The View From 1776

Thought Police on the Internet?

A couple of traditionalist blogs recently have encountered what may be PC, thought-police suppression.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 03/20 at 08:19 PM
  1. Actually, I am a devoted daily reader of Alain's Newsletter, and I completely understand Google's decision. I find the vitriol behind much of the material on the site quite astonishing, really.

    But I wouldn't go so far as to call is thought-police suppression. Google is, remember, a private company, making decisions that it considers best for business. When Wal-Mart prohibits the sale of pornography (distasteful but consitutionally-protected free speech), is that thought-police suppression?

    And as for Al Jazeera, it purports to be a legitimate news network, not an opinion-only site. I think that makes a difference.
    Posted by the Judge  on  03/21  at  02:46 AM
  2. Well then "the Judge" - you would agree that "a major search engine" -which makes its profits by FREE and UNHINDERED utilization of a massive FREE resources from a public domain forum (i.e. the world-wide web/internet) should abide by same rules or should not be allowed to dictate what is or isn't "proper" according to its perception of "right and wrong"...right? Doesn't it seem hypocritical that such an entity mines massive amounts of data (free information - and before you go there- sure such entities spend money to do so - but the resources being mined and used - are essentially free or in the capitalist world (which i am sure you fully support) is the product of someone/an entity offered for public consumption without charge (i.e. via internet)and therefore "intellecutal property" (for those who have the resources to protect it and then turn around and charge money for similar...? Just a little hypocritical -no? There are limitations to what should be "allowed" but when an entity selectively targets one over another -on the basis of "sel-proclaimed moral authority" which seems to be counter to the status-quo - then - again we have major hypocrisy. As an example -certain major internet entities will allow all manner of the most base and vulgar pornography (or "art" in your world -BTW Wal-Mart is not "publically available" i.e. its doors are not wide open to any/all who also would take anything they could - as is the case with the internet -where there is an unlimited and unfathomable amount of info available for whatever purposes its users may wish to are familiar with spamming by pornographers 24/7 via internet (and willing major internet service providers/search engines who allow it (makes more $$$ than "conservative thought))), and allow known terrorist support websites all access - while stifling particular religious or politically "conservative" information ...(let's see - which religion might that be...hmm)? And of course - it's only coincidence that a major powerful PROTECTED political figure who makes no secret of his contempt for ANY/ALL who do not agree with his views -happens to hold a chair on the board of such an internet entity ... means nothing at thought suppression going on here. Move along... I have a really nice bridge for sale - Like to see it "the Judge". A great bargin for you "my friend" and "devoted daily reader" (do you mean - performing daily monitoring). Your MO is transparent ...
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/12  at  09:32 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.