Author Topic: More Liberal Censorship  (Read 180085 times)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #50 on: October 05, 2011, 04:05:17 PM »
yet another example of non-censorship

Bum - you should correct the title of this thread to "Paranoid Religious Kooks feel persecuted over their bigotry against gay people"

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #51 on: March 17, 2012, 10:08:37 AM »
Liberals just can't get over the fact that conservatives rule talk radio. 

FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves
By Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem, Special to CNN
updated 10:05 AM EDT, Mon March 12, 2012

(CNN) -- Ironically, the misogyny Rush Limbaugh spewed for three days over Sandra Fluke was not much worse than his regular broadcast of sexist, racist and homophobic hate speech:

-- Female Cabinet members are "Sex-retaries."
-- "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
-- The National Organization for Women is "a bunch of whores to liberalism."
-- [Said to an African-American female caller]: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
These are just a few samples from the arsenal of degrading language Limbaugh deploys on women, people of color, lesbians and gays, immigrants, the disabled, the elderly, Muslims, Jews, veterans, environmentalists and so forth.

Jane Fonda

Limbaugh doesn't just call people names. He promotes language that deliberately dehumanizes his targets. Like the sophisticated propagandist Josef Goebbels, he creates rhetorical frames -- and the bigger the lie, the more effective -- inciting listeners to view people they disagree with as sub-humans. His longtime favorite term for women, "femi-Nazi," doesn't even raise eyebrows anymore, an example of how rhetoric spreads when unchallenged by coarsened cultural norms.

Robin Morgan

At least this most recent incident has turned a spotlight back on the vile, damaging statements Limbaugh has been promulgating for years. His sponsors are dropping him; his stations have begun to follow suit. VoteVets, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, released a statement by female vets, including Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations in the U.S. Air Forces, demanding that the American Forces Network drop Limbaugh from its programming.

Gloria Steinem

They state, "Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other -- women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect."

That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh's program, has defended his recent comments.

If Clear Channel won't clean up its airways, then surely it's time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh's show in fact using their licenses "in the public interest?"

Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh's radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.

The FCC takes such complaints into consideration when stations file for license renewal. For local listeners near a station that carries Limbaugh's show, there is plenty of evidence to bring to the FCC that their station isn't carrying out its public interest obligation. Complaints can be registered under the broadcast category of the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints

This isn't political. While we disagree with Limbaugh's politics, what's at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he's really "doing humor" or "entertainment." He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people's airways.

It's time for the public to take back our broadcast resources. Limbaugh has had decades to fix his show. Now it's up to us.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #52 on: March 17, 2012, 10:27:09 AM »
thats' because more than half of repubs let talk radio do their thinking for them

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #53 on: March 17, 2012, 10:29:41 AM »
thats' because more than half of repubs let talk radio do their thinking for them

And you let the Communist Occupier in Chief do your thinking - what is your point? 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #54 on: March 17, 2012, 10:43:44 AM »
In the least surprising news of the day . . . .

Quote
Free Republic
Browse ˇ Search   Pings ˇ Mail   News/Activism
Topics ˇ Post Article
Skip to comments.

Online, liberals far less tolerant than normal people
IBD Editorials ^ | March 13, 2012 | ANDREW MALCOM
Posted on March 13, 2012 8:22:49 PM EDT by Kaslin

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy -- such as, say, uniting diverse Americans -- liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That's double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...


_bruce_

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 23338
  • Sam Sesambröt Sulek
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #55 on: March 17, 2012, 03:57:59 PM »
Free speech is a one way street.
.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2012, 09:23:40 AM »
Iowa Republicans blast law school over refusal to hire conservative professor as faculty
By Cristina Corbin
Published April 06, 2012
FoxNews.com

Iowa Republicans are taking aim at the state's top law school for denying a faculty position to a conservative law professor, who an assistant dean once said embraces politics the rest of the faculty "despises."   

Teresa Wagner, who works as an associate director of writing at the University of Iowa College of Law, is suing former dean Carolyn Jones for employment discrimination, claiming she was not hired for a professor position because Jones and other law faculty disapproved of her conservative views and activism.

To hold a law faculty position at the publicly funded university is viewed as a "sacred cow," Wagner said in an interview, and "Republicans need not apply."

The case, which goes to trial this October, has become a chief concern for Republicans in Johnson County, who on Monday passed a resolution calling on the Iowa House of Representatives' oversight committee to investigate hiring practices involved in Wagner's case and others like it.

"We think the hiring policies need to be such where there are certainly non-discriminatory practices which relate to political philosophy, as well as to race and gender and other issues," said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party. He claims students are deprived of "diversity of political thought" when conservative thinkers, like Wagner, are rejected based on their politics.

"We have a very active, conservative Republican community within the University of Iowa, which has not been met with an appropriate sense of respect for their ideas," he told FoxNews.com. "We see generally the climate as unfavorable." 

Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.

In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.

"For the first time in years, there are more registered Republicans in the state of Iowa than there are Democrats, which is obviously not reflected at the University of Iowa," Fieweger told FoxNews.com.

Fieweger said Wagner's candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."

Associate Dean Eric Andersen was not immediately available for comment when contacted Thursday. Tom Moore, a spokesman for the university, told the Iowa City Press Citizen last week that the school is "committed to equal opportunity, diversity and to following fair hiring practices."

Wagner's case was initially dismissed in a lower court that ruled the dean could hire whomever she wishes. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reinstated it in December. A trial is set for Oct. 15.

Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so "entrenched" in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that "they don't recognize they're doing it."

At the time Wagner filed her complaint, Fieweger said, the number of registered Republicans on the law faculty stood at one.

Fieweger said the school argues Wagner was rejected because she "stunningly flunked the interview" in refusing to teach analysis -- a claim he said "just doesn't make sense and the jury is going to see that."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/iowa-republicans-blast-law-school-over-refusal-to-hire-conservative-professor/

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #57 on: April 06, 2012, 01:21:03 PM »
Iowa Republicans blast law school over refusal to hire conservative professor as faculty
By Cristina Corbin
Published April 06, 2012
FoxNews.com

Iowa Republicans are taking aim at the state's top law school for denying a faculty position to a conservative law professor, who an assistant dean once said embraces politics the rest of the faculty "despises."   

Teresa Wagner, who works as an associate director of writing at the University of Iowa College of Law, is suing former dean Carolyn Jones for employment discrimination, claiming she was not hired for a professor position because Jones and other law faculty disapproved of her conservative views and activism.

To hold a law faculty position at the publicly funded university is viewed as a "sacred cow," Wagner said in an interview, and "Republicans need not apply."

The case, which goes to trial this October, has become a chief concern for Republicans in Johnson County, who on Monday passed a resolution calling on the Iowa House of Representatives' oversight committee to investigate hiring practices involved in Wagner's case and others like it.

"We think the hiring policies need to be such where there are certainly non-discriminatory practices which relate to political philosophy, as well as to race and gender and other issues," said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party. He claims students are deprived of "diversity of political thought" when conservative thinkers, like Wagner, are rejected based on their politics.

"We have a very active, conservative Republican community within the University of Iowa, which has not been met with an appropriate sense of respect for their ideas," he told FoxNews.com. "We see generally the climate as unfavorable." 

Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.

In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.

"For the first time in years, there are more registered Republicans in the state of Iowa than there are Democrats, which is obviously not reflected at the University of Iowa," Fieweger told FoxNews.com.

Fieweger said Wagner's candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."

Associate Dean Eric Andersen was not immediately available for comment when contacted Thursday. Tom Moore, a spokesman for the university, told the Iowa City Press Citizen last week that the school is "committed to equal opportunity, diversity and to following fair hiring practices."

Wagner's case was initially dismissed in a lower court that ruled the dean could hire whomever she wishes. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reinstated it in December. A trial is set for Oct. 15.

Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so "entrenched" in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that "they don't recognize they're doing it."

At the time Wagner filed her complaint, Fieweger said, the number of registered Republicans on the law faculty stood at one.

Fieweger said the school argues Wagner was rejected because she "stunningly flunked the interview" in refusing to teach analysis -- a claim he said "just doesn't make sense and the jury is going to see that."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/iowa-republicans-blast-law-school-over-refusal-to-hire-conservative-professor/

how is this censorship

I guess if Fox doesn't offer Keith Olberman a job then they are censoring him too

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #58 on: April 07, 2012, 09:12:18 AM »
how is this censorship

I guess if Fox doesn't offer Keith Olberman a job then they are censoring him too
public institutions that receive govt subsidies are not supposed promote a political doctrine.

Isnt that one of your beef's with the church?

I guess you havent gotten a chance to look up the definition of censor just yet?

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #59 on: April 07, 2012, 09:49:58 AM »
public institutions that receive govt subsidies are not supposed promote a political doctrine.

says who?

by your standard wouldn't hiring her be promoting political doctrine as well

btw - Faux News uses the public airwaves so shouldn't they be required to have liberal points of view (assuming of course one believes that somehow not being hired for a job is a form of censorship)

Isnt that one of your beef's with the church?
no

I guess you havent gotten a chance to look up the definition of censor just yet?

feel free to show me a generally accepted definition that includes the situation of this woman


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #60 on: April 07, 2012, 10:17:25 AM »
So what if the school doesn't want to hire her?  Isn't their right to hire who ever they want?  And if they want to hire only liberal minded people isn't it their choice?

Should we start having affirmative action now for political ideology?


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #61 on: April 07, 2012, 10:20:19 AM »
Makes me wonder if an institution that had overwhelmingly conservative staff decided not hire a extreme liberal professor if the outcry would be the  same?

Or should it be?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #62 on: April 07, 2012, 10:33:26 AM »
So what if the school doesn't want to hire her?  Isn't their right to hire who ever they want?  And if they want to hire only liberal minded people isn't it their choice?

Should we start having affirmative action now for political ideology?



A private school should be able to hire whomever they want.  A taxpayer funded school, not so much.

But the real issue (at least to me) is the repeated attempt to silence dissent.  It's a liberal hallmark. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #63 on: April 07, 2012, 10:45:30 AM »
A private school should be able to hire whomever they want.  A taxpayer funded school, not so much.

But the real issue (at least to me) is the repeated attempt to silence dissentIt's a liberal hallmark. 

It's a conservative hallmark to whine about non-existent censorship

how is she being silenced ?

she can speak, blog, publish etc.. and can probably get a job at a 100 different schools

she is not entitled to a job at any particular school regardless of whether that school receives any public assistance or not

should the school be forced to hire David Duke as well because his particular political beliefs are not represented?


tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #64 on: April 07, 2012, 10:47:01 AM »
says who?

by your standard wouldn't hiring her be promoting political doctrine as well

btw - Faux News uses the public airwaves so shouldn't they be required to have liberal points of view (assuming of course one believes that somehow not being hired for a job is a form of censorship)
no

feel free to show me a generally accepted definition that includes the situation of this woman
says the govt and nut job paranoid atheist such as yourself.

you havent railed for the tax exempt status of churchs to be taken away b/c they are political?

does fox news receive public subsidies?

define censor straw...

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #65 on: April 07, 2012, 12:03:24 PM »
says the govt and nut job paranoid atheist such as yourself.

you havent railed for the tax exempt status of churchs to be taken away b/c they are political?

does fox news receive public subsidies?

define censor straw...

this has nothing to do with separation of church and state but if you think it does then I guess christian churches should be forced to hire rabbi's, imam's and also atheists to provide their points of view on Sunday mornings

again - feel free to produce any definition of censorship that you think would support this womans claim that she is entitled to a job at this specific university

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #66 on: April 07, 2012, 12:26:32 PM »
this has nothing to do with separation of church and state but if you think it does then I guess christian churches should be forced to hire rabbi's, imam's and also atheists to provide their points of view on Sunday mornings

again - feel free to produce any definition of censorship that you think would support this womans claim that she is entitled to a job at this specific university
LOL I didnt know that their were imams and rabbis applying for jobs at churchs

find any definition of censor that doesnt...jack ass

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #67 on: April 07, 2012, 04:10:39 PM »
A private school should be able to hire whomever they want.  A taxpayer funded school, not so much.

But the real issue (at least to me) is the repeated attempt to silence dissent.  It's a liberal hallmark.  

Aren't they just denying a job in favor of someone else?  I don't think a staff of peopel like 33333 would be any less intolerant.   It's only natural now a days in this culture of lib vs dem spurred on by talking heads in a joint demonization. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #68 on: April 07, 2012, 09:06:36 PM »
Aren't they just denying a job in favor of someone else?  I don't think a staff of peopel like 33333 would be any less intolerant.   It's only natural now a days in this culture of lib vs dem spurred on by talking heads in a joint demonization. 

They're denying a job to a conservative so they can hire someone else who is a liberal.  It's an attempt to control ideology and keep out opposing viewpoints. 

Check out the story earlier on this page about liberals being less tolerant with people with different opinions.  They cut them off.  Try and shut them up.  It's a very predictable reaction. 

The response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #69 on: April 07, 2012, 09:16:29 PM »
They're denying a job to a conservative so they can hire someone else who is a liberal.  It's an attempt to control ideology and keep out opposing viewpoints. 

Check out the story earlier on this page about liberals being less tolerant with people with different opinions.  They cut them off.  Try and shut them up.  It's a very predictable reaction. 

The response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. 

leftists and liberal communists are dishonest about their agenda.  They are the least tolerant of anyone.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #70 on: April 08, 2012, 03:43:34 PM »
leftists and liberal communists are dishonest about their agenda.  They are the least tolerant of anyone.

I agree.  Not true of all of them, but certainly true of a lot. 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #71 on: April 08, 2012, 07:13:22 PM »
They're denying a job to a conservative so they can hire someone else who is a liberal.  It's an attempt to control ideology and keep out opposing viewpoints.  

Check out the story earlier on this page about liberals being less tolerant with people with different opinions.  They cut them off.  Try and shut them up.  It's a very predictable reaction.  

The response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less.  

Are you suggesting groups/institutions with hard core conservatives Controlling things don't do similar things?

If you don't think so, are you telling me a bleeding heart lib is going to make General with the same difficulty as a conservative?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #72 on: April 08, 2012, 07:20:16 PM »
Are you suggesting groups/institutions with hard core conservatives Controlling things don't do similar things?

If you don't think so, are you telling me a bleeding heart lib is going to make General with the same difficulty as a conservative?

Like who exactly that has a similar captive audience? 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #73 on: April 08, 2012, 07:24:07 PM »
Like who exactly that has a similar captive audience?  

Huh?

Don't understand, maybe you missed a word in your sentence.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #74 on: April 08, 2012, 07:26:44 PM »
Huh?

Don't understand, maybe you missed a word in your sentence.

Conservatives don't have the captive audience that leftists and communists do like the school system, the msm, the colleges, academia, etc.