Censorship for criticising Bush

  • News
  • Thread starter Shahil
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the silencing of voices critical of the Bush administration in the media and entertainment industry. Celebrities such as the Dixie Chicks and Linda Ronstadt have faced consequences for speaking out against the administration, leading to a debate on the role of private companies and free speech. The conversation also brings up concerns about media ownership and the potential impact on public discourse and representative government.
  • #71
Heh. The Establishment. Right on!

However, since the establisment controls the issuance of demonstration permits as well as the ability to remove protesters from the streets, it has powers that, in combination, can be used to squelch public assembly by issuing protest permits to inapprorpate locations followed by police action based on these notions of public safety and the greater common good.

Well, some entity has to have control unless you favor anarchy.

Suppose a few of my friends decided to block the street, thus preventing you from leaving for work. Who ya' gonna' call? I hope it isn't THE ESTABLISHMENT.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
JohnDubYa said:
Suppose a few of my friends decided to block the street, thus preventing you from leaving for work. Who ya' gonna' call?

I would probably go around. Of course, your question is mostly rhetoric, since I did conceede that removing blockages is usually appropriate. Moreover, there is obviously a difference between people who are deliberately blocking traffic, and people who are trying to produce political discourse.

The problem is that giving a single license to disperse spillover, and control over protest locations (e.g. 'free speech zones') is tantamount giving that organization from preventing protest outright.
 
  • #73
the number 42 said:
Interesting. So how has the Bush administration managed to implement this with so little protest. And I don't mean mass demonstrations, I mean just general protest in the media etc. Don't tell me the media restrict your every word :eek:

Many groups, such as the ACLU, have spoken out. I have read a few online articles regarding it, some from regular newspapers, but by and large the media hasn't done its job. Why? Because the corporate media does not see profits in that.

Hmmm... Someone's bound to call you on this one, Dan, so it may as well be me.

Well, do it, then. What I meant by my statement is that for the vast majority of our history, these "free speech zones" were not set up at presidential appearances, and all hell did NOT break lose. Therefore, these zones have been empirically shown to be unnecessary.

---------------------------------

BTW, I am not voting for Nader.
 
  • #74
Dissident Dan said:
Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all. Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

Dissident Dan said:
...for the vast majority of our history, these "free speech zones" were not set up at presidential appearances, and all hell did NOT break lose. Therefore, these zones have been empirically shown to be unnecessary.

Fair enough. I usually think of 'empirical' as meaning 'research based', usually quantitative, but that's just me. In any case I accept your point - what can be better evidence than repeated experience? It just make the current 'free speech zone' seem all the more unnecessary.
 
  • #75
the number 42 said:
Can we stick to Bush & censorship please? The other topic is interesting, but for another thread.

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

Evidently, the free-speech zones at the DNC are pretty much empty. There are many protestors at the Fleet Center, but they are behaving themselves. They seem to be using weirdness rather than confrontation to get attention.

Njorl
 
  • #76
Njorl said:
Evidently, the free-speech zones at the DNC are pretty much empty. There are many protestors at the Fleet Center, but they are behaving themselves. They seem to be using weirdness rather than confrontation to get attention.
Have you ever been to Boston (nice town, my sister lives there). There are always protesters at Harvard Square and they are very entertaining, but also usually polite.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top