A new day is dawning, people. “New AG Appointee Advocated To Stifle Speech On Web”:
The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is gonna be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at. – May 28, 1999 NPR Morning Edition
[my emphasis]
Given Holder’s advocacy for “Hate Crimes” legislation, one is left to ponder just what might come to count as a “reasonable” restriction or regulation on “how people interact.” And then there’s the matter of who gets to decide reasonable-ness to begin with.
Because if other progressive decrees on the matter are any indication, I have a feeling I know where this might be heading.
Up is down, black is white — ah, fuck it. You know the drill…
****
update: See also, Hot Air.
Mr. Holder will hold you hand
and lead you into progressive land.
That’s so gay. ( Spree-speech. As it will all be over soon.)
Buster is Poindexter?
If calling someone an asstarted shitwhale becomes wrong, then I don’t want to be right.
Up is down, black is white
As you said once: Potsie is the Fonz.
Mheh.
Jumped from Ezra Levant’s site to here to see them wanting the same kind of “hate speech” regulations as the CHRC imposes.
The regulations with the 100% conviction rate.
But that’s just a coincidence, right?
Right?
MMMPPPPPHHHHH…………..
http://ezralevant.com/
Come on, guys, he said “reasonable.” Like saying Britney’s not hot or O is a fascist, what’s up with that? They should nix BS like that.
Also, he’s a gungrabber. A rotten, clotted little gungrabber. He can’t handle the sound of a firearm, makes him go all limp and flaccid, so you can’t have one.
It starts with a warm smile.
Government: “How did your speech get free in the first place? That’s right, we made it free, we paid for it with the money we carefully husbanded in taxes …”
Us: “Yeah, but …”
Government: “Don’t interrupt. Now look, since we paid for it, don’t you think it’s only right that we have take an interest in what you’re going to be doing with it?”
Us: “Well, we thought …”
Government: “Please, how are we going to have a reasonable conversation with you constantly interrupting? Of course we’re going to want to have a say in how you use the free speech we gave you … we’re not going to just stand by and watch you waste it on a great gob of frivolity or worse, addle headed unkindness and confrontation with your betters. I mean, really, you ought to be thanking us that you have any at all, far from squabbling over trivilities like what you get to say where and to whom. So why don’t you just shut your yap and sit in the corner over there and think about it for a while and then come and see us when you’ve figured out how to see it properly, hmmm?”
Here’s tolerance: rehabbing old commies…..
http://lileks.com/screed/?p=66
It never ceases to amaze my how those folks who preach about the need for tolerance and diversity always act to make any expression of non-conformity to their ideals illegal…
Here comes the web fairness doctrine; I can see it now…
Everyone start writing their Senators and telling them this huy Holder is unnacceptable…
Remember how much the left whined over Ashcroft! and how big a fascist he was..?
I mean, is it too much to ask that the AG uphold the laws specified,and ideals contained, in the Constitution?
[…] knowledge of hate crimes (even though he was pushing for new hate crime laws), or his belief that speech on the internet should be restricted and regulated, that any conservative legal expert is going to give Eric Holder anything but the most grudging and […]
Cracked had an article in a similar vein to this, all about how trolls are killing the internet. If government fuses with businesses on this (and when don’t they) we may have a way to finally get rid of certain favorite commenters, in a mimetic way.
So, you know, trade-off.
Jimmie’s post is well worth a click. David Brooks is in rare preening jagoff form these days. I guess his every column is a job application these days since the New York Times has cocooned itself into oblivion just about. David and his lickspittle faggotry can be proud he helped I think.
LOL…great comment, happyfeet. My dad, a long time democratic politician sends me Brooks columns, ostensibly to prove that he (my dad) is not a lockstep partisan apparatchik. I just laugh them off. I KNOW my dad. Now, I know David Brooks.
Heh. If calling thor a microcephalitic web-footed cretin becomes wrong, I don’t want to be right.
OUTLAW!
.
That’s one of Jeff’s, iirc.
Tolerance is one of those words that like the phrase ‘social justice’ can be used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Today it has morphed beyond ‘be civil and respectful to each other as human beings’ to meaning ‘supporting whatever behavior another person wants to do’.
Those two definitions are not the same at all, nor should they be. The first allows for a society to operate, the second is guaranteed to bring about anarchy and then societal Balkanization.
Mikey:
‘Tolerance’ is not only being stood on its head to discourage PC unfriendly talk. It’s also being deliberately blurred with ‘acceptance’, ‘approval’ and ‘celebration’. It’s no longer enough to ignore (tolerate) certain politically-correct things with which one may disagree, one must coo approval or be labeled ‘intolerant’. Wonder when such demonstrations will be mandatory.
Of course it is, Vinny; and such demonstrations will be mandatory as soon as the training videos are produced and distributed.
It is equating the worth of the human with that human’s behavior. The two are not the same. Welcome to identity politics, where all humans are equal, but some are much more equal than others. It is why the Indian Navy is allowed to sink a pirate ship, but no Western nation can. Not without the network/cable sob-a-thon about the poor pirates and their widows and orphans being run.
The Indian Naval Ensign is an interesting flag, btw.
But… but it’s not the Constitution you knew now.
IT’S ALIVE!!
Mikey:
“It is why the Indian Navy is allowed to sink a pirate ship, but no Western nation can.”
True, true. Good description of the West’s ball and chain. So, given the whole David-has-more-moral-authority-than-Goliath, reflex-Marxism infecting the West, maybe we should outsource taking down bad guys to those with more ‘otherness’ bona fides, as they’ll be immunized the sort of Oprah-fied mewling you described. Sort of a modified proxy war doctrine. And they’d love the money.
Trouble is, some enlightened ‘global citizen’ at the State Department or in our ‘intelligence’ agencies would leak any such arrangement to the New York Times. Alas . . .
Tolerance has an air of “The poor dears, they can’t help it”. I think indifference is more respectful of others views and actions.
One of the ironies is that this stuff often does better under Dems because the other Dems aren’t as alarmed when a D floats speech restrictions as they are when its an R, even if the restrictions/code what have you is virtually the same.
Thanks, Pablo. As someone else, somewhere in the blogoshpere, noticed: Wonder how far they’d get trying the same thing at muslimsingles.com.
[…] On Internet Speech (video at linked site); Goodbye, First Amendment?; “Free speech? Come on. How will that promote tolerance?” …. […]
sdfsdasdsdsds