Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Truth and Myth
Those who “feel” they are being censored in the United States need to look a little outside themselves. Via the BBC
The first Russian film based on a novel by the Soviet-era dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn has been shown on Russian state television.
The First Circle (V Kruge Pervom) was written by the Nobel Prize winner more than 50 years ago.
The 10-part TV film depicts the terror of the regime of former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, describing the Soviet Union as a huge prison camp.
Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia in 1994 after spending 20 years in exile.
Solzhenitsyn can tell all those crying wolf here in America what censorship and government oppression are truly about. That is, if they’d listen.
UPDATE More real modern day censorship can be found here.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
So censorship doesn’t exsist unless there is a gulag or Siberia? Granted censorship is nowhere near as bad as in Soviet Russia or Religious Fundamentalist societies, but in America we have higher standards for freedom of speech (probably the highest in the world), so speaking out against the minor infractions help make the major infractions less possible.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:34 am
Again, what are those infractions?
January 30th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Here is one example.
And here is a group dedicated to punishing shows for not pushing a “Christian” agenda. PTC
And this from the CATO website…
“Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) suggested that Congress needs to create a “code of conduct” for television that encompasses cable and satellite TV.”
January 30th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Sean, you cited content concerns based on appropriateness for a particular age of viewer. Then you cite a private group, which is entirely irrelevant. Then you cite the acts of a Congressman (who I personally do not agree with - that’s what parents are for), but who is also pushing for content control based on appropriateness, not on critique of the United States government.
You did not cite one example of any danger to anyone criticizing the government. Morality standards might be silly, but they are not “censorship” in any meaningful sense. I’m referring to those who claim Bush has taken away the right to free speech (usually done while protesting, ironically enough). There is not an ounce of support for that crazy assertion.
N
January 30th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Sorry, when I think of censorship I automatically think of the Religious right’s war on TV freedom.
here are some more relevant examples
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10969-2005Mar29.html
http://www.aclu.org//freespeech/protest/11358prs20021101.html
http://www.aclu-wv.org/newsroom/WVnewsletter_fall04.pdf
These are a few examples, but in general, the requirement that people who ask questions of the President (while certainly not a violation of the law) be supporters of the President and carefully screened is opposite of what the founders intended in trying to keep the President from being an elected King.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Sean,
Okay - the first one was a political staffer, not the secret service. I didn’t like it either, but that is not emblematic of a policy, but a stupid political operative.
The second one is against local officials, and the allegations have not been proven (unless you have a link to the resolution of the suit after 2002).
The third one was also local officials, claiming they were acting under directions of the Secret Service. There was no confirmation of whether they were or not.
The problem with all of these incidents is that these people are angry with not being able to get as close to the President as possible to express their discontent an disagreement. No one has such a right. We all have the right to free speech, but not necessarily a right to the best speech. I would be much more interested in examples of columnists, television personalities, and the like being arrested, detained, etc. I just have not seen any evidence of that happening.
N
January 30th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
I love how the defense of current American policy in so many areas has devolved to “We’re better than Stalin/Hitler”. Very comforting.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Your right Nathan, that doesn’t happen in America because civil liberties advocates fight the government (or government officials) on the small infractions (such as public protest) so that they don’t have to fight them on the bigger stuff like arresting newspaper columnists (although Lincoln did that, so there are examples in the past) for saying things the administration doesn’t want the public to hear. I suppose the argument works more if you think there is a slippery slope that once the federal executive gains ground, he will not cede that ground and instead charge further up the hill.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I get incensed when I hear people complaining about no longer having the right to free speech. Anyone can speak out against the government, and short of threatening the President directly, the Supreme Court says just about anything goes. As Nathan has already pointed out, just because someone doesn’t get the airtime or fails to draw the attention of the media, or the White House, doesn’t mean their freedom of speech is being infringed upon.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Sean,
The American experience in balancing Freedom of Speech with the needs of national security is one of occassional violations followed by a return to broader civil liberties.
Lincoln, Wilson and FDR all seriously abridged civil liberties but once the crisis passed, the abridgements ended. Our political system has the Virtue of decentralizing power within parties so that no one ever builds a political legacy that gets transferred to a new generation.
If you want to look at a serious threat to civil liberties, look at how members of the American Left betrayed our nation to assist the Soviet Union from the 30s through the 50s. Nothing is as dangerous to the rule of law as when the most priviledged members of that society decide to betray it. The treason of members of the Left sis more to harm civil liberties than Joe McCarthy ever did.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:16 am
Hrmm, although I am sure there are a handful of examples of Soviet sympathizers/spies (just as there are Israli sympathizers and spies in the gov’t today), I don’t quite see how that it is a threat to civil liberties. Perhaps a threat to national security, but not civil liberties.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:40 am
I won’t speak entirely for Mark (or at all), but I believe the presence of real national security threats within the government create a need and constitutionally rational basis for more privacy invasion in order to counteract the threat. In that way, national security risks (especially internal ones), affect civil liberties.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:22 am
Well I support fully the right of the government to spy on Americans with jobs that pertain to national security, that is pretty much a given, its the spying on all or random citizens w/out due process that worries me if there is no check against the executives authority to carry out such activities.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
If you want to talk censorship, how about the clauses in McCain/Feingold regulating POLITICAL SPEECH sixty days before an election.
There is even a danger that if your WEBSITE takes in more than 5000 dollars (yes, I know, highly unlikely) then a blogger might be held to be breaking it.
Think about that, McCain-Feingold being used to threaten Powerline, or Daily Kos.
That, folks, is censorship.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Sean,
I am not happy with this Administration’s tendency to act unilaterally at times. However, I do appreciate that this issue (the wiretaps etc) is not one where ‘random’ citizens are targeted. The criteria may be too broad for some people but it is certainly ‘random.’
Nathan does a good job of channeling me. I would add that it was the fact that so many of the numerous Soviet spies and their apologists represented the ‘Best and Brightest’ of the nation and that they did it for reasons of ideology that inserted paranoia into American political life in a permanent way.
The Communist spies of that era ensured that Americans could never feel secure from traitors in our midst. Alger Hiss is far more truly the father of President Bush’s efforts on domestic spying than Richard Nixon.
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:28 pm
debt solution
ditch pinion Hillcrest basting Cenozoic evaluation priest,fretfully reconsider debt http://www.debt-consolidation-opportunities.com/