Vigilant, Vociferous and Vexed

Just a Little Table Setting for our LISNews Censorship Vanguard.

"I strongly disagreed with both the creation and the publication [emphasis mine] of cartoons that were considered blasphemous to devout Muslims around the world because they depicted the Prophet. I thought it was a mistake"......"But do not do something that is blasphemous. And then give them a chance to say they regret, and to learn from you and learn with you. There may be a lot of things about my faith that you do not know."

("Remarks by Former President Clinton on Cartoon Issue During Press Availability with Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz" States News Service, 2/17/06)

Note: The former President's remarks have been available via Lexis-Nexis for four days. I'm confident AlterNet, if not ALA, will follow soon.

And then this from the Times (London) ; )

Speech by Angela Merkel, about the convening of an international conference in Berlin to investigate Islam.

"We propose the following to the Muslims: if you are not lying, allow a group of neutral, honest researchers to come to Mecca, and to talk to people, examine documents and let people know the findings of their research about the Muhammad myth. You have even prevented your own scholars from researching this issue. They are allowed to study anything except for the Muhammad myth. Are these not medieval methods?"

Comments

What's your point?

Did you have a point? You didn't make any that I could discern. You need to add context to your utterances if you want them to have content.

Milieu Mucking

Oh no, no point at all here Fang.

You just keep that noggin firmly planted in AlterNet's fertile soil and your hands under your arse.

Sadly, Vatican joins censorship bandwagon

Hi Tomeboy,If you're looking to see if someone will condemn Clinton on his anti free speech remarks, okay. I disagree with him. Since he's not in power, I don't keep much track of him these days.Sadly, the idea that mere speech can and should be prohibited is shared across the political and religous spectrum. Consider this statement from the vatican as reported by Zenit News Agency (Emphasis Mine):

In response to several requests on the Holy See's position vis-à-vis recent offensive representations of the religious sentiments of individuals and entire communities, the Vatican press office can state:1. The right to freedom of thought and expression, sanctioned by the Declaration of the Rights of Man, cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers. This principle applies obviously for any religion.2. In addition, coexistence calls for a climate of mutual respect to favor peace among men and nations. Moreover, these forms of exasperated criticism or derision of others manifest a lack of human sensitivity and may constitute in some cases an inadmissible provocation. A reading of history shows that wounds that exist in the life of peoples are not cured this way.3. However, it must be said immediately that the offenses caused by an individual or an organ of the press cannot be imputed to the public institutions of the corresponding country, whose authorities might and should intervene eventually according to the principles of national legislation. Therefore, violent actions of protest are equally deplorable. Reaction in the face of offense cannot fail the true spirit of all religion. Real or verbal intolerance, no matter where it comes from, as action or reaction, is always a serious threat to peace.

Taken to their logical conclusions, President Clinton and the Vatican agree that public discourse should be limited to only that material that offends no one in terms of religous belief.So what do we do when the mere presence of another belief system is offensive to holders of a religion? Should the world cease to discuss evolution because such discussion offends Christian fundamentalists? Or cease discussion of any religion besides Islam because there is but one God and Muhammad is His Prophet?

Re:Sadly, Vatican joins censorship bandwagon

If you're looking to see if someone will condemn Clinton on his anti free speech remarks, okay. I disagree with him. Since he's not in power, I don't keep much track of him these days.

I am looking for such a person around these library parts and it appears I have found exactly one willing to respond with candor than with some dilatory nonsense of not understanding my point. So many of Blake's gigs stuffed with harangues of perceived censorship of published material in libraries, yet everyone becomes server storage sensitive when a former President advocates unplugging a press.

So what do we do when the mere presence of another belief system is offensive to holders of a religion? Should the world cease to discuss evolution because such discussion offends Christian fundamentalists? Or cease discussion of any religion besides Islam because there is but one God and Muhammad is His Prophet?

No we shouldn't cease discussing these issues. Or calling them out when they occur. But it is obvious that our self appointed standard-bearers of free speech/expression (liberal folk), want no part of this cartoon business. Or any other uncomfortable and usually politically incorrect issue that shakes their worldview. You are the expection here Daniel. The others, feel-good frauds.

Re:Milieu Mucking

Ah, I see. Still keeping your head planted firmly in your arse by pretending that where information is published validates or invalidates factual statements.

Did you ever stop to think that most of the material at AlterNet, CommonDreams, and TruthOut is reprinted from mainstream sources that are indexed at Lexis-Nexis?

Oh, wait . . . I suppose you'll say those sources don't count because they tilt in the wrong direction on the political spectrum?

Re:Milieu Mucking

ff, that stuff might impress the college freshmen who have just discovered Bob Marley or "found" themselves in Creative Writing class but it just doesn't have the seriousness that would convince most adults.

Re:Milieu Mucking

Oh, wait . . . I suppose you'll say those sources don't count because they tilt in the wrong direction on the political spectrum?

Wrong....as usual.

I see and read (some at least) your darling pubs every day with LN. Now let me ask you to consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of 5000+ publications cited within Lexis-Nexis are censored by editorial boards at AlterNet, CommonDreams and TruthOut. Your personal milieu militia.

But you keep shuffling here Fang. I've nearly forgotton why I posted this story about Clinton.

Re:Milieu Mucking

Ah, yes . . . your usual nonsense that since somebody decided to reprint something more newsworthy than the material passed over, the material that was passed over was necessarily suppressed.

Tell you what, tomeboy, if you are really so concerned that that is censorship, then why don't you open a site of your own where you can reprint all the material being passed over?

As for why you posted that story about Clinton, I have no doubt that it was to misdirect people's attention away from the full scale totatlitarianism being implemented by the Republican right-wing. Yeah, Clinton is dumb-ass, but, see, you will insist on making distinctions between your dumb-ass and theirs. I make distinctions on what the dumb-asses do, not which party they represent. And overall, Clinton was pro-freedom, Bush is not. Clinton is an honest screw-up, Bush is a cheap political whore.

Re:Milieu Mucking

Fang, Billy Clinton assaulted civil liberties on a scale that would have made Nixon blush. I'll admit, sometimes it does seem like the Shrub is playing catch-up, but to call Billy "pro-freedom" continues to cause me to consider your self-proclaimed "anarchism" just a charade to mask Stalinist apologetics.

Re:Sadly, Vatican joins censorship bandwagon

I just had to chime in and say that the Vatican is obligated to set a much higher standard then any government. Religion isn't just about rules but they certainly play a major role and they tend to lean toward the self-censorship area.

Syndicate content