Question of the Day | 07/04/2008 12:01 am
Sunday is President George W. Bush's birthday. On this 4th of July, do you have any special birthday wishes for him?
© AP
5 Comments
167 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
First Kitty, thank you for your statistical analysis.
Second, it’s NOT censorship. Censorship would be if WoW deleted her comment. She they gave her a FULL POST, and as as a money person I do not have to tell you why. Wow has not been getting the big comment numbers they used to.
Second, her remarks about Jews and Gays—she calls them Fags and Faggots—should be enough to answer your question, but it seems that it isn’t. It’s about the caliber of the writer. She would like to see the Poll Tax renewed because in her opinion, people who vote Democratic are not intelligent enough to vote (Is she referring to the African-American vote? That was a pretty sad time in our history). Sorry if I find nothing hilarious in that. Hilarious to me is someone who can make me laugh with joy.
I welcome differing points of view, but sorry if I draw the line at bigotry. And for all those comments that said they “agreed with EVERYTHING she says”, well, that to me means EVERYTHING. I hope you go over to MediaMatters and read what EVERYTHING is.
Do you think she was censored when 9 different newspapers including National Review, the child of Wm. F. Buckley, fired her?
This is a major reason why I am leaving after Edith Ann’s post… If I can’t convince people like you and Frannie, two people I truly love to interact with, how this is NOT censorship, I am at a loss for words. And I don’t want to be told not to read or comment on certain threads I find that insulting. I like you was not happy with some of the responses to Liz Peek. There are ways to form an argument that shouldn’t be insulting. Ms. Peek is someone with caliber. But my point to her was there is no statistical proof that by the time oil fields are up and running will solve the immediate problem. If it is long range, than we should go to alternative methods. And I really believe the Oil Lobby is using the current situation to make a few bucks just like WoW is using Coulter to make a case to their advertisers.
And, I agree with you about the caliber of certain comments which, btw, can be censored according to the Terms of Agreement.
Hi Maurine and Carol,
Thanks for your opinions. You’re both woman I like to chat with, and value your thoughts.
Like you, I hope this site grows to include other women of your caliber, regardless of what opinion they have, and hope that this complex issue of free speech is resolved in a way that will not result in the loss of people like you, of whom I’ve grown quite fond.
Thank you, but once again, I don’t think I convinced you that this is not censorship and she does not justify her own post.
You’re correct, Carol.
The inflammatory remarks you site were not made here, but previously and in other places.
So, yes, with all respect, it appears to be censorship, it continues to worry me, but I do so appreciate your opinion, and hope that you can accept that I agree to disagree with you on this subject.
This reminds me of ana very heated discussion I had with a nun in high school who explained why the “American Nazi Party” could obtain a parade permit in a nearby town. I thought it deplorable. She listened to my teen-age devout Catholic outrage, and patiently explained that the first amendment applied to the best of us only to the extent it applied to the worst of us.
Here are some things that AC has said that I think are clearly over the line in any context: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”
New York Observer article; August 26, 2002 And her subsequent clarification:
“Of course I regret it. I should have added ‘after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.’
rightwingnews.com; June 26, 2003
On her (above) statement concerning Timothy McVeigh
On wishing John Edwards had been killed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ws_bXU6Rjk
So that is where I draw the line. I draw it at endorsements of violence and mayhem. I do not think it is censorship for us to choose to shun someone who talks that way. That is actually the only social tool one has to deter this type of behavior, and yes, behavior does tend to follow talk. Also, as others have pointed out, the First Amendment says that government shall make no law, not that individuals may not choose to shun, avoid, or otherwise freely assemble as we choose to do. Sure the government cannot deny Ann Coulter a parade permit, but that does not mean I am compelled to watch or even listen.
There are many whose opinions I do not share that I do listen to, often and with great attention. I always want to understand. AC does not appear to want anyone to understand, as she speaks so often not of issues but trivialities. Her criticism of Al Gore was that he reminded her of a polar bear. Does she ever speak of why she does not believe global warming is the fault of man? Never. She just makes digs here and there around the issue. But the main reason I choose to shun her is her continual endorsements of violence against those with whom she disagrees.
Kitty and Carol-
I think it’s interesting that wOw has issued rules and regs that we must abide by or be censored and/or banned from this site. I happen to agree with them, but today, there are at least two bloggers I’ve read who have broken those rules, and yet their comments remain. Coulter edges very close to breaking the wOw rules, and yet she re-appears today as a blogger. Certainly, she has broken every single wOw rule elsewhere, publicly, in both speech and writing, but I guess to those who seek high ratings, that doesn’t count. Kitty, I understand your concern about free speech, but wOw, itself ,has retained the right to censor or eliminate postings by bloggers. Doesn’t that make this site “non-free-speech”? Seems to me that one rule applies for the paid writers and another for the contributors.
Thank you Maurine.
The march was in a public place. This is a privately owned site. The fact that she didn’t spread her vile on her post here is meaningless to this argument. To follow this reasoning, if a known Neo-Nazi posted here as “A Friend Stopped By”, as long as she said something nice, that would be acceptable? One would hope not. Coulter, however, has the right to comment on this site as much as I do. But her own post?????
Well, the least this site can do is not allow people with very bigoted opinions a forum just for the sake of money. This was never a free speech issue for Wow, it was a bottom line opportunity. And, that shows a lack of integrity.
I will be visiting Mugsy and Lily blogs, and I hope Josie has a blog. Josie if you do, please give it here. I already have Frank’s email.
Kitty: “My question is based on the fact that I am very concerned about censorship, …”
Censoring someone’s opinions should not happen. Ann Coulter’s line of reasoning and manner of expressing it is not particularly my style, but she does have a right to express herself on this blog or anywhere else that she’s invited. I think it’s called freedom of speech.
Censorship is an interesting topic. Where DO you draw the line?
By NOT inviting her to have her own post.
She has every right to comment, but I think who you invite into your house says a lot about you, or in this case Wow.
btw, not one person here wants her censored. That has been made very clear.
I think the line should be drawn in how the differing opinion is expressed.
To say “I totally disagree with you. I think GWB is the most wonderful president who has protected us from terrorists for the last seven years” is perfectly acceptable.
To say “You’re an idiot. How could you be so stupid as to think that GWB is a good president. You must be a half-wit to think he has protected the U.S. from terrorists during his 7-year reign as emperor of the free world” is not acceptable.
Impugning other posters intelligence is out of line and should not be allowed. There are many forums where posts are monitored and insulting posts are deleted and are marked as deleted for inappropriate content.
It is obvious that the posters on this forum tend towards democratic rather than republican viewpoints. However, republican supporters who have something to say should be allowed to say it provided they do not demean the views of other contributors.
Although I have no problem with anyone demeaning the intelligence and competence of GWB, lol!
Emma, “I have no problem with anyone demeaning the intelligence and competence of GWB, lol!”
That does make an awfully easy target:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1Du_Nx9DeU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4DykmZz_YA&feature=related
Europe making fun of Bush
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M3JT45j0xk
And why we have a stupid president. Basic questions asked of Americans that they can’t answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&feature=related
Emma: I agree.
However, you say: “There are many forums where posts are monitored and insulting posts are deleted and are marked as deleted for inappropriate content.”
I tend to disagree with this approach. I’ve read comment boards such as those set up by ‘Politico’ that are heavily monitored and heavily biased in favor of one group over another. Basically you end up with a like-minded group banding together to trash the opposition.
Censorship is tough. WoW’s approach is reasonable, but I hope they give a public warning call before they pull the plug on anyone’s comments. Something like three strikes and you’re out.
Frankly, as much as I hate being insulted and my opinions derided, I prefer an opportunity to slam back than operate in a sterile environment.
Carol: “btw, not one person here wants her censored. That has been made very clear.”
Banished. Censored. It amounts to the same thing. Problem is, this is not a private club. When I registered, the most personal question was my DOB and zip code, and neither of which had a required response.
I feel if WoW is to continue, it needs a range of people on as friends (guests), à la Charlie Rose. When Charlie has someone on I don’t like, I just skip him for that day. When Charlie displays his bias, I angrily shut him off, only to return the next day after I’ve thought it over.
We must all realize that no one owns this site but the founders.
- Interview With an Angel: Anne Rice Catches Up With wOw
- Caption This!
- Liz Smith Confesses – Her Night of 'Broken Embraces'
- Should Americans with the higher health-risk profile of obesity pay higher premiums for health insurance?
- Whoopi Goldberg Gets Realistic About Health Care
- Breadwinners in Burqas, by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
- Liz Smith: Audiences Say 'Yes, Yes' to John Stamos in 'Bye, Bye Birdie'
- Liz Smith Wants to Know: What would you name this decade of '00s?
- Justice Scalia, Revealed, by Joan Biskupic
- Margo Howard: Boycott the 9/11 Terrorist Trials!
- Breadwinners in Burqas, by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
- Interview With an Angel: Anne Rice Catches Up With wOw
- Whoopi Goldberg Gets Realistic About Health Care
- Liz Smith Confesses – Her Night of 'Broken Embraces'
- Candice Bergen on the Latest in Decades
- Joan Juliet Buck Solves the Health-Care Issue
- Whoopi Goldberg's Take on the New York Times
- Should Americans with the higher health-risk profile of obesity pay higher premiums for health insurance?
- Justice Scalia, Revealed, by Joan Biskupic
- Liz Smith: Audiences Say 'Yes, Yes' to John Stamos in 'Bye, Bye Birdie'
- Caption This!
- Whoopi Goldberg Gets Realistic About Health Care
- Should Americans with the higher health-risk profile of obesity pay higher premiums for health insurance?
- Margo Howard: Boycott the 9/11 Terrorist Trials!
- Liz Smith Wants to Know: What would you name this decade of '00s?
- Interview With an Angel: Anne Rice Catches Up With wOw
- Breadwinners in Burqas, by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
- Whoopi Goldberg's Take on the New York Times
- Joan Juliet Buck Solves the Health-Care Issue
- Liz Smith: Audiences Say 'Yes, Yes' to John Stamos in 'Bye, Bye Birdie'
wOw Features
Reader Voices
Caption This!
Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
