Free speech and taxpayer funded censorship.


Once again, that other thread has veered off topic, and onto a topic that’s worth discussing in its own right. So once again, I attempt to give that second topic its own thread. My points:

  1. Free speech as an absolute is the safest, most reasonable way to go in a society where people are hell-bent on shutting down all intelligent discussion whatsoever. Extreme threats call for extreme countermeasures.

  2. Whenever someone objects “why should I be required to give you X” always inquire as to just who is the rightful owner of X. For example: should universities be required to “give” a platform to speakers whose opinions the universities wish to silence? Remember who bought and paid for that platform. Taxpayer money, my friends. By various and sundry avenues.

2a. Hollywood gets huge tax breaks. Why, exactly? There was a reason once, a long, long time ago. But now?

2b. The established media gets preferential treatment in the form of special access to government officials for those with press passes. Why, exactly? Because they’re doing a public service and ferreting out the truth? Seriously. Who believes that anymore?

2c. Given that the government controls the airwaves, and TV news only uses same, why not bring back the Fairness Doctrine in the US?

2c1. Should the government control the airwaves as much as it does? Could we perhaps reduce the scope of the FCC?

  1. Do we really want to encourage the sort of people who go into meltdown when we say something they don’t like? Don’t these overgrown children themselves constitute a sickness in our societies?

4a. Some people solve problems, some people don’t solve problems, and some people make problems. The people who exchange information and ideas freely are the problem solvers. Those who don’t - aren’t.


You don’t need to start a new thread for absolutely everything. :2cents:


You get just as much a kick out of reading them as everyone else.

I used to hear this spiel on Coast to Coast AM and Rick Barber’s call in show on KOA back in the day.

Forgot to add…I was introduced to the ugliness of humanity by listening to KOA’s Alan Berg’s radio show beginning in the summer of 83 till a fateful night in 84. Yikes.

Talk about violent reaction to speech!


No, actually, I would prefer having daily Rowlandisms in a slightly smaller number of flavors (i.e. threads).


Maybe create an archive of all his/her OPs. It could be a locked thread. You would be a hero among many. OR at least a few.


And now, a thread on taxpayer funded censorship and punching


EDIT: Accidentally cross-posted. Brought to my attention and dealt with.




My apologies. I actually caught that after the fact, but cannot seem to delete my own posts. In fact, isn’t doing so also a no-no?

I will attempt to remove the article.


You can flag your own post with a note saying you’d like it to be deleted. Or just leave it there as a warning, like a head on the castle wall… :astonished:




Just so we are clear, you are saying that ANY organization that receives cushy federal tax breaks, then they should be required to provide a forum for FoS&E? I mean, these organizations exist on the backs of taxpayers, and in many instances are funded by taxpayers.


Yeah. Problem with that?

The taxpayers pay the piper; let them call the tune. No censorship or indoctrination on my dime.


Oh, you are a little hostile today. What is wrong? Did you wake up a learn that the troll doll is still “president”? Yeah, sad isn’t it. I feel your pain.



It’s settled Constitutional law going back decades that private organizations aren’t required to provide a forum to just anyone under the principle of freedom of assembly. The only exception is if they have an implied contract with their fee-paying customers (eg. students) to provide a freedom of speech forum.

(insert snarky comment here about the uneven quality of public education in North America.)


Calling them private organizations is extremely disingenuous.