9 Likes
Strong agree with @anon50609448 here. OwMyPopehat’s argument is patently ridiculous.
So many of these types of arguments in America come down to whether you trust corporations or governments more. This debate only seems to happen in America (among western democracies) because the government is so distrusted.
Somehow, though, people have completely lost the plot of how we got here. ANY concentration of power is bad. That’s the whole point of democracy. So democratic governments are set up to be full of checks and balances, transparencies, accountability structures, systems of protest, avenues for appeal, public access to courts, etc. Corporations have none of that. So why would anyone want them to have more power? They are the very definition of everything democracy is trying to prevent with regard to private accumulation of power.
The US government is far from perfect, and Trump was a real low point, but I still trust those systems and institutions that have been refined over thousands of years since the very idea of democracy was tried… more than… whatever Bezos or Zuck feel like doing behind closed doors today.
14 Likes
How does popehat think the internment camps ended? Because the media at the time was supportive of them for another decade after the government was forced to end the internment. On top of that, the US did it again at a smaller scale in response to 9/11 because it’s not an issue that is tied to the freedom of media anyways and is a legit civil liberty problem the US cannot stop with any kind of speech propped up by complacent racism just like in WWII.
It’s just another strawman built to never ever talk about media and speech critically.
9 Likes
While I see your other points, I see one basic difference between laws restricting speech and laws restricting action in that laws restricting speech have the potential to be used to control discourse and silence dissent, which is why I’m extremely wary of giving that power to anyone including governments which can and do use power for both good and evil ends.
4 Likes
We have limits on speech already, and we’ve often limited various kinds of political speech in a variety of ways - arresting anti-war people during WW1 and in some cases, expelling naturalized citizens, the Lavendar scare and the red scare, state-mandated loyalty clauses for public employees, state sanction for racial violence via nullification, etc. All of that happened while we had the first amendment and did not seem to run afoul of it.
7 Likes
Oh absolutely. Those are the kinds of instances that make me wary. But legally I absolutely recognize even the First Amendment has his limits and for good reason.
3 Likes
But we also DO limit speech in ways that are positive, such as for harassment, inciting violence, etc.
I don’t think that the possibility of abuse should be the only reason not to pass law. Any law can be abused. The remedy for that is working in greater accountability into our legal systems, not doing away with the legal system.
6 Likes
Agreed on all points. The potential for abuse is something I think should be considered though, which, while Ken White might not have worded it in the best way, was I think his point.
4 Likes
My complaint was that internment camps are not an example of restricted speech. Bringing them up to argue for free speech makes no sense and, to me comes off as weirdly arrogant. Like Popehat is in a place to tell Takei what the lessons of that part of American history are.
10 Likes
Clearly being a white dude with a law degree is more validating than direct, first hand experience… /s
10 Likes
I agree and I admit my own bias glossed over it at first. It was a problematic example for him to make a point to an actual survivor of internment. Kent White could have drawn on his own prolific experience as a defense attorney instead of condescending to George Takei. I rescind my opinion that it was respectful. While White is IMHO one of the good guys, that tweet was indeed arrogant.
9 Likes
7 Likes
3 Likes
Oh, these groups really want to roll things back! 
12 Likes
So they would be perfectly fine if i called them racist assholes? No? That’s not what they meant? How about ignorant cr*****s? What? Those are both racist and demeaning to white people? Ah, i think we have found the problem.
13 Likes
8 Likes
What a waste.
7 Likes
“Always Be Briefing.”
8 Likes
Where are the layers of betrayal and the multiple double crosses that once made his films (and, I assume, his plays) stand out? (Disclaimer: the last Mamet film I saw was Heist)
2 Likes
Faux News and other lying right-wing outlets may have pushed the limits of their freeze peach claims.
9 Likes
