"I think we need to see pictures of Amanda Marcotte in a bikini."

I got the goods. Content warning! She is scantily clad.

I doubt she really realized what she was doing.

Among those on the left, the rule is that it is wrong to offend someone with prejudiced, bigoted, and or racist statements, UNLESS the person is being offended because they are either (1) Caucasian, (2) male, (3) Christian, or (4) heterosexual. If the offensive racist-bigoted-prejudiced statement is based on one of those 4 things its O.K. as far as the lefties are concerned.

I learned this back in my college days. They actually instituted the anti-free speech codes wile I was attending in the late 80's in response to some incident (I don't remember specifically what it was, but I do remember protesters marching). You could actually be expelled for making an offensive statement unless it met one of the 4 criteria above. If the statement did meet one of those 4 criteria, it was protected free speech. If it did not, your 1st amendment rights were suspended and you were expelled.

And no, the speech codes did not specifically state those 4 conditions. It was one of those unwritten rules.

For someone living in fantasy land, the truth hurts. So stop quoting her, you meanie.

Bunyan, according to some who comment here, that would be censorship.

I think it's closer to fascism than censorship.

Perhaps I didn't make it obvious enough -- I was trying to employ irony.

Perhaps he didn't make it obvious enough -- you failed.

I got it wavemaker and I'm sure the one posting above me did as well.

Lee, why don't you post "your" definition of censorship and explain to everyone else how the right is censoring miss marcotte.

Couldna failed completely, you showed up.

Just ran across this piece on Marcotte from Cathy Young.

Jay, as I recall when you called Dan Rather a "miserable lying sack of shit," you meant it in the best possible way. right?

as for Amanda Marcotte, her problem is not that she WAS censored...but that she was NOT. Poor baby, a victim of the LACK of censorship that might have prevented her words from coming back to, well, HER!

No one is attempting to censor Marcotte that I'm aware of J.R.-- nobody that I can see is trying to keep her from saying what she wants to say.

I'm offended by the use of the word "f'ing".

P. Bunyan --

I'm completely with you against censorship. If you can only say inoffensive things, you don't have free speech.

Amanda had the right to say what she said, and Edwards had the right to fire her, and you guys have the right to criticize her. Free speech should be met with more free speech...not silencing.

I recommend a book:

"Free Speech for Me, but Not For Thee", by Nat Hentoff.

Yeah, Nat is politically on the left...but he exposes censorship on the left as well as the right. In fact, I think more examples in this book are about censorship on the left. (Basically, whoever has more power institutes the censorship, and the left had more power when his book was written.)

In any case, it's very good reading.

Back in my college days, there was a group of communists on campus that posted flyers that said "unlimited free speech on campus" and "no military recruiters on campus" on the same piece of paper. They also wanted to "smash racisim and the KKK" in suburban Southern California, where the only people I have seen stage race based marches are not white.

I don't get it. Maybe because I can tell the difference between censorship and consequences.

Its not hard to see that the Left in general doesn't believe in consequences. But the thing is, freedom is a two way street. You can say or do anything you want within the law, but I don't have to listen to you and I don't have to hire you. Edwards looked at her liability to his campaign and let her go. A liability that Marcotte created and not anyone else. Bloggers simply pointed it out. That's a consequence. Tough.

For example, Jay Tea has successfully alienated the Dan Rather fanbase. There are consequences for that. Somewhere. I'm sure. No really. But, I'm sure Jay Tea can live with them.

One thing about freedom of speech - it doesn't guarantee an audience. It especially doesn't guarantee that, no matter how popular you might be at the moment with your fan base, they'll always love you or that 'love' will translate into a broader appeal.

Seems to me she figured she could spout whatever drivel she wanted, and folks would just lap it up, and now she's offended when a wider range of people don't appreciate her the way her fans did? Well, welcome to the real world. What you say CAN have consequences.

Great post Jay.

Ms. Marcotte now has the opportunity to learn from the old adage "Live by the sword, die by the sword"

metprof,

Don't you mean "live by the S word, die by the S word"?

One thing about freedom of speech - it doesn't guarantee an audience.

True, although the consequence in this case is a much bigger audience for Amanda than in the past. She's all over the internet, and has been invited to post at Slate and elsewhere. Even here at Wizbang, there's been two posts in 2 days about her.

She may be unhappy about the criticism she's received, but it's raised her profile and reach now exceeds beyond what she had at Pandagon or would have received blogging for Edwards.

She may be unhappy about the criticism she's received, but it's raised her profile

Now that's searching through the dark cloud to find the wispy thread of silver.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean there's some vacuum. Marcotte and even Tim Hardaway have a perfect right to say what they want and of course, we have a perfect right to refute/argue/lampoon what they say. Just try that at a college campus though.

She may be unhappy about the criticism she's received, but it's raised her profile

Now that's searching through the dark cloud to find the wispy thread of silver.

Actually, it's just an observation of one of the consequences of the attacks on Ms. Marcotte. I think that Slate, and other outlets now publishing Amanda's commentaries, reach more people and is "picked up" more than Pandagon.

Shooting stars may blaze brightly for a time - but they tend to either burn out quickly or make a crater when they hit. I doubt that she'll be visible for long.

The word 'censorship' has been bandied about by so many confused lefty commenters in Wizbang threads over the past few days, I thought they would benefit from this modest primer on the subject:

When a government official says you can't publish your book, or you have to take your song to some government agency to get their ok before you sing it in public, or you get arrested because of something you wrote, or said, or sung, that is censorship.

When no one reads your blog, or when someone says mean things about something you have written, or if a bunch of people gets together for the purpose of not buying your songs, and tells others to do the same, or if some corporate entertainment entity decides not to distribute your songs, that is not censorship. It may be unethical, it may be disgusting or distasteful, it may be unfair, but whatever it is, it ain't censorship.

There. I hope this clears things up.

Actually, it's just an observation of one of the consequences of the attacks on Ms. Marcotte.

So when Mel Gibson gave his drunken rant, and "raised his profile," it was of benefit to him?
I don't have a problem with either of the former Edwards team members, but it seems like there is a vast amount of spin going on by their more loyal supporters.

So when Mel Gibson gave his drunken rant, and "raised his profile," it was of benefit to him?

I think the consequences for Gibson were different than for Marcotte. Gibson wasn't asked by numerous high-profile outlets to publish editorials.

As an aside, I disagree with many things Mel Gibosn has done, but I enjoy many of his films. And I certainly don't hate him or wish him harm just because his opinions are different from mine.

if some corporate entertainment entity decides not to distribute your songs, that is not censorship

True. And sometimes you find a gigantic new fan base and win lots of Grammys.

She may be unhappy about the criticism she's received, but it's raised her profile and reach now exceeds beyond what she had at Pandagon or would have received blogging for Edwards.

Sorry - couldn't help but be amused by the side issue raised in this comment.

Marcotte will do better than she would have working for Edwards? Yikes! That doesn't say much for Edwards as a Presidential hopeful, does it?

Maybe Marcotte and McEwan getting out of the Edwards campaign really had little or nothing to do with what they experienced and everything to do with what they learned about Edwards and the quality of his campaign efforts once they got closer to it.

Yeah for Marcotte I think this is 15 minute thing.

This is such a non-story, but what is great is the way Bloggers are so thin skinned. Reading the blogs are like a soap opera. The best is Sullivan against NRO, but other good ones are John Cole, Juan Cole Malikin, Sst. Toldja, Redstate, and on and on. Each and all can't rise above pettiness.

Instead of supporting this great media and each other, you act like a bunch high-school cheerleads.

...or if some corporate entertainment entity decides not to distribute your songs, that is not censorship.

That depends. If the corporation decides not to distribute your music because you've alienated your fans, and nobody wants to buy your music, no, that's not censorship. But, if Sony says to all it's artists, "We will no longer distribute any music that contains the word 'nigger', regardless of the context in which used.", well that's censorship. They have every right to conduct themselves in that way, but it is censorship, nonetheless.

Anon, that only works if Sony is the only label willing to pick up artists who use the word 'nigger'. In such a capitalistic society, other record labels would swoop in like vultures to pick up the artists who would get dropped from Sony for not complying with their (very stupid) demands. In the end, those artists might wind up with more exposure due to the upheaval and media attention.

That would be like saying the RCC's banned books list is censorship - maybe 500 years ago it worked, but not today and not in America. It tends to have the opposite effect.

Hmm, I misspoke my last comment. What I meant was that Anon's example only works if all the other labels follow Sony's example in dropping artists who use the word "nigger".

And just to add to it a bit, governments have a monopoly on force (or should if they want to stay in power), but recording companies don't have a monopoly on the market (at least not in America). It takes a monopoly to create censorship.

A quick obvious and unarguable point: freedom of speech is not free and does have limits.

Amanda Marcotte is obviously a delusional, arrogant, self-righteous boor with little to actually contribute to intelligent discourse.

But I'm stating the obvious again, aren't I?

But, if Sony says to all it's artists, "We will no longer distribute any music that contains the word 'nigger', regardless of the context in which used.", well that's censorship. They have every right to conduct themselves in that way, but it is censorship, nonetheless.

Uh, no. No, it's not. There's no legal force behind Sony's policy. Nobody is telling those musicians they're going to get jailed, or fined, or executed because their songs contain a forbidden word. They're free to make music all the day long with the word 'niggger' in it. No one is stopping them.

If Amanda Marcotte submitted a a profanity-laced, anti-Catholic screed to Ignatius Press, would their refusal to publish it constitute "censorship"? I think not.

BTW --

For those of you who don't know, Marcotte is "anti-Catholic" in the sense that she opposes the Catholic church's position on birth control and related issues.

If Amanda Marcotte submitted a a profanity-laced, anti-Catholic screed to Ignatius Press, would their refusal to publish it constitute "censorship"? I think not.

Amanda would probably consider it censorship.

But, then again the clue fairy hasn't visited Amanda in a long, long, lo-o-o-ong time.

Censorship is like when democrats & Bill Clinton wrote a threatening letter to ABC about perhaps not renewing some licenses (or whatever it was they threatened) if they didn't edit "The Path to 9/11.

Now THAT is censorship. So apparently, for all their whining about it, in certain circumstances, the left is all for it.

Uh, no. No, it's not. There's no legal force behind Sony's policy. Nobody is telling those musicians they're going to get jailed, or fined, or executed because their songs contain a forbidden word.

Might I suggest a dictionary?

Censorship can take place without the force of government.

There is a legal definition of censorship (as to what is actionable court) and a non-legal definition. Depends on what you're discussing. Anon, which definition are you using? Please don't say wiki.

"I'm coming up on my third anniversary here. I've passed 2,500 postings. And I can't think of a single piece I've written that I wish like hell I hadn't."

Of course you don't regret - it's the neocon way. Even when you said the insurgents were in their last throes...

Just like Tony Snow said the other day that he wasn't sure if any mistakes were made in Iraq. Just like it took years and years to get some mea culpas from this administration.

You have been wrong, repeatedly. On top of this, you have been attacking the people who were right for 3 years. It's called lack of shame - and your continued definance is called a lack of guts.

jp2, kindly READ before you comment. You're only embarrassing yourself.

If you actually READ my piece, you'd have seen that the very next line I said I'd been wrong on many occasions.

I regret my errors, of course, but any single piece that I regret to the point where I wish I'd never written or published it? Not a one. They all served a purpose, they were all honest reflections of my thoughts and feelings of the time.

You, on the other hand, are a knee-jerk schmuck who seems to prowl postings here to find a single word or phrase that you can twist to suit your agenda, and then run with it -- usually right off a cliff.

At least be a little more entertaining in the process, will ya?

J.

Shameless, gutless, rightless - now that describes jp2's dopplegänger very well. You know, the one who used to post incoherent rants all the time. The one jp2 is confusing JT with.

Sad.

[wink wink]

You, on the other hand, are a knee-jerk schmuck who seems to prowl postings here to find a single word or phrase that you can twist to suit your agenda, and then run with it -- usually right off a cliff.

Pot, meet kettle.

good stuff!

Scroll up, Brian. Prior, you answered the question "Does anyone actually care what you think?" with "according to the most recent election, yes."

That's your ENTIRE answer, in its entire context. So I (admittedly snidely) asked just where you were on the ballot when you won that ringing endorsement.

Christ, even by the current batch of trolls' standards, that was weak.

J.

Well, while everyone here is cheering the supposed self-destruction of Amanda, she's appearing on MSNBC, Slate and other high-profile venues.

More to her credit, she rejected an invitation to appear on Fox "News" (sic.)

"If you actually READ my piece, you'd have seen that the very next line I said I'd been wrong on many occasions."

Hey, we all know you have made multiple errors Jay. Anyone who spends a day or two reading here is very aware of that.

What is crucially missing from your writings though is how wrong - at a core level - you have been. We all make mistakes. Yours, however, are systemic. Your support of this admistration (and especially the war) has been woefully misguided. I don't know what's driving it, if it's drunk or depressed or scared - but
sure wouldn't trust it behind the wheel.

Instead of taking jp2's word or Jay Tea's word on the accuracy of past entries, why don't we look ourselves? We might start with:

Why We Just Might Be Winning in Iraq
http://wizbangblog.com/2005/09/16/why-we-just-might-be-winning-in-iraq.php

How about this one, about how the left should shut up and admit that Saddam had wMDs?

Is It Time for the Anti-War Crowd to Sit Down and STFU?
http://wizbangblog.com/2005/11/09/is-it-time-for-the-antiwar-crowd-to-sit-down-and-stfu.php

Word of the day, Publicus:

"Conditional."

Reading comprehension tip of the day, Publicus:

I never said I was never WRONG, just that I never wrote anything that I regretted so much that I wish I'd never written it -- or wanted to go back and delete it.

One more straw man, and I'm going to tell that farmer you're stealing from his fields. And his shotgun's loaded with rock salt.

J.

Jay...

I understand. I was addressing jp2's allegation that you are fundamentally wrong, at a core level.

Personally, I think you are intelligent and coherent...which is why I post hear and listen to what people like you post. I (frequently) respectfully disagree often.

I suspect that jp2 would say that you're being wrong about big things, like that we're winning the war or that Saddam had WMDs, makes you SO wrong that he thinks you SHOULD regret what you wrote.

I can't expect anyone to be right about everything, especially someone as prolific as you have been. But I wouldn't try to predict the future by reading "Tea" leaves, either...

One more straw man, and I'm going to tell that farmer you're stealing from his fields. And his shotgun's loaded with rock salt.

THAT is funny! You do turn a nice phrase, Jay!

"pubic-hair" those links you posted are so over used that the type is fading. How about interviewing Saddam now and ask if he thinks he won the war. Or maybe ask if he would liked to redo his thinking on how to handle the tiger he had by the tail. Stale stale stale liberal sound bytes. Bet he wished he had made a differant bed to hang-er- bed to lie in.

Actually, it's just an observation of one of the consequences of the attacks on Ms. Marcotte. I think that Slate, and other outlets now publishing Amanda's commentaries, reach more people and is "picked up" more than Pandagon.

No. But it IS finally killing the entire concept of hate crime and hate speech.

If what Amanda did does not qualify, then nothing can possibly qualify.
-=Mike

Okay, I propose a gentlemen's rule for all future snarking:

There shall be no further use of the phrase "pot, meet kettle."

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Scroll up, Brian. Prior, you answered the question "Does anyone actually care what you think?" with "according to the most recent election, yes."

That's your ENTIRE answer, in its entire context.

Uh, no. The "entire" context would include the previous comment, Aahhh, more commentary from attention starved libnuts. Followed by the question, "Does anyone actually care what you [liberals] think?", and then my accurate response, "according to the most recent election, yes." That's the "entire" context.

So I (admittedly snidely) asked just where you were on the ballot when you won that ringing endorsement.

Right, so you admit you took my response out of context just to be snide. I don't really care, but it just seemed to so well fit your description of a "knee-jerk schmuck who seems to prowl postings here to find a single word or phrase that you can twist to suit your agenda, and then run with it -- usually right off a cliff."

Christ, even by the current batch of trolls' standards, that was weak.

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, your response of "oh, that thing that I previously said, now that you've called me on it, you should really have interpreted it to mean this other thing that I didn't say" seems right on par with your previous such responses.

One way that some of the posters here and Jay differ is that Jay went on record with an opinion on whether or not action should be taken prior to the "end of the story" (or percieved end of the story - as some of those same posters appear to believe).

He had the guts to clearly state that sometimes he was wrong. We can point to posts because he stated his opinion and took the chance that he would be wrong.

Which is makes him different from the second guessers here.

For example, hate the Iraqi War, but don't believe that there is never a war the US should become involved in? (In other words, you are not an isolationist.)

So, when should the might of the US military be used?

Which past conflict were we right to use that might? Which ones should we have used that might but didn't? Which current situations (North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Darfur, etc.) should we be focusing on now?

Let's see some of those quick to criticize take a stand.

So, are do those who criticize believe the US should take an isolationist stance?

Which past conflicts were OK?

Which past conflicts should we been involved in but weren't?

Which potential conflicts should we be involved in next?

And, please don't hide behind "oh, we can't do anything elsewhere because of BushHitler's Iraq fiasco..." That's the cowardly response to a theorectical question.

When (with specific examples) should the might of the US military be used?

Hmmm. Wonder where all the lefties went after Ohiovoter's post?