Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Commentary
: TalkLeftFreedom Of Speech
By Big Tent Democrat
Glenn Greenwald touches on Ross Douthat's typical selective outrage when it comes to censorship, but I want to touch on a different point -- on what censorship actually is. The South Park example Douthat focuses on is an especially poor choice in my view. The South Park program that Douthat champions is no longer run by Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom, a publicly traded corporation. Whether Viacom should run the episode or not, is of course, a matter of opinion.
What is not an opinion is that it is utterly Viacom's RIGHT to decide whether it will run the episode or not. This is a much different issue than government censoring speech. The South Park duo, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, can express themselves in just about any manner they choose, but Viacom is not obliged to run it on their channels.
Indeed, Douthat himself proves the point when he seems to lament the lack of limits on expression in our culture:
In a less jaded era, [South Park's] creators would have been the rightful heirs of Oscar Wilde or Lenny Bruce taking frequent risks to fillet the cultures sacred cows.
In ours, though, even Parkers and Stones wildest outrages often just blur into the scenery. In a country where the latest hit movie, Kick-Ass, features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isnt much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that cant be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.
It seems to me Douthat's laments are conflicting -- he wishes there were more limits, but if there aren't the ones he wants, then he wants to make sure images of Muhammad are not immune.
He's for all the speech that he approves of. Nothing wrong with that. I am for all the speech I approve of. But so long as the government is not the one deciding what speech is permitted, I think cries of "censorship" are overblown.
After all, Parker and Stone can make a film using Muhammad's image and post it on the Internet.
Speaking for me only
Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 26, 2010 (boomark / email).
Parody is a Protected Form of Speech
Targets of criticism seek to shut down Internet sites that poke fun
Religious Decorations
Oklahoma City to pay attorney fees in religious freedom violations lawsuit.
Free Speech
Canterbury agrees to pay $60,000 settlement in civil rights lawsuit.
Indianapolis
alleging the city's police are overly aggressive against the homeless in violation of the protection of free speech and unreasonable searches guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Freedom of Speech, Neuroscience, and Media Violence (Blitz)
Pornography and the Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech could be threatened by Scottish law
Dawn Nunziatos Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age
Rethinking Threats To Freedom of Speech








