[JoeMomma]

In light of all of the anti-Potter craze going around all of the 'religious right' and their efforts to ban the HP books from libraries, I remembered an article in the conservative 'Weekly Standard' that promoted a state-sponsored censorship.

This worries me -- a conservative promoting state-sponsored censorship of media and entertainment? It may make some of the anti-Potter folks happy, but is it really American to promote censorship?

Furthermore, are conservatives who promote censorship really for smaller government? Or are they just for a right-wing big government?

[Big Banana]

Isn't the argument whether family's should be exposed to endless sex and violence, or is this just a pacification, preparing us for the future.

[steve-b]

government, and government alone, has a chance of blocking this descent into decadence

This is the stupidest statement I've read here in weeks, and that's saying something. Any serious student of history recognizes that government usurpation of the roles of social institutions has been the principal cause of decadence.

Never before in the history of mankind have the moral restraints and aspirations necessary to the fullness of our nature, and to civilization itself, been subjected to so ubiquitous and persistent an assault.

Well, I suppose that someone who has evidently never heard of fascism, communism, national socialism, etc hardly qualifies as a student of history, much less a serious one....

In a word, the Supreme Court, the law schools, and like-minded opinion leaders have replaced the thought of the Founders and Framers with a radical understanding of individual liberty

When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans.

David Lowenthal and Bill Clinton: Has anyone ever seen both of them in the same room at the same time?

our moral corruption has other sources, including excessive wealth

David Lowenthal and Karl Marx: Has anyone ever seen both of them in the same room at the same time?

I remembered an article in the conservative 'Weekly Standard'

Kristol & Co. will be contacting their lawyers and having a nastygram sent to whichever band of conservatives is using their trademarked name.

Furthermore, are conservatives who promote censorship really for smaller government? Or are they just for a right-wing big government?

Door #2.

[dr gene scott]

Oh - from the title I thought this might be a thread asking why so many threads on FR are being deleted. But then if it was this thread probably would not be here long would it?

sorry, but I am upset that I get interested in a thread about former FReepers and when I come back from lunch, its gone. no trace. no explaination of what happened, and you wonder if someone else has gotten banned.

[NicR]

This authoritarian nitwit's call for fascism is beyond nauseating.

[headsonpikes]

And then there's the case for crushing the skulls of state-sanctioned buttinskis with large rocks.

But that's too easy!

[ThomasMore]

but is it really American to promote censorship

I thought our founding fathers censored all kinds of things? I remember all the so called "blue laws". It seems to me that the reason for states rights was specifically for this reason.

[JmyBryan]

I'll agree to govt censorship over all manually operated, non-electronic printing presses.

[ssterns]

What idiots like Lowenthal don't seem to grasp is that once you start down the path of "reinterpreting" the Bill of Rights to limit what they see as "abuses" in excersizing those rights, that door can't be closed again. If the First Amendment is interpreted to mean that free speech is restricted to what the "majority," the politically powerful, or the folks who have the money or clout to influence policy, then you also have to allow "reinterpretations" of other amendments.

If idiots like Lowenthal are successful, they can't complain when Second Amendment rights to bear arms are restricted to only actively serving uniformed personnel or military reserves. Or the First Amendment could be reinterpreted to mean that free excersize of religion is restricted to only those Protestant sects that are "approved" by the government. Or that unreasonable search and seizure could be redefined to mean whatever an FBI agent personally thinks is reasonable...no wait, they've already done that with the USPATRIOT ACT.

To some conservatives, unfortunately, tyranny only means oppression they don't like; oppression they like is only "good common sense".

Cheers.