Moral Panic.02 :The era of progressive censorship

[tantalus]

You're contradicting yourself.

How?

The proclaimed goals are noble(or they are made to look so)...

I already made that point...

...but the means are less savory(in the extreme cases they're downright dangerous).

I already agreed several times to stupidity of those involved and yes, at times it is a dangerous problem.

800 men took Mosul and cowered hundreds of thousands with only the threat of gunfire.

Yes but there is a power vacuum there, and a lack of history of support to free speech, and so many others factors that make it completely separate to events in countries like France or Britain.

Gunfire,as seen already in France,deepens the rift in society.It emboldens some and scares the others.Yes,they will call fright by any other name imaginable,including tolerance,acceptance...blah-blah.

The protests after Paris sent a clear message, free speech is still important, there will be no fundamental overhaul of it. There are problems, as illustrated in the OP, I discussed them in my first post on the thread, but I would think it is clear that free speech is here to stay, charlie hedbo published millions of copies, rather than thousands.

The governments of Europe are working behind the scenes to counter terrorism, are there problems, yes, but try to stand back from it, in terms of history there has been far worse ones. The real severe problems are in places like Mosul.

There is identifying a problem, and separately there is placing the problem in its proper magnitude.

Free speech may be important.Free thought is more important.But it is freedom of action that makes things happen.

There is action for free speech. There is action against terrorism. And the power is firmly with those, the head start is massive.

Tolerance and acceptance is not a response to fright. Most people in the west don't actually believe they will die of terrorists. I already gave my reasons in my first post as to the source of it, so I need not repeat myself.

[Vargas]

I think the biggest and saddest example of the progressive left hysteria is how they - and a lot of big companies and state governments - reacted to the Religious Freedom act.
Come on! Even the fact that people are contesting something that actually does nothing more than confirm the first amendment is already very depressing and show how our society has decayed.

I think most people that react against the law really do not know what the law is and what it is not. And people in favor of the law, including the governor of Indiana seem not to know how to explain it in a tangible way.
I got very surprised by hearing at the MPR news they interviewing a reverend that explained the thing more or less clear even though they tried to twist his meaning comparing the law with segregation.
Actually, I think the best example to show what the law does and does not do is that:

Imagine that you have a photocopy machine and some skinhead comes and wants to make hundreds of flyers with Hitler stepping into a Jew's head and saying "Death to the inferior race!"
Would you have to be forced to make the flyers if you yourself is Jewish or is against it by some any other reason? Why so? The photocopy machine is yours and is not like you are denying a room in a hotel or a hospital bed to someone.
If you are a reverend or a cake maker or a wedding photographer and you are against same-sex marriage, why you should be forcedto be part of celebration of something you are not in favor of?
Again, it is not like you are denying food on a restaurant, a hospital bed or a room in your hotel, even though until the 1950s it was normal for people not to rent rooms at motels or hotels for unmarried couples.

The entire outcry this case received just show how people now think that their desires and or/feelings is the most important thing in the world.