Get Updates via Email:
Latest Spotify Activity
Bloodhound Gang – Uhn Tiss Uhn Tiss Uhn Tiss 8 hours ago
Collective Soul – The World I Know (1995) 8 hours ago
Rage Against The Machine – Renegades of Funk 9 hours ago
Korn – Clown 9 hours ago
Link Wray – Vendetta 9 hours ago
Follow me on TwitterMy Tweets
By Ken White
shared this story
It’s easy to spot overt calls for censorship from the commentariat. Those have become more common in the wake of both tumultuous events (like the violence questionably attributed to the “Innocence of Muslims” video, or Pamela Geller’s “Draw Muhammad” contest) and mundane ones (like fraternity brothers recorded indulging in racist chants).
But it’s harder to detect the subtle pro-censorship assumptions and rhetorical devices that permeate media coverage of free speech controversies. In discussing our First Amendment rights, the media routinely begs the question — it adopts stock phrases and concepts that presume that censorship is desirable or constitutional, and then tries to pass the result off as neutral analysis. This promotes civic ignorance and empowers deliberate censors.
Fortunately, this ain’t rocket science. Americans can train themselves to detect and question the media’s pro-censorship tropes. I’ve collected some of the most pervasive and familiar ones. This post is designed as a resource, and I’ll add to it as people point out more examples and more tropes.
When you see the media using these tropes, ask yourself: what normative message is the author advancing, and does it have any basis in law?
Trope One: “Hate Speech”
Example: “hate speech is excluded from protection. dont [sic] just say you love the constitution . . . read it.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo, on Twitter, February 6, 2015.
Example: “I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would.” Edward Schumacher-Matos, NPR, February 6, 2015.
In the United States, “hate speech” is an argumentative rhetorical category, not a legal one.
“Hate speech” means many things to many Americans. There’s no widely accepted legal definition in American law. More importantly, as Professor Eugene Volokh explains conclusively, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Americans are free to impose social consequences on ugly speech, but the government is not free to impose official sanctions upon it. In other words, even if the phrase “hate speech” had a recognized legal definition, it would still not …Click Here To Read The Full Story >>>
I’m surprised I didn’t post this before. I half-assed a Photoshop of a Cottonelle toilet paper package into a “Peter Cottontail” toilet paper package. I didn’t do the top part, you get what you pay for. Anyway, it answers the question of “what do bears use to wipe their asses?”
I was looking for a simple graphic of Jon Stewart from his iconic role in Half Baked, but the pickins were slim, so I had to make a couple myself.
These are smaller files, 800px wide, but I do have bigger ones. If you want a larger version, up to 2000 x 1000, let me know in the comments.