Skip to main content

View Diary: Ted Rall was on the radio discusing DKOS censorsip (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Both of the rules you cited ARE in fact censorship (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward, corvo

    You seem to be struggling with the basic definition of the word.  I am not talking about whether the censorship in question was appropriate or not.  I am talking about the simple fact that it is censorship.

    •  No, that's not what censorship is (15+ / 0-)

      What Rall is whining about he wants the freedom to use somebody else's property to express himself without any constraints.

      Kos isn't banning Rall's ideas or even his cartoons. But the community is stating that those cartoons are, currently, racist and we don't want to see racist content on this site. That's not censorship, that's a community "booing" a lousy artist off the stage. Rall's mistake is his ego is so large and simultaneously fragile that he thinks it's censorship and has becoming increasingly belligerent as a response.

      There are lies, damn lies, and statistics but they all pale in comparison to conservative talking points.

      by ontheleftcoast on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 05:49:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Could you please give us (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward

        your definition of what does constitute censorship.

        •  Sure, you can call any limit on speech/art (14+ / 0-)

          a form of censorship. But then telling your kids to not swear in the grocery store is "censorship". It becomes meaningless as a term when you take it to those extremes. Censorship needs to be defined by the rights, or rather the lack of rights, to engage in the exchange of ideas. At this you're probably thinking, "Aha! He's admitted Kos is censoring Rall!" but it's more than that. It requires their be an implicit right to do something. Rall doesn't have rights to publish on DK anymore than I do. When a government denies a cartoonist, writer, artist, etc. from publishing their work on any forum at all that's censorship because the right of the artist is taken away. But if a publisher says, "Well, your content isn't very funny, I don't see how it would sell" that's not censorship. Or is every rejection letter from a publisher a form of censorship? Rall can post his work here but he has to do so under the guidelines of the community. That's not censorship, it's like not swearing in church during your sister's wedding. Though there are times that might be appropriate.

          There are lies, damn lies, and statistics but they all pale in comparison to conservative talking points.

          by ontheleftcoast on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 06:27:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It seems to me that Rall is trying to claim (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheDuckManCometh, boophus, koNko

            that he was unfairly and inappropriately censored. A large number of people at Daily Kos, including me, do not think that the action was unfair nor inappropriate. Trying to argue that it wasn't censorship at all seems to me to be muddying the waters in a way that doesn't do much to deal with a pot that is boiling over. I am not trying to be pedantic, but this seems to me like confusion than is not a good thing.

            The guidelines of the community do engage in prohibiting certain forms of speech and expression. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

            •  And calling bans on pornography a form of (8+ / 0-)

              censorship muddy the waters in the other direction. Rall is claiming "censorship" purely to get attention for himself. Because he knows it sounds like Nazi's burning books or idiot school boards banning Catcher in the Rye. Fine, he can call it whatever he wants. Clearly he lives in TedWorld and the rest of world don't matter in that place.

              There are lies, damn lies, and statistics but they all pale in comparison to conservative talking points.

              by ontheleftcoast on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 06:41:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Rall was not censored (6+ / 0-)

              Everything he published here stands and his user account is still active, if he choses to use it.

              What Rall got was a warning notice admonishing him for a depiction of Obama many people here found racist and offensive. I think that is censure not censor, no?

              Rall had, and took the opportunity to disagree with that judgement but he did so not in a matter-of-fact or diplomatic way, but in a self-pitying GBCW rant where he portrays himself as some sort of victim, and adding to that his petulant silence to the audience here while moving on to use it to get publicity elsewhere.

              That is his choice. We should be fine with it. No one is obligated to participate here, and both you and I have (a) faced harsh criticism and down-rates here; (b) taken occasional breaks. Gesh, I even got a warning notice from MB once and, upon reflection, he was right to do it; I did an inappropriate thing and stand corrected.

              Dear Ted,

              Please come home. All is forgiven. Mommy and Daddy are worried sick. Floppy the Dog cries all night.


              Am I being too harsh?
              •  No I don't think that you are being too harsh. (0+ / 0-)

                As I said in another comment in this diary, I knew nothing about him before this started and the more I know, the less I want anything to do with him.

                I was really responding to what seemed to me to be confusion over what censorship really is. I suppose that you are correct that since none of his existing content has been removed, he has not actually been subjected to censorship, but he has been advised that he will be unless he makes changes in future content.

                A lot of people here seem to be of the view that a restriction on expression that they agree with can't be censorship. I really don't think that is accurate.

          •  Government censorship has particular (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            implications under the terms of the first amendment and it thus requires stronger justification than it does in a non-government setting. Yet it is legal for the government to engage in some forms of censorship.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site