Reply #33: Censorship and other insanity

[matthewdene]

I want to take the time to rebut a few misconceptions expressed by "Ban the GOP" regarding the recent Arizona shooting.
First, the reference to the "Unabomber" shows a complete misunderstanding of historical fact. Ted Kaczinski was not philosophically conservative and did not share traditionally conservative views that "BanTheGOP" would likely characterize as part of the "rabid right".
According to his self-written manifesto (published in the New York Times and the Washington Post, and not disseminated to labotomized drones through coded language on the Michael Savage radio show), Kaczynski's own words make it clear that he was essentially a Neo-Luddite who hated technology and wanted modern humanity to retreat to a pre-capitalist state where humans could find "authentic" existence subsiting in small agrarian communes. Sound like any 20th Century Communists you might know? Needless to say, his worldview would more likely elicit an invitation to a private showing of Michael Moore's latest film (at Pol Pot's house, with Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin in tow)than a permanent seat at the American Enterprise Institute.

Fundamentally, "BanTheGOP" confuses tactics with ideology. Apparently the thought process is as follows: if bloodshed results, it MUST be the product of a right-wing conspiracy, correct?

Not exactly.

The fact is the left-wing ideologues of the 20th century caused more bloodletting and carnage than a thousand Iraq wars combined. Ironically, those ruthless sociopaths had more in common philisophically with members of the 'Democratic Underground' than Kaczinski and Loughner did with any conservative talk-show host.But we can let that slide, right? When it comes to liberal policy, the ends justify the means, and hey, you have to break a few eggs to cook the perfect utopian omellette.

The next concept articulated by "BanTheGop" is patently absurd, namely, that other people's speech can contribute to a "climate of hate" that exonerates individuals from the consequences of their personal choices. Does any thinking individual truly believe that? Such a defense in court would guarantee Loughner's conviction. Even the normally flimsy defense of insanity would appear rock-solid next to such deterministic bilge. And look at the consequences: the "climate of hate" argument would effectively create a near-universal defense to murder. "Your honor, we're all mind-numbed robots innoculated against personal responsibility because of the toxic culture created by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin." Even someone with submoronic brain activity could undo that rhetorical Rubick's Cube.

Let's get down to what this is really about - shutting down political speech with which we disagree. Loughner had no relation to talk radio. He's simply another crackpot. (One look at his bug-eyed mugshut and you start to appreciate the classical good looks of Nick Nolte displayed in the pic snapped of him years back for a DUI arrest.) Talk radio is populated by conservatives and constantly growing in popularity. While NPR and Air America need artificial life-support in the form of government subsidies (or ideological subsidies from like-minded wealthy benefactors), conservative talk radio flourishes. Advertisers flock to these shows because it is an organic movement. Many average Americans choose to listen to it not because they are forced to, but because they simply like it. That's too much for liberals to handle. So instead of respecting the First Amendment, liberals seek to evicerate it and squash the political expression of the opposition. That's what the Orwellian-termed "fairness doctrine" is all about.

I beleive individuals like "BantheGop" are a threat to our constitution and the basic American value that traditionally embraced tolerance for the opinions of others. There must be some card-carrying members of the ACLU on this website. Doesn't the fairness doctrine's blatant attempt to regulate the content of political speech offend your core values? Doesn't it concern you? Or are you so hypocritical that you believe the Constitution should only apply to Guantanamo terrorists, but not Americans who own Bibles or shotguns?

Your own rules for postings on this website seem to indicate the there are no true civil libertarians on this site. I will recite one of your websites "rules": "Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent or otherwise inappropriate." Are you kidding me? That sounds like a policy developed in a closed-door meeting at the Chinese Politburo for dealing with the troubling explosion of freely-exchanged ideas on the internet. A court would decisively strike down a similar policy as blatantly unconstitutional if the government attempted it. At least talk radio hosts have the guts to take on liberal callers for a good verbal sparr.

In the end, I have to laugh. I have already won. I consider any attempt to censor what I have written a blanket concession that liberals like you do not have the logical and analytical abilities to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Therefore, you resort to autocratic forms of censorship to control the flow of information and muzzle the opposition.

You guys should align with John Poindexter and swap ideas for his "Total Information Awareness" project. You obviously have a knack for controlling the flow of information.