shades of fascism: Peace shirts outlawed

[Mark Heide]

hudini36,

Here's a link to the full story, just so we can get the facts accurate:

http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNYT/M276307.asp

What really happened here is what I've been talking about previously. This is an example of our society censoring the views of other people. When someone here thought that I was from a different planet, because I thought that censorship here was not different from the former Soviet Union. It's not!

A countries ideology is supported by the majority. If this viewpoint does not agree with that ideology, the majority will seek some method to suppress it.

This example is a perfect example of suppressing the rights of other individuals. It's done in every country.

Another example in the US was the suppression of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ. The Catholic Church was outraged. They had managed to protest it so well that you could only see this movie in a few art film theaters across the country.

So, in the United States we usually do not have the government doing it, but our own citizens using powerful organizations to suppress information like religious groups and corporations. Capitalism just suppresses freedoms using methods that are different from other ideologies like Socialism.

Mark

[MMMMMM]

Mark, you must also consider degree and type of censorship.

Just because some forms of censorship may exist in two separate arenas, doesn't mean they are entirely equivalent. Even if they are equivalent in some ways they may still be distinct in other ways.

Censoring all of a newspaper's articles to mold to the Party line is obviously different than censoring only some articles, while still allowing other articles to be published which are in fact opposing viewpoints--and this is true regardless of your definition of censorship.

We have articles published in our major news media--Time magazine for example--that are highly critical of our government's policies. This simply didn't happen in the Soviet Union or under Mao-Tse Tung, nor does it happen in North Korea today. Also, our government doesn't arrest journalists who deviate from the "party line."

Can't you see the differences outlined above?

We have a variety of opinions expressed in our news media--quite a wide variety actually. In Red China, and in the USSR, the media expressed one point of view.


The mere fact that a wide variety of differing opinions are expressed here is a testament to the relative lack of censorship. Do you want to try to make the argument that we are censoring all but, say, 1,000 different viewpoints? At any rate, that's a helluva lot less censorship than censoring all but one viewpoint.

[Mark Heide]

M,

The problem with measuring censorship in degrees or types is that the degree or type needs to be objectively viewed in comparison to the person measuring censorship based on his ideology. In other words, it's impossible to measure the degrees and types unless your ideology is neither US Capitalism, Russian Socialism, or a combination of both.

The Soviet Union operated from a centralized point of view. Pravda was supported by the majority of it's population for quite some time, because it reflected the views of the majority. It was the minority that objected and became dissidents that the US government exploited during the propaganda war between us and them. I think the propaganda from the Cold War has clouded the thinking of many Americans, besides having biases from viewing the world from a Capitalistic viewpoint.

I was watching the BBC World News tonight. They did a report on Russia. The BBC did a survey that stated that 30% of the population liked Stalin and what he did for Russia (I know it's not the majority, but the percentage of citizens liking Stalin has been going up). I believe the reason for this is the comfort level for the average citizen in the Soviet Union was much better than today with todays failed attempt at capitalism. If I find the story on the web I'll post it.

Mark

[matt_d]

No one has the right to be on another person's property without their consent, which they can withold for any reason they choose. The peace activist has the right to demonstrate or wear a peace shirt on his own property or on public property, so none of his rights are being infringed.

If 100 pro-war demonstrators demanded the right to march through your bedroom, would you not be entitled to stop them? If you don't like fat people or Republican voters, you're within your rights to not allow them in your house. It's no different for the guy who owns the mall.