Hollywood dimwit Matt Damon has inspired Internet news-aggregator Andrew Breitbart to say something about censorship in America, and how it's the Left that wants to censor movies and TV shows they don't like.
They can't wait to censor political opinions they don't like either.
It wasn't that long ago that John McCain (yes, that John McCain) was assisting the left by teaming with them (and President Bush) to pass the Incumbent Protection Act (oops, I mean the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill). Next, if they get the White House, look for them to shut down talk radio by re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine. Some have even stated a desire to apply the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet.
Sarah Palin represents no threat to your first amendment rights, but these people do.
Internet Extra! If you can stand Michael Savage, here is a rant from him about Damon and Palin (caution, if controversy disturbs you, don't listen):
5 comments:
Breitbart sites are among the most CENSORING and aggravating sites anywhere online. His list of DENIED WORDS must be ten miles long. There is no help anywhere on any of his sites to figure out what an innocuous post is repeatedly rejected.
Breitbart is a total hypocrite when he denounces censorship and yet blocks people from expressing their opinions, anger, frustration, anxiety over current news stories.
He should GROW UP and knock off the censoring or shut down his phony websites.
Breitbart defending the First Amendment? That's a laugh!
Breitbart websites do nothing but CENSOR postings that in any way offend Andrew Breitbart's delicate sensibilities... You cannot even post the following words without having your post rejected:
Jewish
Jew
homoexual
homosexuality
Breitbart
and God only knows what else!
Today we tried to post something a dozen times on both breitbart.tv and breitbart.com, but neither site would accept the posting, even though we tried repeatedly with countless variations of the wording. There is never any help to assist you in trying to figure out what is wrong.
Visiting Breitbart sites is a totaly frustrating and basically WORTHLESS experience--not to mention nauseating, as he consistently chooses all the worst, degrading, depraved cr*p that his garbage-skow harvests from all over the world.
First off, anon, I really don't like anonymous post.
Second, there is a difference between Breitbart censoring posts on his site, and the government sanctioning censoring, which is the point of the 1st amendment.
Breitbart has no Constitutional obligation to provide a platform to you to spout your views, whatever they are.
Just as I can delete your posts as I please, so can he. If I don't like some of the words you use, I can delete them from my site. You have no Constitutional basis for complaint.
Hypocrisy is a tired charge, and not one that anyone really finds compelling anymore, so overused it has been.
Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are bastions of FREEDOM in AMERICA. Breitbart and anyone else who presumes to have a website which invites Comments is nothing but a, YES, HYPOCRITE, if they have such thin skin that they insist on censoring every other word before they will acquiesce and POST one's comments.
Anonymity on the web is also a bastion of FREEDOM OF SPEECH in America. Like it or not, those who use it do so because they are tired of being harassed and have learned the hard way that anon postings are the way to go. WHO CARES about names, when it is IDEAS we are trying to convey.
(A rhetorical question--no need to respond.)
PS As another example of Breitbart's silly censoring: We tried to use the term "Bushite" (meaning, someone who believes in Bush's policies) and even THAT word was blocked! Apparently, the system took it as BULLSH!T ... And then there are the double-entendre words that only someone whose head is already in the GUTTER would block, such as: HEAD, CHERRY, etc. We tried to post something about the Head of the Treasury and of course, that was blocked. What utter nonsense!
Anon -
On my website, I prefer the people to have a name, preferably a link to their own blog, so we can learn a little about them.
As I pointed out to you, the charge of hypocrisy is so overused, it is meaningless.
Breitbart does not owe you a platform. He can establish whatever rules for content filtering he pleases.
As you can see, blogspot has no such filters, but I do. However, my filter is very crude. If I don't like what you say, I will delete it, and I really don't care what you think about it or whether you think I'm a hypocrite. It's my site, I took time to build it, and I enforce MY standards. Maybe Breitbart feels the same way.
At any rate, a private individual can not violate anyone's first amendment rights, since only the government can do that.
If you really hate him so much, start an anti-breitbart website. I'll even let you link to it in one of your posts.
Post a Comment