Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 20 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 6/23/19

The Guardian Continues to Promote "Progressive" Censorship

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     (# of views)   3 comments
Author 513575
Message Kit Knightly
Become a Fan
  (1 fan)
- Advertisement -

First published by Off-Guardian


(Image by Off-Guardian)   Details   DMCA

The Guardian Continues to Promote "Progressive" Censorship. But don't worry, they only want to shut down "settled" debates

"There's a lot of talk about "free speech" being under threat these days, with reports of de-platforming at universities, academics losing their jobs because of their political opinions, artists and celebrities getting "cancelled" over an off-color joke, an even vaguely non-PC opinion, or just supporting Donald Trump."

- Advertisement -

The entire reason Off-Guardian exists is the sheer amount of censorship in both corporate media and social media.

We have an archive dedicated to it, that doesn't include even half of 1% of the deleted comments on The Guardian alone.

Rather notably the US is trying to extradite (and perhaps execute) a man for simply telling the truth.

- Advertisement -

You'd be forgiven for thinking that free speech was, indeed, under attack. But you'd be wrong. The Guardian says so, or at least Martha Gill says so. She headlines:

Free speech isn't under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so. Before explaining:

But is free speech really under threat? The first thing to say is that the scale of the problem in universities has been exaggerated. The practice of denying people speaking slots over their views has rightly caused concern, but every single instance has also attracted vast coverage in national papers, giving the impression of an epidemic. They are not reflective of the feelings of most students.

Free speech advocates also misunderstand the motivation of those who might want to shut down a debate: they see this as a surefire mark of intolerance.

Some debates should be shut down. For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognize when a particular debate has been won and leave it there.

It's a magical journey:

*Censorship ISN'T happening, that's just something racists say.

- Advertisement -

*If censorship WERE happening it would be for a good reason.

*Censorship IS happening, and is a good thing.

Personally, I love the phrase "For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognize when a particular debate has been won and leave it there", wonderful. Perfect. The liberal argument for censorship - The debate isn't shut down, it's just over. We won. We need to move forward.

Dissent will be bad for "public dialogue".

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Rate It | View Ratings

Kit Knightly Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The "Plot" to Overthrow Corbyn, History Repeats Itself

The Obvious Dirty Dealings Behind Julian Assange's Arrest

Google Promising Real-Time Censorship

Channel 4's "Inside Idlib" - The Last Gasp of a Dying Campaign

YouTube's Latest Purge

Leaked Report: Douma "Chemical Attack" Likely Staged

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

3 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments


Devil's Advocate

Become a Fan
Author 500650

(Member since Nov 9, 2014), 9 fans, 2820 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

It's interesting how all these people claim to be firm believers in free speech, while still finding "inventive" ways to justify the censorship of that speech which they don't like.

The "settled debates" angle is not a new one. It's just another way of creating a "category" (or "list") that can then have other "uncomfortable" ideas added to it, in order to shut them down. Ideas that conflict with those on the "accepted" list can also be theoretically dismissed because they don't fit.

It's the same principle used in the official 9/11 narrative. You're presented with leading "facts" (19 Arabs with boxcutters hijacked commercial planes...), and despite the lack of any proof, it is used to shut down discussions involving Israelis, Americans, Saudis, inside jobs, military weapons, the discrepancies with passenger jets, and on and on.

Similar censorship tactics are being used against us with the PropOrNot list, NewsGuard, and all the "guidance" of these government "think tanks" (Integrity Initiative, Atlantic Council, etc.) who "recommend" what content should be labeled "fake news" and whose social media accounts should be shut down.

Once you start writing "lists", anyone of power and influence can use those lists to start adding whatever they want to them. Free speech cannot exist where someone else decides and controls what is acceptable to say and hear. End of story.

Submitted on Sunday, Jun 23, 2019 at 5:13:32 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
Indent

nelswight

Become a Fan
Author 2581

(Member since Sep 3, 2006), 235 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to Devil's Advocate:   New Content

hey, DA, you're a cheeky chap, but still lovable.

Submitted on Sunday, Jun 23, 2019 at 8:50:51 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

molly cruz

Become a Fan
Author 7804

(Member since Sep 16, 2007), 14 fans, 17 articles, 589 quicklinks, 2761 comments, 14 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

Trump's sleazy personal life and the manner in which he was elected have certainly put the very cherished First

Amendment to the test. Ignorance, and his manipulation of those whose awareness seems guttered by intellectual deficiency, and his subsequent manipulation of this "base" have not furthered its survival in any meaningful way.


I have felt from the start that Trump's function will prove to have been the downfall of the GOP, by attempting to illuminate and even legislate their miserable platform; which has, since Nixon, allied itself with questionable groups of self-serving, self-appointed potentates whose only motivation seems to be greed, and a lack of morality so deep as to be inaccessible to the very institutions this writer seems to defend, while at the same time pandering to the least of us, those gun-toting, beer swilling bigots we wish would just disappear but who crawl out of the woodwork whenever their basest instincts are encouraged.

Because Trump advocates on a daily basis the destruction of virtually every human right, journals and institutions founded on those principles defined by our Constitution

instinctively rise up against those who try to make him palatable. The audience you crave, Mr. Knightly, awaits you on FOX News, and in various Right Wing journals that will doubtless be happy to entertain your views.

Those designed to actually inform and protect will continue to find you deplorable, as I do.

As they say, "Good luck with that! "


Submitted on Monday, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:38:52 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment