I was wondering if the world in general, is moving, and has moved to the point where we should be extremely discrete about exactly what we say, politically wise.

 

Now I'm not talking things that are Dae Sure illegal, but things are not exactly wise to talk about against certain figures, which might get one penalized in indirect measures.

 

Anyway, what's your opinion?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

I mean, not saying certain things that would offend certain people, in certain places, within the social structure, if you know what I mean.

if we constructed our words to offend nobody then we would have no words. there is always someone who will be offended by anything. censorship sucks.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

 

He's worried you'll sue.

you always will offend someone. IF you censor youself, you'll just offend the Anti-Censorship coillition.

you always will offend someone. IF you censor youself, you'll just offend the Anti-Censorship coillition.

 

Sir, you have insulted my honor as an employee of the Homeland Security Department's Undersecretary of Censorship. Pistols at dawn?

Sir, you have insulted my honor as an employee of the Homeland Security Department's Undersecretary of Censorship. Pistols at dawn?

 

I accept.

I am offended by your acceptance of sisyphus's challenge.

I was wondering if the world in general, is moving, and has moved to the point where we should be extremely discrete about exactly what we say, politically wise.

I think we already have, to a certain extent. Litigation is increasing all the time.

 

But worse, in the political sense, is that people have no time to really think through all the news that the media makes available to them, so we're often assaulted by mere bytes of sound, simplistic arguments that carry too much weight with the force of brevity. Look what effect the simple sound byte "WMD" has on people.

 

Politicians have to be careful these days, since a lengthy, eloquent defense of freedom of speech and the right to symbolic protest can be rebutted by "he supports flag-burning". Four little words that would probably stir up a lot of false patriotism against someone who truly wanted to protect the US Constitution more than a piece of cloth that merely represented it.

 

I do think people will be watching what they say a bit more in the future. Unfortunately, in the US, our democracy is strong but our freedom of speech is very fragile lately.

Isn't self-censorship similar to being "politically correct?"

Good point Phi. You have the freedom to say what you want, but it can and will be used against you in the media circus.

Well, personally, I hold censorship as a one of the worst things that can happen to a supposedly free country. Frankly, I think all official censorship (such as the FCC's role in such) should be abolished. If people get offended, they need to realize that's the price of freedom.

 

Mokele

I think we already have' date=' to a certain extent. Litigation is increasing all the time.

 

But worse, in the political sense, is that people have no time to really think through all the news that the media makes available to them, so we're often assaulted by mere bytes of sound, simplistic arguments that carry too much weight with the force of brevity. Look what effect the simple sound byte "WMD" has on people.

 

Politicians have to be careful these days, since a lengthy, eloquent defense of freedom of speech and the right to symbolic protest can be rebutted by "he supports flag-burning". Four little words that would probably stir up a lot of false patriotism against someone who truly wanted to protect the US Constitution more than a piece of cloth that merely represented it.

 

I do think people will be watching what they say a bit more in the future. Unfortunately, in the US, our democracy is strong but our freedom of speech is very fragile lately.[/quote']

 

Politicians do have to be more subtle today when vilifying the opposition. A certain amount of self-censorship is not a bad thing::

 

More than one historian has described the election of 1828 as one of the nastiest in the history of the republic. Mudslinging and innuendo were practically raised to an art form. Newspapers and zealous campaigners in both camps accused the candidates of immoral conduct. Some in Adams' s camp--although not Adams himself--focused on Rachel Jackson's first marriage and divorce. Although rare, divorce did occur in the early 1800s, but due to a technicality, Jackson married Rachel before the courts could declare her legally divorced. As a result, the two went through a second ceremony a few years after their first. Whatever the case, the Adams press raised the charge that the two were "adulterers" and, hence, Jackson was unfit for the presidency. In addition, the Adams campaign charged Jackson with a sordid list of crimes, including murder, treason, drunkenness, theft and cockfighting.

 

Jackson men, for their part, charged that while Adams was serving as a U.S. minister to Russia, he supplied young women to a lust-crazed Czar. Furthermore, Adams was portrayed as an aristocratic, aloof New Englander who distanced himself from the very people he supposedly represented. The Democrats accused him of spending public money on lavish furniture, including a billiard table for his home. One earnest Jacksonian newspaper even claimed Mrs. Adams was born out of wedlock.

 

Whether the speaker be Coulter, Kenedy or Durbin, the media and Internet make it more difficult to get by with outrageous statements. The hyperbole isn't left to percolate in a local group. It often rises to the top and gets vetted by the media so we know about more of the off the wall stuff. At least we get some basic fact checking.

Whether the speaker be Coulter, Kenedy or Durbin, the media and Internet make it more difficult to get by with outrageous statements. The hyperbole isn't left to percolate in a local group. It often rises to the top and gets vetted by the media so we know about more of the off the wall stuff. At least we get some basic fact checking.

I wish the masses bothered to check facts. In some ways we are still subject to 19th century rabble-rousing, although innuendo has been replaced by spin and those who do bother to check facts quickly lose ground from the sheer volume of what is being reported 24/7 from all points of the globe.

 

It's a good thing but it's a bad thing since the good thing is because of the bad thing - to put it in a sound byte makes you nod but tells you nothing.