Fight for free speech by suppressing free speech

[The Laughing Man]

Here's a wonderfully hypocritical website:

One Million Lies

Their tag-line is "Fighting to preserve the freedom of expression." How do they advocate doing that? Why, by suppressing the freedom of expression of others, of course!

Help Janeane Garafalo And Counter The Boycott Against Her
Now is your chance to stop the conservative cowards who want to stop a talent from expressing her views, just because they don't agree with what she says.

Kind of like the liberal cowards like those behind this and other websites who want to stop conservatives from expressing their views, just because they don't agree with what conservatives say!

THE BOTTOM LINE: Dixie Chick Boycott Must End
There have been many boycotts against those against the war, and while all of those boycotts are beyond belief, one of them has gone totally overboard: The Dixie Chicks boycott. Now there are some reasons why we should step back and think as to why this boycott is even going on, especially a very scary one involving the Chicks' families.

Yes, because we know that radio stations are obligated to play the DC's music.

Tell The FCC To Block The PTC's Mail Servers
The FCC is currently getting alot of complaints as of late. However, it is of great surprise that they might not even know that all of those "complaints" are actually the cause of an organized effort by the Parents Television Council. It would be a significant drop of complaints if such organized efforts ceased. Now's your chance to make that cease happen.

See, it's obvious that these people see the phrase "free speech" to mean "free speech just for us." :saywhat:

What's funny about this website is that it was originally intended to counter the American Family Association's One Million Moms and One Million Dads campaigns, which have been extremely successful. Hardly a mention of the campaigns on the One Million Lies website now. Perhaps they realized how hypocritical their position was. Nah. More likely that the saw how ineffectual their opposition was and how effectual the AFA campaigns were (and still are). Now they are just a run-of-the-mill leftist news/commentary website.

[AtheistArchon]

Kind of like the liberal cowards like those behind this and other websites who want to stop conservatives from expressing their views, just because they don't agree with what conservatives say!

- Wha? What liberal is supressing the free speech of a conservative here?

Yes, because we know that radio stations are obligated to play the DC's music.

- Ehh they're not. My rock station isn't obligated to play gospel, either. But isn't it a little shallow of a radio station to get involved with presidential politics?

- My guess is that some of these stations are owned by corporations like Clearchannel Communications, like most of ours are here in Atlanta, and are therefore directed to take political views which side with conservative big-business politics. In other words, it's that terrible "liberal media" everyone gripes about. =)

See, it's obvious that these people see the phrase "free speech" to mean "free speech just for us."

- Well, in the specific case mentioned, the PTC issued "template" emails which were simply forwarded by adherents, if I recall correctly. No originality. So it's the equivalent to signing a petition, really. Furthermore, this kind of thing has another less attractive name: mailbombing.

Now they are just a run-of-the-mill leftist news/commentary website.

- You wouldn't be generalizing here, would you Jinx?

- I happen to not give that site any credibility whatsoever. I don't use it in any of my arguments, and I don't particularly trust a "news" website that contains "alot" of spelling errors.

- Heck, not even democraticunderground.com is completely fair and rational all the time. But that's what you're supposed to use your noodle for. =) To read between the lines.

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 11:03 AM post located here
AtheistArchon:

- Wha? What liberal is supressing the free speech of a conservative here?

It's what the website is advocating. (One could ask, too, what conservative is suppressing the free speech of a liberal.)

- Ehh they're not. My rock station isn't obligated to play gospel, either. But isn't it a little shallow of a radio station to get involved with presidential politics?

No more than it is for the Dixie Chicks "getting involved in presidential politics."

- My guess is that some of these stations are owned by corporations like Clearchannel Communications, like most of ours are here in Atlanta, and are therefore directed to take political views which side with conservative big-business politics. In other words, it's that terrible "liberal media" everyone gripes about. =)

Yep, cuz we know "corporation" automatically means "follower of conservative big-business politics," right? Sort of like the Public Broadcasting Corporation.

- Well, in the specific case mentioned, the PTC issued "template" emails which were simply forwarded by adherents, if I recall correctly. No originality. So it's the equivalent to signing a petition, really.

So what's the big deal, then? Petitions are okay, so why not these email "templates?"

Furthermore, this kind of thing has another less attractive name: mailbombing.

And an even less attractive name, I'm sure: "free speech for conservatives."

- You wouldn't be generalizing here, would you Jinx?

Nope. The "One Million Lies" website is little different from the vast majority of other leftist news/commentary websites. "Conservatives are evil; liberals are good." "Bush is evil; Clinton is good and we wish he were president again." "Everyone deserves to have freedom of speech (*cough*except conservatives*cough*)."

[Rose Raven]

Eh, most of the voting population is liberal. Look at the last election. Have some respect for your countrymen.

[Mr Stick71]

"Eh, most of the voting population is liberal. Look at the last election. Have some respect for your countrymen."

And less than half the country voted, so that's not the best yardstick. But even by the election, it was extremely close, so how you claim that "most of the voting population is liberal" confuses me.

[Rose Raven]

Fine. Live in denial. See if I care.

[Epoetker]

You can't parody these people

[BeHereNow]

Jinx, I agreed with most everything in your post (shocker, I know), but then you did this:

Now they are just a run-of-the-mill leftist news/commentary website.

Senseless generalization gets you a one-way ticket to Bigotville. I know of a lot of leftist web sites that do not try to block free speech (one in particular is BuzzFlash.com -- straight links to legit news articles and editorials).

p.s. Ker, how on Earth could you compare me to you know who? Look what he wrote on this thread for crying out loud! hahaha

[Lazy Agnostic]

Boycotting the Dixie Chicks is only slightly less silly than making believe you're not eating french fries. [My french wife hasn't yet missed the opportunity to point out that "Le Belge invented pomme frites."]

Remember the silly uproar over John Lennon's off-hand hyperbole about being more popular than Jesus Christ? Which was true---and still is, by-the-by.

Which event would sell more tickets: one which advertised the return of John Lennon---or another advertising the return of Jesus; both "live on stage"?

The more important issue surfacing amid the jingo/nationalistic demagoguery of the Chick's ban is that of media consolidation. The ban has led directly to some serious rethinking of recent FCC deregulations---which allowed for too much influential control of what gets discussed around the dinnertable.

I'm hopeful it will receive scrutiny similar to that which awaits corporate Christianity when the Siren's call of Faith-based Initiatives draws them irretrievably under the glaring eyes of Mr and Mrs America and all the ships at sea.