Fear comes from lack of knowledge and ignorance (not willful). It is the breeding ground for many censorship rows, simply because the side that is vying for the source to be censored has either seened just the offending part or is relying on third hand or heresy for their information.
We've gone from being of a single-mentality to being liberal but sibject to limitations because someone was offended and now that resulted in the PC fad, which doesn't serve the common good. It simply limits us and justifies censorship.
Life isn't always sweet smelling roses; take the good with the bad. And if it means tolerating the existence of something you disagree with, then you've grown a thicker skin. When society can boycott something while tolerating that others will use it then we've matured as a society, but it won't happen beause of the human flaw of obstinancy.
The religious right feels that because those who are 'liberal' or without a religion are 'immoral' that it is their right, no, duty to impose their 'moral' views on us because we can't act 'morally' ourselves.
They use something legal but 'offensive' to justify their case and push for censorship simply because they don't agree with it and their principles contradict the message, which is otherwise legal and technically protected by the right to freedom of speech/expression.
It is the same brand of people who ignore the entire Bible, selecting the sections that they feel support their movement that tend to speak the loudest. They are the ones who come out with the placard proclaiming that something unfavourable much be changed simply because they feel it isn't in accordance to their church's doctrine.
There is a reason why the church and state have been separated; to end the censorship that fundemental religious groups demand.
Back to the original topic. Yes, I agree, censorship is really just an offended group trying to get something legal either pulled from the shelves, shut down, editted or made illegal because it isn't on par with what they believe. The ironic thing is, that if anyone tried to start a boycott of this very nature against anything religious (since it's religious groups that are the oens making the majority of movements in favour of censorship), the offended groups would be up in arms. However, because what is being protested isn't religious, or rather contains racial themes, it MUST be censored.
I'm in agreement with you.
However, the video can hurt you if you're stupid enough to go out and attempt to replicate what you've seen, then again, only completely inept mindless people do that. It's simply then just natural selection.
Back to your post; yes, if people hate something, a boycott for their own personal reason is justifiable, but to impose their views on others? They need to take a long look in the mirror before they go out on their high horse. They've probably done a few objectionable things themselves which they'd never admit to.
Censorship in this case seems to be a case of "We don't approve, therefore, we know what's best for you." and "do as we say and not as we do."
Slashdot Mirror
Fear comes from lack of knowledge and ignorance (not willful). It is the breeding ground for many censorship rows, simply because the side that is vying for the source to be censored has either seened just the offending part or is relying on third hand or heresy for their information.
We've gone from being of a single-mentality to being liberal but sibject to limitations because someone was offended and now that resulted in the PC fad, which doesn't serve the common good. It simply limits us and justifies censorship.
Life isn't always sweet smelling roses; take the good with the bad. And if it means tolerating the existence of something you disagree with, then you've grown a thicker skin. When society can boycott something while tolerating that others will use it then we've matured as a society, but it won't happen beause of the human flaw of obstinancy.
They use something legal but 'offensive' to justify their case and push for censorship simply because they don't agree with it and their principles contradict the message, which is otherwise legal and technically protected by the right to freedom of speech/expression.
It is the same brand of people who ignore the entire Bible, selecting the sections that they feel support their movement that tend to speak the loudest. They are the ones who come out with the placard proclaiming that something unfavourable much be changed simply because they feel it isn't in accordance to their church's doctrine.
There is a reason why the church and state have been separated; to end the censorship that fundemental religious groups demand.
Back to the original topic. Yes, I agree, censorship is really just an offended group trying to get something legal either pulled from the shelves, shut down, editted or made illegal because it isn't on par with what they believe. The ironic thing is, that if anyone tried to start a boycott of this very nature against anything religious (since it's religious groups that are the oens making the majority of movements in favour of censorship), the offended groups would be up in arms. However, because what is being protested isn't religious, or rather contains racial themes, it MUST be censored.
I'm in agreement with you. However, the video can hurt you if you're stupid enough to go out and attempt to replicate what you've seen, then again, only completely inept mindless people do that. It's simply then just natural selection. Back to your post; yes, if people hate something, a boycott for their own personal reason is justifiable, but to impose their views on others? They need to take a long look in the mirror before they go out on their high horse. They've probably done a few objectionable things themselves which they'd never admit to. Censorship in this case seems to be a case of "We don't approve, therefore, we know what's best for you." and "do as we say and not as we do."