The premise of this article is entirely false. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That is the text of the First Amendment. It says nothing about the prevention of 'censorship' by the private sector against itself -- only the government against the private sector. The constitution is not a license to deny a society's chosen values. If an innovator, maverick, or rogue attempts to slay a sacred cow... legally, little can prevent it. The American public does not have to embrace, accept, or even participate in it. For better or worse, the Constitution guarantees that everyone has to right to free speech.. It does say anyone has to listen or futhermore, give the speaker an audience. As for your examples -- like in the Brooklyn Museum exhibit -- the real question is whether the government should be involved AT ALL, not whether they should censor. Mr. Singer is very free to express his ideas in whatever forum he may create or that will accept him. The Constitution does not force any one to listern to him , entertain his ideas in any capacity whatsoever, or provide any forum to promte his ideas. Attacking the First Amendment and the United States as you do is simply no more than America-bashing. It's very easy. Maybe you should tackle a more difficult question... why society won't entertain his ideas?
Slashdot Mirror
The premise of this article is entirely false.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That is the text of the First Amendment. It says nothing about the prevention of 'censorship' by the private sector against itself -- only the government against the private sector. The constitution is not a license to deny a society's chosen values. If an innovator, maverick, or rogue attempts to slay a sacred cow... legally, little can prevent it. The American public does not have to embrace, accept, or even participate in it. For better or worse, the Constitution guarantees that everyone has to right to free speech.. It does say anyone has to listen or futhermore, give the speaker an audience. As for your examples -- like in the Brooklyn Museum exhibit -- the real question is whether the government should be involved AT ALL, not whether they should censor.
Mr. Singer is very free to express his ideas in whatever forum he may create or that will accept him. The Constitution does not force any one to listern to him , entertain his ideas in any capacity whatsoever, or provide any forum to promte his ideas.
Attacking the First Amendment and the United States as you do is simply no more than America-bashing. It's very easy. Maybe you should tackle a more difficult question... why society won't entertain his ideas?