NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: I just got this in my email in-box and thought it would make a good "counterbalance" to the usual rants on here about governmental censorship. Some non-flaming posts would be nice. :)


Arrogant Censorship
David Limbaugh
Friday, Feb. 11, 2005

An incident at Hudson High School in Massachusetts provides an object lesson in the occasional arrogance of liberal bias.

A group of students decided to form a conservative club as "a counterweight" to the majority political viewpoint at the school. Student Chris Bowler put up posters to publicize the club's first meeting in December.

Within hours, school administrators reportedly removed the posters because they contained a link to the Web site of High School Conservative Clubs of America (HSCCA), a national organization for high school conservative clubs. HSCCA's Web site included links to videos of beheadings by Iraqi insurgents, and the high school would not allow even an indirect reference to those links. It also blocked access to the HSCCA's Web site on school computers.
"The material was way beyond what I believe the school should be advertising," said Principal John Stapelfeld. What? Just because the school permits students to use its facilities to promote something doesn't mean the school itself is endorsing it. In fact, just because the local club listed the HSCCA's Web address doesn't mean it endorses everything HSCCA endorses.

But for the sake of discussion, let's concede that the school's club was encouraging the viewing of those videos. What in the world is wrong with that, and what business was it of the principal's to censor the posters?

Principal Stapelfeld insists his political bias didn't enter into his decision. According to the Boston Globe, he was initially "thrilled" about the idea of a conservative club that would spark political discussions.

So, what's his beef with the video links? The Globe reports that he "said the brutal images implicitly condoned violence as a way of 'solving problems' and did not reflect 'mainstream conservatism'" – as if this liberal were an authority on mainstream conservatism and as if it's fine to censor further-right conservatism.

When I first read this I did a double take, thinking I'd misunderstood. How can links to videos of beheadings of innocent people by terrorists – unless shown by terrorists to potential recruits – be construed as condoning violence, much less as a means of solving problems?

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the HSCCA was linking to those horrendous videos to show how evil the terrorists are and how they use violence purely for the sake of violence and terror, without provocation and certainly not as a means of "solving problems."

Let's give Stapelfeld the benefit of the doubt and assume he got himself confused on that one. Perhaps his other statements express his concerns more clearly.

According to the Globe, he felt that showcasing these violent acts "did not address the more central problem of growing anti-Americanism abroad." "Unfortunately, said Stapelfeld, "we really haven't dealt with the fact that we're not well received in the world anywhere."

In this revealing utterance, we have the principal's naked liberal mind-set on full display. What he is really saying is that he – like so many other liberals – believes the Bush administration has alienated the rest of the world because of its "unwarranted" military action against Iraq. And by promoting the viewing of these videos, his students would be engaging in offensive behavior that will further alienate other nations.

But on what remotely legitimate basis would other nations have to be offended by American students encouraging Americans and other peoples to view videos the terrorists themselves produced and distributed, advertising their own violence? How could genuinely civilized human beings of other nations take issue with civilized Americans for reminding the world, via unedited terrorist-produced videos, of the abject depravity and brutality of the terrorists?

Indeed, isn't it necessary for us to focus on their inhumanity from time to time to avoid becoming desensitized to it? Perhaps what really bothers the principal (and other liberals) deep down is that by showing the terrorists in their true element the videos demonstrate how utterly justified our cause in Iraq is – a reality that liberals simply cannot abide. How dare we use the terrorists' own videos to turn people against them? I suppose that instead, we should be trying to negotiate with the sweethearts.

In short, the principal is betraying his own transparent political prejudices. But what alarms me significantly more than his bias or even the high-handed censorship it produced is his arrogant obliviousness to it.

This absence of individual and collective self-reflection is all too often the signature of today's liberal, who apparently believes his positions are so pure that his motives are beyond scrutiny.

And I thought liberals hated censorship

And I thought liberals hated censorship
I have conflicting love and hatred for it. Probably because I am out of my mind.

I have conflicting love and hatred for it. Probably because I am out of my mind.
Prolly

Growing up in Republicanville, Ohio insulated me from these sorts of things, but the situation does sound slightly fishy...

And I thought liberals hated censorshipI always thought Dogs hated Cats
http://www.suite101.com/files/topics/902/files/catdoghug168x163.jpg

Growing up in Republicanville, Ohio insulated me from these sorts of things, but the situation does sound slightly fishy...

Cincinnati??

Meh. Sounds like the author wishes his name was Rush instead of David.

So the gist of the article? Dumb stupid liberals are hypocrites?

Censorship?

My god! I thought the Democrats/Liberals were against it?

I guess they are unless its a conservative website.

interesting...Why is it that we never hear about these things on the news?

I always thought Dogs hated Cats
Well, you know, it depends on the dogs/cats. Oftentimes, if a dog and a cat grow up together, they tend to like each other, or at least get along.

interesting...Why is it that we never hear about these things on the news?

I could say the media is liberal but I haven't even seen this on Fox News so I won't!

It could also mean that it isn't news worthy to be broadcasted nation wide.

According to the Globe, he felt that showcasing these violent acts "did not address the more central problem of growing anti-Americanism abroad." "Unfortunately, said Stapelfeld, "we really haven't dealt with the fact that we're not well received in the world anywhere."

In this revealing utterance, we have the principal's naked liberal mind-set on full display. What he is really saying is that he – like so many other liberals – believes the Bush administration has alienated the rest of the world because of its "unwarranted" military action against Iraq. And by promoting the viewing of these videos, his students would be engaging in offensive behavior that will further alienate other nations.
I guess Mr. Limbaugh is a psychic who can read other peoples minds, otherwise this would be an assumption. Its ok to have an agenda, but pushing it so bluntly isnt going to earn him my respect. But, hey, its his op-ed. Just dont take it for news.

Quick thought on the condoning violence thing.

Terrorists cut off a person's head to get attention.

They release a video.

The video is shown.

They got what they wanted throught violence.

Anyhoo. Not like I care.

If someone's stupid / voyeuristic / too damn curious enough to go watch those videos, let 'em.

http://www.okcupid.com/politics

"Conservative? Liberal? Republican? Democrat? No matter how you vote, it's unlikely that any one of these words perfectly reflects your views. Politcal beliefs are often intuitive and personal, and no party, platform, candidate or external label can encompass them exactly."

Anyway, I'm a socialist. 80% Social Liberal and 5% Economic Liberal, according to that thing.

Censorship = Fascism

you dont got shit, its called "school"

Indeed, isn't it necessary for us to focus on their inhumanity from time to time to avoid becoming desensitized to it? Perhaps what really bothers the principal (and other liberals) deep down is that by showing the terrorists in their true element the videos demonstrate how utterly justified our cause in Iraq is – a reality that liberals simply cannot abide. How dare we use the terrorists' own videos to turn people against them? I suppose that instead, we should be trying to negotiate with the sweethearts.

In short, the principal is betraying his own transparent political prejudices. But what alarms me significantly more than his bias or even the high-handed censorship it produced is his arrogant obliviousness to it.

This absence of individual and collective self-reflection is all too often the signature of today's liberal, who apparently believes his positions are so pure that his motives are beyond scrutiny.
When I got to these last 3 paragraphs I realised that this columnist is one of those who just writes to tell everyone how bad liberal people are.

Its Rush Limbaugh, of course it is a conserative opinion, but the school still engaged in blatently political censorship

liberals only believe in freedom of speech when it does not prove that their veiwpoint is flawed or just wrong

I live in Cincinnati OH

Censorship is good for all, it protects from seeing/hearing/reading things that would otherwise harm us. :)

State control of Fox News now! (Oh wait, it already is in everything but name.)

Its Rush Limbaugh, of course it is a conserative opinion, but the school still engaged in blatently political censorship

liberals only believe in freedom of speech when it does not prove that their veiwpoint is flawed or just wrong

I live in Cincinnati OH

No, it's David Limbaugh, someone of whom I had never heard before. But that shouldn't have any bearing on whether this constituted censorship or not, provided the facts of the case are accurately presented. If anyone knows more about this incident, I would love to know if this writer was accurate.

I use to live in Cinti! Worked at that massive GE Aircraft Engine Group complex on I-70 ( at least I think it's I-70. That was back in '95 - '97 ). Lived in Forest Park.

What Massachusetts conservatives need to understand is that this is a liberal state. I only know four or five conservatives in my high school. Face it, we're liberals, even though Romney is a republican. We should have elected Tolman.

Here is my result from the OkCupid test.

You are a

Social Liberal
(91% permissive)



and an...

Economic Liberal
(25% permissive)



You are best described as a:


Strong Democrat


You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

I am the same as Gandhi, i straddle the line between Democrat and Socialist

Censorship?

My god! I thought the Democrats/Liberals were against it?

I guess they are unless its a conservative website.

Actually the guy(Principal) is never proved to be a Liberal. The guy named David Limbaugh just calls him one. Its one of those buzz words that adds emotion and take away rationale thought. People look at the word and draw conclusions without actually noticing its not proven.

But eh, Limbaughs are just about buzz words anyway. lol (Sterotyping but as far as I can tell true)

What Massachusetts conservatives need to understand is that this is a liberal state. I only know four or five conservatives in my high school. Face it, we're liberals, even though Romney is a republican. We should have elected Tolman.
That does not mean that conservatives should not have every freedom of speech that liberals have.

Here is my result from the OkCupid test.

You are a

Social Liberal
(91% permissive)



and an...

Economic Liberal
(25% permissive)



You are best described as a:


Strong Democrat


You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

I am the same as Gandhi, i straddle the line between Democrat and Socialist
i can beat that, i got socialist

i can beat that, i got socialist

That explains everything you say on these forums.

A republican partisan hack writing a hate article on a teacher that wanted to promote rational political thought by banning a group who was using images whose only use would be to create knee-jerk hate reactions and support for the war without considering its feasability or its ramifications.

Two notes:

1) A liberal can identfy a conservative and identify key conservative values. This is a teacher so I guess he is educated enough to know the difference.

2) A Republican is NOT a conservative. A conservative believes in fiscal responsibility and small government. A Republican is a 100-foot tall scaley monster that breathes fire and eats babies. Big difference.

Congratulations! Someone has provided proof again that if you yell like a lunatic long enough you can shoo away critical thought and justified opposition.

The author of this article is an asshat (to be VERY polite) and I wanna punch him in the face.

I also don't trust him to give me the whole story.

EDIT

Principal Stapelfeld insists his political bias didn't enter into his decision. According to the Boston Globe, he was initially "thrilled" about the idea of a conservative club that would spark political discussions.

Apparently he did want the club to be formed. However, I agree with him the knee-jerk extreme section of the Repubs are the enemy of the high-quality political discussions he was hoping for.

Also, did he ban the club or just the posters?

EDIT EDIT

Guh. I really want to pound the stupid out of this author.

Took the test:

You are a

Social Liberal
(66% permissive)


and an...

Economic Liberal
(8% permissive)


You are best described as a:

Socialist


You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

I got Libertarian on that.

Like 85 on social
and 76 on economic

but it fluctuates

Look, the guy who wrote the article is an absolute asshole, but he's talking about a real problem. There does seem to be a growing group of pseudo-liberals who have a phobia of open discourse because they think people's feelings will be hurt. They make liberals like me who don't believe in feelings ashamed.

At the college level I would say the school should have no censorship of any kind. At the highschool level some censorship might be needed. They don't let them link to porn sites at school either, do they. I wouldn't want my fourteen year old seeing something so inflamatory at school and making up his mind about something without more input. I wouldn't want them seeing a late term abortion, an execution of any kind, or graphic sex. Not because these are things I agree or disagree with, but because someone that young doesn't need to make up their mind on the basis of a visceral reaction.

But generally I disagree with censorship. A legal adult should be privy to whatever information they desire, unless it would comprimise an investigation by the government.

A school has the resposibility to not provide access to pictures as disturbing as a beheading. It is best to err on the safe side than to risk causing students trauma. The prinicipal's descision was correct. Mr. Limbaugh is clearly too partisan to diferentiate between the obligation to protect students, and unfair censorship. Had there been no link it would be totally different.

A school has the resposibility to not provide access to pictures as disturbing as a beheading. It is best to err on the safe side than to risk causing students trauma. The prinicipal's descision was correct. Mr. Limbaugh is clearly too partisan to diferentiate between the obligation to protect students, and unfair censorship. Had there been no link it would be totally different.
Exactly. The club wasn't banned, just the link in the poster that showed beheadings. The people in the club could have easily had their club and advertised it without the link.

This absence of individual and collective self-reflection is all too often the signature of today's liberal, who apparently believes his positions are so pure that his motives are beyond scrutiny.

If you ask me, the author seems just as guilty of it himself, as are many conservatives, just look at the Bush Administration.

And as for the test:
You are a

Social Liberal
(88% permissive)


and an...

Economic Liberal
(33% permissive)


You are best described as a:

Strong Democrat


You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

Frankly, the way that article is presented makes no sense to me. It presumes political bias, but yet also notes that the Principal 'was initially "thrilled" about the idea of a conservative club that would spark political discussions.'

The principal's complaint is only that the posters provided a link to a site that provides access to videos of acts so violent that network TV would never show them. This is not a matter of bias, but of adherence to school policies. I'm sure that the school could never get permission to screen those videos for their students without getting their asses sued off by some parents, so he must also concern himself with the ramifications of allowing them to be advertized on his property.

I mean, if a liberal group put out posters that had links to sites that provided access to porn, I'm sure they would also be removed and no-one would be trying to paint this as bias or cencorship.

He runs a high-school, which by definition means that he has the care of minors and so must be careful in what content gets provided to them.

And to be honest, showing the video beheadings as a way to try and influence political position of minors is pretty sick in my opinion. It provides a gut reaction that has nothing to do with a reasoned discussion of existing policy and policy alternatives.

Is it censorship? Yes, if you assume that nothing should be censored, but is it an appropriate level of censorship for a high school proncipal to engage in? Frankly I think he would be unemployed if he didn't.

2) A Republican is NOT a conservative. A conservative believes in fiscal responsibility and small government. A Republican is a 100-foot tall scaley monster that breathes fire and eats babies. Big difference.

Damn! I knew the rumours about Godzilla being the 2008 Republican candidate were true!

Look, the guy who wrote the article is an absolute asshole, but he's talking about a real problem. There does seem to be a growing group of pseudo-liberals who have a phobia of open discourse because they think people's feelings will be hurt. They make liberals like me who don't believe in feelings ashamed.
The posters were taken down because they linked to an offensive website...which is well within the rights of the school to do. It's disruptive.

Quick thought on the condoning violence thing.

Terrorists cut off a person's head to get attention.

They release a video.

The video is shown.

They got what they wanted throught violence.

Anyhoo. Not like I care.

If someone's stupid / voyeuristic / too damn curious enough to go watch those videos, let 'em.
exactamente

Frankly, the way that article is presented makes no sense to me. It presumes political bias, but yet also notes that the Principal 'was initially "thrilled" about the idea of a conservative club that would spark political discussions.'

The principal's complaint is only that the posters provided a link to a site that provides access to videos of acts so violent that network TV would never show them. This is not a matter of bias, but of adherence to school policies. I'm sure that the school could never get permission to screen those videos for their students without getting their asses sued off by some parents, so he must also concern himself with the ramifications of allowing them to be advertized on his property.

I mean, if a liberal group put out posters that had links to sites that provided access to porn, I'm sure they would also be removed and no-one would be trying to paint this as bias or cencorship.

He runs a high-school, which by definition means that he has the care of minors and so must be careful in what content gets provided to them.

And to be honest, showing the video beheadings as a way to try and influence political position of minors is pretty sick in my opinion. It provides a gut reaction that has nothing to do with a reasoned discussion of existing policy and policy alternatives.

Is it censorship? Yes, if you assume that nothing should be censored, but is it an appropriate level of censorship for a high school proncipal to engage in? Frankly I think he would be unemployed if he didn't.


You said it so much better than I did. Thanks.

Damn! I knew the rumours about Godzilla being the 2008 Republican candidate were true!
He'd still beat Hillary.

I demand my 15 year old 9-grader has a right to see what conservative idealogy is all about! Fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, concern for Christian family values, balancing state and federal rights, and...

...Beheadings. Grisly, ugly, horrific beheadings.

I don't complain about violence on television, or violence in video games, but FANTASY and REALITY are two different things. Telling your kids its okay to watch a man get his head sawed off on Streaming Webcam footage because his political idealogy says that's okay is, well, wrong!

If you want to watch snuff films; you're pretty damn sick in the head. I'll say this right now. If you are watching some poor Iraqi, or anyone in the world for that matter, have their blood and gore spill out over a dirty floor as they cry horribly in pain and anguish as a blade slowly saws through their neck...You need help. No one, NO ONE should EVER want to see that happen. To click a link that shows this is utterly, totally, and completely disgusting.

We should put our heart and souls into stopping that from happening, and now we are even allowing young children to watch it happen over and over!? Its disgusting, sick, and outragous, not to mention despoiling the memory of the poor victims. There is a very good reason we don't take pictures of the coffins of our servicemen and women dammit! Where the hell is the moral outrage from conservitive voices when we need it!? We're talking about kids below VOTING age watching people get killed, real people!

This isn't "showing what were fighting against" this is a front row seat in hell itself. What sick, twisted mind would actually watch this filth? Now we're posting it for every high school in America to watch?! These are real men getting killed! How dare these inhuman freaks dishonor their names by publicly displaying their murders!

What's next? Should we put cameras in the state execution chambers? Shall we watch our murders fry? New, "dismemberment cams" in every warzone! Break out the popcorn people, we've got a new viewing sensation! ...Sick freaks.