.

[Phreon]

So Susan, Tim and their ilk are suffering the consequences of their actions...who'da thunk it? Noone ever said that standing up for one's principles (misguided as they may be) guarantees immunity from consequences, whether they're just or not.


And yes, Dr. Laura is a moron,

Phreon

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Docta
there is a bit of a difference here. dr. laura's whole premise for her show was based on her rants against anthing she deems unacceptable. these others being blacklisted are in projects which have nothing to do with their political stance. tim robbins and susan surandon were going to the hall of fame to celebrate baseball and a wonderful movie, not to tell everyone that bush and his war sucks.

I've honestly never listened to Dr. Laura, so I'll take your word for it. But the difference is not that big. Certain private groups didn't like what Dr. Laura was saying so they took action to deny her a platform to say it. Certain private groups don't like what Sarandon and Robbins are saying so they denied them a platform to say it. Unfortunately, Sarandon and Robbins are inextricably linked to partisan politics and that would overshadow their presence at the HoF, even if they were there for the ostensible purpose of celebrating baseball.

One could make the argument that the HoF has a duty to keep the focus of the festivities on baseball and not politics. Alternatively, one could argue that they should be more open-minded and welcoming toward dissent, but I don't think their actions are even in the ballpark (ballpark -- get it?) of censorship.

[RichmondVA]

Like Docta said, Dr. Laura's show was on every week, and she made anti-gay comments on a regular basis. Also, the protests were from groups drawn out of the general public whereas the Hall of Fame made a decision on their own. Sarandon and Robbins were to take part in festivities for Bull Durham, a movie which has no political overtones and which, as far as I can tell is loved by both conservatives and liberals (but not by me).

Sarandon said she wasn't even scheduled to speak at the event. I think its perfectly proper to ask Sarandon and Robbins to keep the politics to themselves and let them know that the event is about baseball, not the war. But to summarily cancel the whole activity is ridiculous.

I agree that it is not censorship. The Hall of Fame can do what it wants. And It's not about feeling bad for Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. But baseball fans being snubbed because HOF's head honcho wants to play political games instead of focusing on baseball. That's pretty weak.

[Docta]

Originally posted by dcXhc


One could make the argument that the HoF has a duty to keep the focus of the festivities on baseball and not politics.

interestingly enough, his actions made the festivities completely about politics and not baseball.

[yoshomon]

There would have been no politics involved with the ceremony.

Give me a fucking break.

Now, if they had let them come, and then they did something about the war... then they would be idiots and would deserve backlash. However, I doubt that they would have. This was about baseball, not the war.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by Docta


interestingly enough, his actions made the festivities completely about politics and not baseball.

Absolutely true.

[Duemellon]

interestingly enough, even if they made attempts NOT to comment about the IF war, they would've been questioned incessantly. If they could have made the effort not to respond to those questions, and the media/fans could POSSIBLY overcome their preoccupation with it, then it would have no political connotactions whatsoever.

But you're asking a lot of people to be respectful of baseball and the celeb's capacity to have restrain their heartfelt decisions from being shared to the media who would definitely badger them.

too many ifs. I think they should've done it anyway b/c now the statement is too strong the OTHER way.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Docta
interestingly enough, his actions made the festivities completely about politics and not baseball.

Point taken. But I still don't think this is anywhere near what could legitimately be called censorship.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by dcXhc


Point taken. But I still don't think this is anywhere near what could legitimately be called censorship.

just curious...you've pointed to a number of recents acts as NOT being censorship and you and I had a long discussion jockeying this notion....remind me again....what is your definition of censorship?

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana


just curious...you've pointed to a number of recents acts as NOT being censorship and you and I had a long discussion jockeying this notion....remind me again....what is your definition of censorship?

Government suppression of free speech - emphasis on the government.

When a private organization (ABC, MLB) exercises their right to deny a platform to somebody of their choosing, it's not censorship. Garofalo, Sarandon, and Robbins are not being prohibited from speaking their minds. Certain private groups are just saying they don't want to help them do it.

http://www.ncac.org/index.html

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Government suppression of free speech - emphasis on the government.

What about when a government witholds funding or subsidies if a person/entity says something -- is that censorship? An example is the US instituting the so-called 'gag rule' that precludes funding international family-planning groups if they also provide abortion counseling. Just curious where you'd fall on this. (no no, dear god no, I'm not trying to start an abortion discussion -- just trying to figure out where censorship begins and public choice ends)

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by dcXhc


Government suppression of free speech - emphasis on the government.

When a private organization (ABC, MLB) exercises their right to deny a platform to somebody of their choosing, it's not censorship. Garofalo, Sarandon, and Robbins are not being prohibited from speaking their minds. Certain private groups are just saying they don't want to help them do it.


I think I addressed the problem with this definition before....but I will ask again:

What if the motivation for a private organization to silencing these individuals is political....soley based on their stand with or against the gov't? They are private orgs, yes....but they wield government standards to silence them. Is this not censorship?

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by DudeMan

What about when a government witholds funding or subsidies if a person/entity says something -- is that censorship? An example is the US instituting the so-called 'gag rule' that precludes funding international family-planning groups if they also provide abortion counseling. Just curious where you'd fall on this. (no no, dear god no, I'm not trying to start an abortion discussion -- just trying to figure out where censorship begins and public choice ends)
In that case, no one is stopped from saying anything. The government decided that they don't want to spend money to encourage a particular option. I'm not saying that I agree with the action or lack thereof, but it doesn't fit as censorship.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by Sovrana
What if the motivation for a private organization to silencing these individuals is political....soley based on their stand with or against the gov't? They are private orgs, yes....but they wield government standards to silence them. Is this not censorship?
Who was silenced again? Will Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon never be able to speak their minds again? Will Janeane never have the chance to perform before an audience? At worst, their careers may stagger for a bit. But who is to blame there? The companies who looked out for their own wallets? Or the people who can't stand dissent and refuse to support those performers?

[Sovrana]

If you are going to quote me, at least answer me.

Gawd!! I can't stand when people use my words just to "hear" themselves spout off! *sigh*

[IPrayForSound]

Okay, I'm sorry for not laying everything out explicitly for you. What I meant to say was "No one has been silenced, so no, no censorship".

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound

In that case, no one is stopped from saying anything. The government decided that they don't want to spend money to encourage a particular option. I'm not saying that I agree with the action or lack thereof, but it doesn't fit as censorship.
Yeah I agree with you on all counts -- I was just curious to see what y'all thought. Could be bad policy, but it's not censorship.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
I think I addressed the problem with this definition before....but I will ask again:

What if the motivation for a private organization to silencing these individuals is political....soley based on their stand with or against the gov't? They are private orgs, yes....but they wield government standards to silence them. Is this not censorship?

I've got a sitcom I want to put on TV -- It's called Aryan Brotherhood. It's about three white brothers from Idaho who go around in their pick-up truck, beating up blacks, Jews and gays. If ABC declines to air my sitcom, is that censorship?

Nobody has silenced Janeane Garofalo. She still has the right to say whatever she wants. She still has a right to make her sitcom. All the other networks (NBC, CBS, Fox, UPN, WB, HBO, MTV, Comedy Central, VH1, MTV, Oxygen, Discovery Channel, etc...) have the right to show her sitcom. ABC could change their tune and show her sitcom. Nobody has forbidden public distribution of her work. Nobody has censored her.

The motivation for cancelling her sitcom has more to do with $$ than politics. The average ABC viewer is probably like the average American -- feeling very "pro-American" right now. Janeane Garofalo has made it clear that she vehemently disagrees with what America is doing right now. As such, it's likely she will draw fewer viewers while drawing protests and boycotts.

I'm not saying that's "right" or that people aren't overreacting to misperceived anti-Americanism, but I am saying that ABC has no obligation to put on a show that will make less money and draw more flak than an alternative show from a less controversial source.

If ABC is wrong, and Garofalo would draw millions upon millions of viewers who admire her willingness to stick-it-to-the-man, then ABC is only hurting itself.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by dcXhc




Nobody has silenced Janeane Garofalo. She still has the right to say whatever she wants. She still has a right to make her sitcom. All the other networks (NBC, CBS, Fox, UPN, WB, HBO, MTV, Comedy Central, VH1, MTV, Oxygen, Discovery Channel, etc...) have the right to show her sitcom. ABC could change their tune and show her sitcom. Nobody has forbidden public distribution of her work. Nobody has censored her.

The motivation for cancelling her sitcom has more to do with $$ than politics. The average ABC viewer is probably like the average American -- feeling very "pro-American" right now. Janeane Garofalo has made it clear that she vehemently disagrees with what America is doing right now. As such, it's likely she will draw fewer viewers while drawing protests and boycotts.



okay...I'll concede to this....but permit me to nag on....


the Tim Robbins/Susan Sarandon case? This I would think is a much closer to the censorship definitionthat both you and I can agree on. The head of the Hall of Fame cancelled this celebration so that they wouldn't talk. He's admitted as much.

Do you agree then that this is censorship?

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
the Tim Robbins/Susan Sarandon case? This I would think is a much closer to the censorship definitionthat both you and I can agree on. The head of the Hall of Fame cancelled this celebration so that they wouldn't talk. He's admitted as much.

Do you agree then that this is censorship?

That was a more political decision than the Garofalo one, but I still don't think that it's censorship. Again, nobody has silenced Robbins and Sarandon. We are free to walk into any Blockbuster and pick up Bull Durham or Shawshank Redemption or Dead Man Walking.

Furthermore, the Hall of Fame has a right to free speech and a right to free association just like Sarandon and Robbins. If they choose to disassociate themselves from Sarandon and Robbins, they are exercising those rights. And just like Sarandon and Robbins are paying a price for their speech, perhaps the HoF will too. If people see it as a Republican-only institution, or feel that, like Sarandon, it unnecessarily politicizes events, people are free to disassociate themselves from the Hall.

Simply put, censorship comes down to whether or not anyone's right to free speech is curtailed. Sarandon's and Robbins' right to free speech has not been curtailed, even if some people choose not to facilitate it.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by dcXhc


Simply put, censorship comes down to whether or not anyone's right to free speech is curtailed. Sarandon's and Robbins' right to free speech has not been curtailed, even if some people choose not to facilitate it.

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you here. In this instance the two were silenced. Sure, one could go on to rent their movies....this particular movie in fact. And Sarandon is going to me in a made for tv movie next weekend. But they WERE silenced.


But I still think during this occassion they were silence...i.e. censored. The whole event, silenced....the writers of the film, hushed and thus no recognition of this artwork.


I can't help but to think that your definition for censorship makes it so censorship does not and cannot exist in any form as we are ultimately "free to express ourselves"(even if it means expressing a way to silence others!!) and free to search out the voices of these people.

This is the focus of out disagreement and I think there is no way to come to one....and probably no reason to....afterall we are free to express our views. :cool:

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by Sovrana
I think I addressed the problem with this definition before....but I will ask again:

What if the motivation for a private organization to silencing these individuals is political....soley based on their stand with or against the gov't? They are private orgs, yes....but they wield government standards to silence them. Is this not censorship?

I'll clarify this for you succinctly: Private Organization = never censorship which violates the constitution......censorship, yes, but perfecly legal and acceptable censorship.

Censorship only violates the constitution of the US when the govt. censors (and then, not in all situations...exceptions exist).

the political "speech" of a private organization or individual is entirely protected, just as much as the non-political speech. a corporation or private entity espousing political views which may also be held by the administration or those in govt. matters not a lick to whether it's permissable or impermissable censorship.

an example (and not even all that good, but everyone on here will relate better to it): when matt sledge or phil remove an objectionable post from this board, they're censoring a point of view of an individual. but if that person sued for "censorship", they'd be laughed out of court. woxy as a private organization reserves the right to control and censor these boards....the same way every other private organization has the right to control the "speech" that they issue forth to the public (be it actual speech, or literature, or visual images).

the founding fathers didn't regulate against all censorship; just govt. censorship.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you here. In this instance the two were silenced. Sure, one could go on to rent their movies....this particular movie in fact. And Sarandon is going to me in a made for tv movie next weekend. But they WERE silenced.

But I still think during this occassion they were silence...i.e. censored. The whole event, silenced....the writers of the film, hushed and thus no recognition of this artwork.

I can't help but to think that your definition for censorship makes it so censorship does not and cannot exist in any form as we are ultimately "free to express ourselves"(even if it means expressing a way to silence others!!) and free to search out the voices of these people.

This is the focus of out disagreement and I think there is no way to come to one....and probably no reason to....afterall we are free to express our views. :cool:

Look at the McCarthy era in Hollywood. Studios were ordered to purge all suspected communists and/or communist sympathizers from their employ. Anybody who was suspected was unable to work in their chosen field. Moreover, movies were strictly monitored to ensure no seditious content. That's censorship -- when the public dissemination of the ideas or works of a person are outlawed.

When some right-wing blowhard at the Hall of Fame decides that he doesn't want to arrange a special celebration of Bull Durham because two of the stars are vocal lefties, he is not outlawing the public dissemination of their ideas or their work. Has he politicized it? Sure. Has he abused his position for his own political ends? One could make a strong argument for that. But it doesn't come anywhere close to censorship.

I included a link to the National Coalition Against Censorship in one of my earlier posts. The types of cases they mention there are books being banned from library or school systems, museums threatened with action or loss of funding, etc... They are cases where public bodies with the power to legislate and regulate have taken action to outlaw the public dissemination of works deemed objectionable. That's censorship. www.ncac.org

The Hall of Fame not inviting Sarandon and Robbins to their tea party is not censorship -- as the Hall of Fame, unlike the county school board or state legislature, is under no obligation to ensure the dissemination of all points of view.

[yoshomon]

Surely you've all read the many left-communist critiques of liberal democracy. Arguments about 'rights' are pointless.

[Duemellon]

one point to be made is in this country many companies are becoming so powerful they directly dictate areas in society.

With that in mind, as we turn to private industries for our information, does that entity become as powerful as the government?

Well, if not AS powerful, do they become a second filter to what we see? If the government said "Italian Dressing is now called Liberation Dressing" but none of the privately owned entities reported it (I mean none), how would the vast majority know about it?

Nah, i'm not saying that scenerio has ever happened... but how would you know if it ever did?

So, perhaps the privately owned disseminaters of information have a greater capacity for censorship than you're considering?

[Darth Sandmich!]

I love this line...while political speech may be free, it is not free of consequences. Take unpopular stands--especially ill-informed, anti-American stands--and you risk making yourself unpopular.Amen

[IPrayForSound]

Ill-informed? Why, because you disagree? There were (and are) valid reasons for not wanting to go to war or support Bush in his endeavors. I don't agree with everything the two of 'em say, but they have made points.

Anti-American? Unless that quote isn't referring to the BHF/Robbins-Sarandon issue, I must have missed something.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound
Anti-American? Unless that quote isn't referring to the BHF/Robbins-Sarandon issue, I must have missed something.

The phrase anti-american implies that there is one unified concept of 'american'.

We are all anti-american in some sense... because surely we are against some concept of 'american'. Anarchists are 'american', republicans are 'american', the kkk are 'american'.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by yoshomon


The phrase anti-american implies that there is one unified concept of 'american'.

We are all anti-american in some sense... because surely we are against some concept of 'american'. Anarchists are 'american', republicans are 'american', the kkk are 'american'.


oh geez! :rolleyes: