NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw this and thought I'd share. Am I the only one feeling a distinctive chill wind blowing from south of the border? I tell you, I'm glad to live somewhere that doesn't practice censorship where criticism of the government or the personalities ivolved in government are concerned.

How do you feel about it?


http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/07/26/Arts/Doonesbury_050726.html

ARTICLE:

Papers pull 'Doonesbury' over potty put-down
Last Updated Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:40:45 EDT
CBC Arts

Some newspapers in the United States have pulled the comic strip Doonesbury objecting to two instances of potty mouth.

The strips for Tuesday and Wednesday show a caricature of U.S. President George W. Bush referring to his top political advisor, Karl Rove, by the nickname "Turd Blossom."

About a dozen newspapers have complained to Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes the comic, and said they wouldn't run it or edited out the offending word.

The Providence Journal in Rhode Island removed the word from the strip's final panel.

"I didn't think [that] hurt it," said Executive Editor Joel Rawson, who said "Turd Blossom" would also be taken out of Wednesday's strip.

Universal Press didn't offer alternative strips to use, something it's done in the past.

"Given the coverage of Karl Rove, we thought it was appropriate, especially given the history of the strip," said Lee Salem, editor at UPS, which sends the strip to about 1,400 newspapers.

Rove is alleged to have leaked the name of a CIA operative to Washington journalists last July. He is reported to have outed Valerie Plame, married to Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had questioned the administration's claims about Iraq's alleged nuclear program.

A grand jury is now investigating the leak, a federal felony. Rove has denied being its source and has yet to appear before the jury.

The 53-year-old masterminded Bush's $150-million re-election campaign and has been a confidante for decades, meeting the younger Bush in the '70s. The two caroused together in Texas as Rove made a name for himself in Republican circles as a political consultant.

Because of his ability to escape from controversy Bush gave him the name "Turd Blossom," a Texas term for a flower that blooms in cow dung. He also calls him "Boy Genius."

Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau is no stranger to controversy, either. Trudeau has carved himself a niche lampooning current events and politics through his imagined world. In March, the character of Duke – modelled after gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson – comes across a story about Thompson's death, at which moment his head explodes. Thompson committed suicide on Feb. 20 by shooting himself in the head.

Yeah, *bump* what the hell...

That's certainly within their rights. I imagine a lot of people in some areas would be pretty pissed off by such a name for a Party official.

I think it's a perfectly appropriate nickname.....

Good wit is often misunderstood.

Newspapers have to keep the subscribers happy.

I don't really consider it censorship (in a bad sense) unless it's government-involved. I say, 'let the independent newpapers decide what to print and what not to print it's hardly for me to decide'.

I don't really consider it censorship (in a bad sense) unless it's government-involved. I say, 'let the independent newpapers decide what to print and what not to print it's hardly for me to decide'.
You beat me to it.

I don't really consider it censorship (in a bad sense) unless it's government-involved. I say, 'let the independent newpapers decide what to print and what not to print it's hardly for me to decide'.
Independent. Hehehee. :eek:

Independent. Hehehee. :eek:


Does the Federal Government own said papers? Nope! Thus they are Independent.

I saw this and thought I'd share. Am I the only one feeling a distinctive chill wind blowing from south of the border? I tell you, I'm glad to live somewhere that doesn't practice censorship where criticism of the government or the personalities ivolved in government are concerned.



If you believe the Canadian Government practices no censorship, then I have a bridge to sell you.

That's certainly within their rights. I imagine a lot of people in some areas would be pretty pissed off by such a name for a Party official.
which was given to him by georgie and friends...

If you believe the Canadian Government practices no censorship, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Pfft. Big talk. Show me substantial links to back this notion up, puh-leeze.

Because of his ability to escape from controversy Bush gave him the name "Turd Blossom," a Texas term for a flower that blooms in cow dung.


It's Dubya's own nickname for his little buddy, and not something Trudeau invented to be funny. Where's the problem?

Our 'president' is such a potty mouth. He spews nothing but crap from those pursed lips.

Doonesbury is a great comic... I read it on my yahoo page everyday.

It's Dubya's own nickname for his little buddy, and not something Trudeau invented to be funny. Where's the problem?

Indeed. Where's the problem?

Quick answer: Washington.

Who cares? It's not like Trudeau is saying anything libelous or criminal, so there doesn't seem to be a problem. Of course, that doesn't mean the can't remove it, it just seems a little ridiculous that they would get worked up over what is plainly known and remove it. I guess we can't offend anyone close to the God Emperor. :rolleyes:

Doonesbury is a comic strip, for God's sake. Let it go, it's a piece of satire and nothing more.

Who cares? It's not like Trudeau is saying anything libelous or criminal, so there doesn't seem to be a problem. Of course, that doesn't mean the can't remove it, it just seems a little ridiculous that they would get worked up over what is plainly known and remove it. I guess we can't offend anyone close to the God Emperor. :rolleyes:

Doonesbury is a comic strip, for God's sake. Let it go, it's a piece of satire and nothing more.

Yup. Welcome the Coccooned States of America. Everyone who thinks everything is hunky-dory, are things beginning to filter through yet? Your freedoms are being sidelined. State Security and the admin's Public Image take precedence over all else.

Get used to it. It's not going to get better anytime soon.

Yup. Welcome the Coccooned States of America. Everyone who thinks everything is hunky-dory, are things beginning to filter through yet? Your freedoms are being sidelined. State Security and the admin's Public Image take precedence over all else.
Get used to it. It's not going to get better anytime soon.

It won't until people start caring about their government, not just going to the ballot box and choosing candidates who have an "R" or a "D" next to them. We don't think, and that's what keeps these terrible politicians in office.

Eventually, people will wake up; already the number of people who approve of Congress' job have fallen by 12% in 6 months to 33%, to the lowest level since Clinton's impeachment trial began.

I see the objections more as a Political Correct issue than a censorship issue. As far as I know, they object to the use of vulgar words but not about the commentary on Rove.

Doonesbury is know to be a politically charged strip. The newspapers were hardly surprised about the Rove commentary. It seems they think some people would be offended about reading "turd blossom".

If you ask me, this story is a tempest in a teacup. But then, NS General is know to talk about those kind of things... ;)

It's Dubya's own nickname for his little buddy, and not something Trudeau invented to be funny. Where's the problem?

It's not being used in an endearing way by Trudeau. I personally don't care what he's called; I think "Turd Blossom" sounds pretty funny, but that doesn't matter to a lot of people.

Doonesbury regularly uses foul words and places asterisks where appropriate - they should have just done this for t*rd as well. :p

It's not being used in an endearing way by Trudeau. I personally don't care what he's called; I think "Turd Blossom" sounds pretty funny, but that doesn't matter to a lot of people.
No, it's not, I agree. That just makes it funnier, as does the fact that the nickname originally came from Bush.

Satire is a protected form of speech in the United States, so these newspapers are actually violating the First Amendment by pulling the strip. One would think that newspapers would be some of the strongest proponents of the First Amendment, wouldn't one?

Pfft. Big talk. Show me substantial links to back this notion up, puh-leeze.


Here ya go...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRTC

That is for the CRTC which controls things just like the FCC, and much, much more. Is that a "substantial" enough link for you.

Here is another hopefully "substantial" site for Canadian Censorship: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42972.html

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction

No, it's not, I agree. That just makes it funnier, as does the fact that the nickname originally came from Bush.

Satire is a protected form of speech in the United States, so these newspapers are actually violating the First Amendment by pulling the strip. One would think that newspapers would be some of the strongest proponents of the First Amendment, wouldn't one?

I don't think you understand the First Amendment. It merely says that the government has no power to ban any form of speech. Newspapers, being private entities that have customers to serve, are compelled to satisfy what they imagine their customers want, and have all the power in the world to print, or not print, what they want.

Here ya go...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRTC

That is for the CRTC which controls things just like the FCC, and much, much more. Is that a "substantial" enough link for you.

Here is another hopefully "substantial" site for Canadian Censorship: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42972.html

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction

Ahh, someone taking issue with Canada's anti-hate laws.

Sorry, that's not an issue here. We prefer it that way. Try again, without your societal bias in place, please.

*Edit: I'm also aware of the CRTC. It is not a branch of government. Find me something, as I said before, substantial. Neither fits the bill.

Ahh, someone taking issue with Canada's anti-hate laws.

Sorry, that's not an issue here. We prefer it that way. Try again, without your societal bias in place, please.

*Edit: I'm also aware of the CRTC. It is not a branch of government. Find me something, as I said before, substantial. Neither fits the bill.

Yeah, ok. I guess anything that "we" prefer that the government enacts is just not censorship. BTW, try to get certain books across the Canadian Border from the US.

I don't think you understand the First Amendment.
You think wrong.

It merely says that the government has no power to ban any form of speech. Newspapers, being private entities that have customers to serve, are compelled to satisfy what they imagine their customers want, and have all the power in the world to print, or not print, what they want.
And if you don't understand the irony in newspapers practicing censorship, then perhaps we can have someone explain "irony" to you.

I agree with BenAucoin in that it isn't a breach of the first amendment for a private entity to decide what it does and doesn't want in it's publication. But I also agree that it's stupid to take the strip out or censor something like "turd".

Ahh, someone taking issue with Canada's anti-hate laws.

Sorry, that's not an issue here. We prefer it that way. Try again, without your societal bias in place, please.

*Edit: I'm also aware of the CRTC. It is not a branch of government. Find me something, as I said before, substantial. Neither fits the bill.


I guess you don't really have an issue with the Government telling you what you can and cannot say in print that could be construed as "hateful".

BTW the CRTC is not a branch of the government, which I never said it was, but it does report to the Parliament, and Minister of Canadian Heritage. It has nothing to do with the government though! :rolleyes:

Yeah, ok. I guess anything that "we" prefer that the government enacts is just not censorship. BTW, try to get certain books across the Canadian Border from the US.

Perhaps you'd care to illuminate us (and please remember to keep it current, things have changed quite a bit here in the last twenty years, i.e. don't even bother trying to list gay & lesbian titles, all those hurdles were overcome after Mulroney left office)?

I guess you don't really have an issue with the Government telling you what you can and cannot say in print that could be construed as "hateful".

BTW the CRTC is not a branch of the government, which I never said it was, but it does report to the Parliament, and Minister of Canadian Heritage. It has nothing to do with the government though! :rolleyes:

I really don't have an issue with being told that I cannot say hateful things in print. Do you?

*Gasp*

It reports to Parliament? Heavens, no! All this time I thought it reported directly to Queen Liz. Say it ain't so...

*switches off sarcasm-o-meter*

Ahh, someone taking issue with Canada's anti-hate laws.

Sorry, that's not an issue here. We prefer it that way. Try again, without your societal bias in place, please.

*Edit: I'm also aware of the CRTC. It is not a branch of government. Find me something, as I said before, substantial. Neither fits the bill.

Despite concerns over possible anti-Semitic incitement on this station, it has been approved by the CRTC as an optional cable offering. However, the CRTC is demanding that any carrier which shows Al Jazeera must edit out any instances of hate speech. Many in the Arabic community feel frustrated, since it seems unlikely that any cable company will carry the station under such restrictions. The Canadian Jewish Congress has expressed its opinion that the restrictions on Al Jazeera are appropriate, while the Canadian B'nai Brith is opposed to any approval of Al Jazeera in Canada. Again, many Canadians are using grey market/black market dishes to receive the station without regulation.

No censorship there.

Last I checked newspapers decide what they want to print either by themselves or by force of their consumers. You act like there's some vast right-wing conspiracy forcing these newspapers to cut the cartoon and depriving the people of their little comic.

Maybe the newspapers decided they didn't want to be crude, or their audience would disapprove of Trudeau's obnoxious bullshit. I've seen Family Circuses funnier than Doonesberry, goes to show you how the entire comic section is a waste seeing as nothing they ever print in there is ever funny starting with Garfield all the way down to that Rose is Rose crap.

Here ya go...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRTC

That is for the CRTC which controls things just like the FCC, and much, much more. Is that a "substantial" enough link for you.

Yes, the CRTC is censorship in a sense. Just like the FCC is in the States. But you should know that it's rarely blocks things from airing. It mostly make sure that things like nudity are not shown when the kids come back from school and other minor restrictions. And the CRTC has never been used as an arm of the govervment to punish, say, CBS on the super bowl controversy because they didn't like the news coverage the same channel did on the president.

As such, I much prefer the CRTC to your FCC.

Here is another hopefully "substantial" site for Canadian Censorship: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42972.html

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction
Call it a difference of values. We think that the right of not being discriminated against is more important for a democratic society than the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. We prefer our citizens to be civil towards one another instead of having group inciting violence towards other groups.

If it's the kind of censure that we do, I'm fine with it. It doesn't stop people from voicing their opinion, from disagreeing with the government or from explaining some viewpoint that may be out of the norm (say, polygamy or lowring the age of majority to 9).

But yeah, the Canadian government is not free of censure.

The First Amendment ot the US Constitution restricts Censorship actions by the US Government. American Newspaper publishers are not a part or portion of that government, nor did the Doonesbury removal come from the Congress or White House.

Here's a concept for you, dear:

NO Cartoonist/Editorialist/writer has the right to be published in a given rag unless the owners of said given rag decide they want to pay them.
Being published is a Privelage. Trudeau is still being published in hundereds of "Other" newspapers, on the Internet, and in other places. the papers that dropped his strip aren't even the majority. Get some perspective, okay?

I really don't have an issue with being told that I cannot say hateful things in print. Do you?

Yes I do have a problem with the government telling me what I can and cannot print. If I want to sound like an ass and print the glories of the KKK and how the Blacks are human garbage who should be shunned, I should be allowed. What right does the government have to regulate thought. I know you're a Canadian, but in the US we have such things as freedom of the press, and speech.

*Gasp*

It reports to Parliament? Heavens, no! All this time I thought it reported directly to Queen Liz. Say it ain't so...

Do you even know how a government works? You said it wasn't a part of the government, and I proved you incorrect.

*switches off sarcasm-o-meter*

I saw this and thought I'd share. Am I the only one feeling a distinctive chill wind blowing from south of the border? I tell you, I'm glad to live somewhere that doesn't practice censorship where criticism of the government or the personalities ivolved in government are concerned.


I guess you have no problems with censorship then, just so long as you agree to it.

SO his nickname really is Turd Blossom? NOW it makes more sense. At first I thought it was just a cheap shot, and a bad one at that.

But yeah, the Canadian government is not free of censure.

Which is my whole point. Dobbs just couldn't grasp that I guess. No government is free from some form of censorship.

BTW I am not a big fan of the Canadian content laws either.

Please amend your previous post to make it clear that I am NOT being quoted as saying,

"Yes I do have a problem with the government telling me what I can and cannot print. If I want to sound like an ass and print the glories of the KKK and how the Blacks are human garbage who should be shunned, I should be allowed. What right does the government have to regulate thought. I know you're a Canadian, but in the US we have such things as freedom of the press, and speech."

and

"Do you even know how a government works? You said it wasn't a part of the government, and I proved you incorrect."

You're making me appear to either be carrying on two sides of a conversation, contradicting myself, or suffering from a bipolar disorder.

And while we're at it, if you actually HAVE 'freedom of the press, and speech', then why is Garry Trudeau being muzzled?

And while we're at it, if you actually HAVE 'freedom of the press, and speech', then why is Garry Trudeau being muzzled?

What gov't agency is "muzzling" him?

Please amend your previous post to make it clear that I am NOT being quoted as saying,

"Yes I do have a problem with the government telling me what I can and cannot print. If I want to sound like an ass and print the glories of the KKK and how the Blacks are human garbage who should be shunned, I should be allowed. What right does the government have to regulate thought. I know you're a Canadian, but in the US we have such things as freedom of the press, and speech."

and

"Do you even know how a government works? You said it wasn't a part of the government, and I proved you incorrect."

You're making me appear to either be carrying on two sides of a conversation, contradicting myself, or suffering from a bipolar disorder.

And while we're at it, if you actually HAVE 'freedom of the press, and speech', then why is Garry Trudeau being muzzled?

Sorry, I am new at this forum, and I don't know how everything works yet. Weren't you new at one time?

Trudeau is not being muzzled by the government. The first amendment in the US only applies to government. As a private company, that newspaper has every right to do as it wants so long as it doesn't threaten someone with bodily harm and/or intentionally libel someone. I love the fact that here in the US, you can be whoever you want to be and say pretty much whatever.

BTW Who determines what is hate speech?

Which is my whole point. Dobbs just couldn't grasp that I guess. No government is free from some form of censorship.

BTW I am not a big fan of the Canadian content laws either.
Canadian content is a necessary evil in order to protect our culture. Call it cultural protectionnism if you like. It's a barrier in orer to make sure our artists, despite having lower budget than hollywood or France, can still work. It also removes a burden on the government as it fostered some private fund to help pay for canadian content. This, in turn, removed a pressure on the government to subsidize art to astronomical level.

But Canadian content is eaier than you think. The show 24 by Fox could have passed the canadian content muster. There was that many canadian actors and workers on it.

If you disagree with Canadian content, kindly write to your congressman to put pressure to drop all forms of trade barriers like the softwood lumber illegal tariff or the steel subsidies.

BTW Who determines what is hate speech?
Complaints can be lodged to the CRTC or the government. IIRC, the CRTC looks into it and can forward to case to the police if there is legitimate concern.

It has never been done so far.

Perhaps you'd care to illuminate us (and please remember to keep it current, things have changed quite a bit here in the last twenty years, i.e. don't even bother trying to list gay & lesbian titles, all those hurdles were overcome after Mulroney left office)?

The Turner Diaries for one. I know it is a stupid book and all, but Canada Customs will confiscate it if they see it.

Canadian content is a necessary evil in order to protect our culture.

What exactly is Canadian Culture?

Sorry, I am new at this forum, and I don't know how everything works yet. Weren't you new at one time?

Trudeau is not being muzzled by the government. The first amendment in the US only applies to government. As a private company, that newspaper has every right to do as it wants so long as it doesn't threaten someone with bodily harm and/or intentionally libel someone. I love the fact that here in the US, you can be whoever you want to be and say pretty much whatever.

BTW Who determines what is hate speech?

In Canada, you have the right to THINK whatever you want. The government is not regulating thought. The second you act on prejudiced beliefs, that is going against the anti-hate speech laws. You know what I love about Canada? That you can't be a racist dipshit in public and use free speech as a defense.

If you disagree with Canadian content, kindly write to your congressman to put pressure to drop all forms of trade barriers like the softwood lumber illegal tariff or the steel subsidies.

Believe me, I have made my thought on US trade policies known to my rep and Senator. Not like I can change things. I'm just glad the cattle thing is finally over.

The Turner Diaries for one. I know it is a stupid book and all, but Canada Customs will confiscate it if they see it.

"The Turner Diaries tells the tale of Earl Turner, a righteous, upstanding caucasian who joins an underground resistance movement after the Jew-Negro conspiracy completed its overthrow of the United States government. And, if you haven't already guessed, the book is written in the form of a diary." - http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/turner-diaries/

Works just fine for me. Good on Canada Customs, they're doing their job. I hope they report the attempt to import to the proper authorities.

Why?

Because I don't want hate culture promulgatd or propogated in my country, thanks ever so much. And most people here agree with that. So?



You know what I love about Canada? That you can't be a racist dipshit in public and use free speech as a defense.

Me, too. I have to be reminded how lucky I am to be free of all that nonsense, on occasion. Thank the Gods I live here, and not south of the border.

In Canada, you have the right to THINK whatever you want. The government is not regulating thought. The second you act on prejudiced beliefs, that is going against the anti-hate speech laws. You know what I love about Canada? That you can't be a racist dipshit in public and use free speech as a defense.

Yeah, who needs the right to free speech. :rolleyes:

Yeah, who needs the right to free speech. :rolleyes:

Who needs to have to endure racist crapola in the name of 'free speech'? What an affront.

"The Turner Diaries tells the tale of Earl Turner, a righteous, upstanding caucasian who joins an underground resistance movement after the Jew-Negro conspiracy completed its overthrow of the United States government. And, if you haven't already guessed, the book is written in the form of a diary." - http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/turner-diaries/

Works just fine for me. Good on Canada Customs, they're doing their job. I hope they report the attempt to import to the proper authorities.

Why?

Because I don't want hate culture promulgatd or propogated in my country, thanks ever so much. And most people here agree with that. So?

You shouldn't link to rotten in NS, I don't think. Anyway, I still don't understand why you think Canada has no censorship? :p

Wouldn't confiscating a book for it's content by the government, be considered a form of censorship? It might just be me, but I think it is. The material may be worthless and stupid, but if someone wants to read it, shouldn't they be allowed?

Who needs to have to endure racist crapola in the name of 'free speech'? What an affront.


Sorry big guy, but I'd rather live in a society where idiots are allowed to speak, then in one where the government says what is acceptable. But that's just me.

BTW, you do have the right to not listen to it or walk away, or am I wrong here too?

*snips with no further interest*

How about you stop derailing the topic, which is Garry Trudeau and Doonesbury? If you've got a hard-on for defending the rights of neo-nazi assholes to be neo-nazi assholes, why don't you start a thread defending the rights of neo-nazi assholes to be neo-nazi assholes?

Sorry big guy, but I'd rather live in a society where idiots are allowed to speak, then in one where the government says what is acceptable. But that's just me.

BTW, you do have the right to not listen to it or walk away, or am I wrong here too?

In my country I have the right to listen and not have to hear racist bullshit. So in the case of my country, you are wrong.

In my country I have the right to listen and not have to hear racist bullshit. So in the case of my country, you are wrong.


So Canada still has no censorship, whatsoever?

I think it does. Here, have a cookie.

How about you stop derailing the topic, which is Garry Trudeau and Doonesbury?

You brought up the "fact" that Canada doesn't have a censorship problem like the US does. I proved you wrong.

I don't really consider it censorship (in a bad sense) unless it's government-involved. I say, 'let the independent newpapers decide what to print and what not to print it's hardly for me to decide'.
I have to agree. The media "censoring" things is not objectionable --they are a business and have to be considerate of their customer base.

You brought up the "fact" that Canada doesn't have a censorship problem like the US does. I proved you wrong.

There's no 'problem' with censorship here. We do not allow hate to be published or distributed. Canadians agree this is all for the best. Where's the problem?

On the other hand, in the States, using the phrase 'turd blossom' in its' proper political context gets your comic-strip banned from widespread publication. The reason given, that of possible perceived shock on the part of a presumably most easily offended, nay 'uptight' readership, smacks of something else entirely. It smacks of a fifth estate that is reeling from unspoken yet pervasive and imminent threat of interference from authorities, or the groups supportive of diminishing freedoms wholsale.

I have to agree. The media "censoring" things is not objectionable --they are a business and have to be considerate of their customer base.

Personally, I find that wholly objectionable.

Personally, I find that wholly objectionable.
What kind of a capitalist are you?

:)

What kind of a capitalist are you?

:)

Dobbsworld's position is neither Capitalist, nor non-Capitalist. She's a Statist on this one (It's okay to censor something if it's "Hate" speech). Where she may lack understanding of the American position, is "Who defines what is 'hate' speech?"-which is why it's hard to regulate here in the states. For instance, someone may well find anything that opposes their personal politics to be "Hate" speech-if that someoen happens to be in power in a nation with a law like Canada's, that person can use the law to muzzle their critics and opponents.

Dobbsworld's position is neither Capitalist, nor non-Capitalist. She's a Statist on this one (It's okay to censor something if it's "Hate" speech). Where she may lack understanding of the American position, is "Who defines what is 'hate' speech?"-which is why it's hard to regulate here in the states. For instance, someone may well find anything that opposes their personal politics to be "Hate" speech-if that someoen happens to be in power in a nation with a law like Canada's, that person can use the law to muzzle their critics and opponents.
I'm not familiar with this law you speak of, that allows private citizens to utilize the 'Hate Crime' law to their own benefit. Do you have an example or a link?

(My apologies if it occurred earlier, I haven't read the whole thread.)

I have to agree. The media "censoring" things is not objectionable --they are a business and have to be considerate of their customer base.


Was there not a time in America when newspapers were run as an effort to get information out to the public, rather than a way to make money? Granted, money has pretty much always been a part of it, we are a capitalistic nation. But, once upon a time in America, did we not have major newspaper companies that seemed to be more concerned with informing their readers, and less with offending them? Or were people like Samual Clemens just a fictional writer?

And besides, if the newspapers were afraid of people being offended at the term Turd Blossom, why wouldn't take the "proper" course of action, and inform their readership that Bush himself uses such "inappropriate" language? :D

I'm not familiar with this law you speak of, that allows private citizens to utilize the 'Hate Crime' law to their own benefit. Do you have an example or a link?

(My apologies if it occurred earlier, I haven't read the whole thread.)
Canada has a law that bans hate speach. You can be jailed for voicing an opinion that incite hate and/or violence towards a group.

How about you stop derailing the topic, which is Garry Trudeau and Doonesbury?

Why do you keep ignoring the topic? You've stated censorship of DB, stating that the US doesn't have freedom of press, etc, when it was elements of the press itself that chose to not run the strips.

Once again, what Gov't agency is "muzzling" Doonesbury?

Was there not a time in America when newspapers were run as an effort to get information out to the public, rather than a way to make money? Granted, money has pretty much always been a part of it, we are a capitalistic nation. But, once upon a time in America, did we not have major newspaper companies that seemed to be more concerned with informing their readers, and less with offending them? Or were people like Samual Clemens just a fictional writer?

And besides, if the newspapers were afraid of people being offended at the term Turd Blossom, why wouldn't take the "proper" course of action, and inform their readership that Bush himself uses such "inappropriate" language? :D
Heh. I'm not well versed in Mark Twain, but I do think newspapers will present a product that will appeal to the widest possible audience, and I have no illusions that they will do otherwise.

I've heard it said that newspapers, and media in general, have a responsibility to inform, in a role as sort of a watchdog of the government. That may be so, but they also have to think of themselves and what is in their best interest, to keep their business alive.

Canada has a law that bans hate speach. You can be jailed for voicing an opinion that incite hate and/or violence towards a group.
That's not entirely correct. You can be jailed for voicing hate in a public forum, which is tantamount to "spreading hatred".

What kind of a capitalist are you?

:)

I am the sort of capitalist who is reluctant, to say the least. I was raised Social Democrat/Socialist, and I see our nation's deal-with-the-devil, the two-headed beast that is Free Trade and NAFTA, is doing exactly as I predicted it would twenty years ago.

I have been prodded, poked, kicked and cajoled by a bunch of fly-by-night Tories into capitalist agreements I wholeheartedly opposed on numerous grounds. In spite of the degradations of FT and NAFTA, I see Canadian culture blossoming. Mark my words: in spite of. Because there really were only two items of real interest for Americans regarding those treaties (which they very publicly ignore, at any rate): 1) Water. Getting Canada to re-classify Water as a commodity, and not a natural resource. 2) Acceptance of American domination of culture.

While we really did lose big-time with water (it'll come back to bite us on the ass in about five years once the US had destroyed and/or depleted their aquifers), we at least have gelled into a less-divisive group in the face of cultural oppression. That is to say, we are becoming more identifiably ourselves, and not just antitheses to Americanism.

So, we're not like you. Good, works for me. I wish we could have been left free to become even less like you - and who knows? Keep fucking us over in trade, and maybe NAFTA will end with just you, Mexico, and a pack of 3rd world nations south of Yucatan.

Again, works for me.

Anyway, I'm guilty of letting this thread get derailed (although I did pop downstairs to make lunch halfway through writing this post, so who knows now what I'll find after I hit 'submit reply', but I would really like to not have to defend the CRTC, or Canada's anti-hate laws in a thread that ostensibly is supposed to be about Garry Trudeau, newspapers, Karl Rove and the phrase, 'turd blossom'.

How about it?

Why do you keep ignoring the topic? You've stated censorship of DB, stating that the US doesn't have freedom of press, etc, when it was elements of the press itself that chose to not run the strips.

Once again, what Gov't agency is "muzzling" Doonesbury?

Evidently, you're not following along too closely.

Heh. I'm not well versed in Mark Twain, but I do think newspapers will present a product that will appeal to the widest possible audience, and I have no illusions that they will do otherwise.

I've heard it said that newspapers, and media in general, have a responsibility to inform, in a role as sort of a watchdog of the government. That may be so, but they also have to think of themselves and what is in their best interest, to keep their business alive.



And what happens when a media group ceases to view the audiance they're trying to reach as "people" and proceeds to see them as "consumers".

Or when media groups are more concerned with making the monies than with informing their viewers?

The Weekly World News and The Enquirer at least are blatent with their desire to entire their readership and make money instead of providing current factualish information. But when groups that hold themselves as "serious" media outlets start to follow a similar pattern of behavior, problems will arise.

And, in my opinion at least, when a newspaper outlet censors a satirical writer in an effort to protect the perceived sensibilities of their supposed main demographic, they end up doing a disservice to the satiricist and the public. Satire can be described as the art of translating from "bullshit" to "understandable" :)

Besides which, any newspaper editor surely knows just how true the phrase, "there's not such thing as bad publicity" can become. If there were a moralistic outrage over the use of the term "Turd Blossom," the newspaper could put a little bit of spin onto the situation and sell even more copies than usual. ;)

I am the sort of capitalist who is reluctant, to say the least. I was raised Social Democrat/Socialist, and I see our nation's deal-with-the-devil, the two-headed beast that is Free Trade and NAFTA, is doing exactly as I predicted it would twenty years ago.

I have been prodded, poked, kicked and cajoled by a bunch of fly-by-night Tories into capitalist agreements I wholeheartedly opposed on numerous grounds. In spite of the degradations of FT and NAFTA, I see Canadian culture blossoming. Mark my words: in spite of. Because there really were only two items of real interest for Americans regarding those treaties (which they very publicly ignore, at any rate): 1) Water. Getting Canada to re-classify Water as a commodity, and not a natural resource. 2) Acceptance of American domination of culture.

While we really did lose big-time with water (it'll come back to bite us on the ass in about five years once the US had destroyed and/or depleted their aquifers), we at least have gelled into a less-divisive group in the face of cultural oppression. That is to say, we are becoming more identifiably ourselves, and not just antitheses to Americanism.

So, we're not like you. Good, works for me. I wish we could have been left free to become even less like you - and who knows? Keep fucking us over in trade, and maybe NAFTA will end with just you, Mexico, and a pack of 3rd world nations south of Yucatan.

Again, works for me.
Damn. Dispite your open anti-Americanism, I have to say you are the best kind of Canadian. Glad to know you (what little we do get to know each other on these forums). :)

Anyway, I'm guilty of letting this thread get derailed (although I did pop downstairs to make lunch halfway through writing this post, so who knows now what I'll find after I hit 'submit reply', but I would really like to not have to defend the CRTC, or Canada's anti-hate laws in a thread that ostensibly is supposed to be about Garry Trudeau, newspapers, Karl Rove and the phrase, 'turd blossom'.

How about it?
Deal. I'll leave you to it, then, as I've had my say.

Evidently, you're not following along too closely.

Is Dodgeball a popular sport up there?

"And while we're at it, if you actually HAVE 'freedom of the press, and speech', then why is Garry Trudeau being muzzled? "

Once again, it's elements of the free press itself that chose not to print the DB comics that contained questionable language. Private companies are not obligated to print anything. Do you feel private companies should be forced to print his comic if they find it objectionable?

What agency of the Gov't(the ones that are constrained by the US constitution) is stifling Trudeau's freedom of speech or banning his comics?

Once again, it's elements of the free press itself that chose not to print the DB comics that contained questionable language. Private companies are not obligated to print anything. Do you feel private companies should be forced to print his comic if they find it objectionable?


TURD is not questionable. TURD is a rather genteel way to refer to SHIT. Which is what the so-called 'free press', or rather their 'unfree' CEOs and attendant corporate lawyers are full of.

The companies are concerned that the public will find the use of the word TURD objectionable, even though it's a genteel way to say the word SHIT? Even though their President, hinself claiming to somehow be God's Own anointed American President, a bastion of Moral rectitude, originated the phrase 'TURD BLOSSOM' as a PET NAME for his advisor? Well, it's the President's words. And didn't ol' G.W. win like 50.0001% of the vote? Doesn't that mean that what George Bush is all about is clearly what the vast overwhelming majority of Americans are about, right?

Well, except it isn't. People like George Bush want only certain Public Images consumed. And apparently that doesn't include the image of a man who calls his advisor 'turd blossom'. As I maintained before, it smacks of an atmosphere charged with fear. Fear of reprisal for adhering to at least the illusion of free speech, where indeed, there may in fact legally be none. It smacks of bending to some unseen neopuritan hand, of an entire nation's populace, we are told too delicate and fragile to withstand not an obscene phrase, mind you, but a genteel treatment of a possibly-obscene phrase. How less mighty the American people for four years of coccooning and Amber Alerts. How thin the skin, how quick to temper.

So, what branch of government is muzzling Garry Trudeau, o Rottweiler of the moment? Why - none. *this is where you insert your inevitable chuckling gloat* However: I did not state that he was being muzzled by government. He is being muzzled by the 'free' press. Who are understandably concerned about their continued operations.

Because the country they are doing business in is evolving into a fascist nation, a Police State. They are pre-emptively saving their asses in a fiscal, but also political and legal sense. While I understand why they are bowing to fascism, I lament the loss of America's Fifth Estate. The media is traditionally an agency whereby government is made more accountable. What's left is nothing short of enthusiastic boosterism disguised as journalism.

And that's sad. And what's also sad is the pedantry I see in these forums, day after day after day, with incredible, mind-blowing naivete emanating from so-called 'conservative' people. I'm continually stunned to see 'conservatives' arguing on behalf of George Bush and his administration. Can't any of you see - I mean, drop pretenses and look - can't you people see that this is about as far from being 'conservative' as it gets? Gods, I can't believe there would come a time when small 'l' liberal people like me would have to give dire warnings to small 'c' conservatives - these guys are going to significantly alter your culture.

I really think you need to step back and consider what America - what you want of America, and how you see youself as part of America - is supposed to be about. And then think about what George Bush is about. What he wants changed, what he has changed, how things have changed, and how they continue to change, and remember that throughout all this change, one of the few things that change is the man himself; he is the one bringing about all this change.

Are you having difficulty with what America was and what it now is? What might it become? Do you know what it's becoming? Well, George Bush knows what kind of place America is, and what its' becoming.

It's becoming the kind of place where the only person allowed to use the expression, 'TURD BLOSSOM', is himself. And you're not welcome to have any knowledge of that from the press. That's what America is becoming. And we can sit around playing games about what is, or isn't, or who said what when and where, but it doesn't change the fact that you're already halfway to despotism.

Au revoir, Kecibukia.

Snip conspiratorial rant.

So the "free" press is "bowing down" to the will of the people (who buys the papers and allows the continuation of said "free press") because America is becoming a Fascist State under absolute control of the Gov't?

The "police state" concept in the US is being encouraged just as much by the "liberals" by condemning loosely defined "hate speech" & disarming the populace in favor of the Gov't as by the "conservatives by pushing religious based laws etc.

So DB has had a couple days worth of his comics yanked by a couple of newspapers. Let's all put on our jackboots and do the stiff arm because Democracy has collapsed.

hmmm... no big deal. Newspapers have a right to print/include what they want to.

hmmm... no big deal. Newspapers have a right to print/include what they want to.

You get ten points for timing.

Thank you.

I have to say...Dobbs wins.