Censorship rears its ugly head again!
November 27th, 2007 at 12:09pm reckless G 277
When I stood up at the Grassroots meeting regarding the film; “Judea declares war on Germany,” it was not to condone the contents of the film, but to voice concern over the censorship of our public forums. My contention was that banning the film by calling it hate speech and anti-Semitism would lead to further censorship of other topics, as those same tactics are applied to prevent public discussion of US support of Israel.
It appears my concern was warranted. Following the publishing of my letter; http://www.aspendailynews.com/archive_22927 and a subsequent one from our old friend Elaine Sandler; http://www.aspendailynews.com/archive_22961, I received a letter from Troy Hooper, editor of the Aspen Daily News stating that he was considering revising their letters policy and warning me that he may choose not to print any further letters regarding Middle East issues, citing that the topic “is getting quite old and has proven to be unnecessarily divisive.”
The term “unnecessarily divisive” is interesting. Mr. Hooper is the one who has promoted that aspect of the dialogue that is unproductive and unnecessary by choosing to publish letters from those that use the forum simply to vent their rage and hatred for other letter writers, when he could choose to publish only those letters that engage in civilized debate centering on the topic and not the character of the opponent. Instead, he is considering changing the newspaper's policy to omit all letters regarding Middle East issues, effectively eliminating this critical topic from public debate in his newspaper.
It should be noted that the apparently "divisive" nature of the topic is a deliberate attempt by certain factions of our society (that are more loyal to Israel than to the American Constitution), to prevent debate and discussion of US/Israel policy. This is going on in communities and colleges all across America where Jewish “media watch” and “campus watch” organizations are successfully preventing any public discussion of the policies and practices of Israel by labeling it hateful and anti-Semitic.
As for the topic “getting quite old,” US support of Israel is the single most important issue we face today regarding American security. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, this was one of the reasons we were attacked. Without a change in US policy regarding Israel's continued occupation of Palestine, we invite more terrorism to our shores.
Also, the US gives billions to Israel every year which is used in illegal operations resulting in grave human rights violations. Is it not the concern of every taxpaying American whether our money is being spent for immoral and illegal purposes, and what the consequences of supporting those actions might be for us?
Errant government policies are rarely changed until they are debated and decided upon by the American people. Without the ability to publicly discuss these issues in our community, we can not be active participants in democracy.
I am sincerely disappointed in Grassroots TV and the Aspen Daily News for embracing the introduction of censorship into our community. Hopefully, the Aspen Times will retain its courage and integrity, and we will still have one option left open to us for a healthy discussion of this critical issue.
Entry Filed under: Carbondale, Media, Colorado, People, Women, United Post
27 Comments Add your own
1. alpha6 | November 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Yo...Con Man are you going to continue to allow Reckless to post this type of stuff or do we need to get Troy "If I only had a brain" Hooper to take over this whole thing???
I'm joking....I'm joking....Lucky for you Sue this forum allows you to post anything you like, as it should be. I have said this before and am sure I will again, while we may disagree with each other a many things, I believe in your right to express your views and ideas (no matter how misguided I may think they are...or I am ....I always get that confused.)
Anyway, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Hooper to do anything other then be a mouth piece for others in the community that pull his strings. From the recent editorials in that rag it is clear that his agenda is far from the communities and more in the court of "certain" peoples. Don't be surprised with they change the name to the "Aspen Times People's Newspaper"
2. Mitch.Mulhall | November 27th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I concur.
Reckless G may raise hackles, but in point of fact, she makes people think—even if some conclude she’s offering freebies out of the south end of a north bound horse.
To Troy Hooper, and Dale Shrull, I say chicken shite… Man up. Get with your First Amendment selves. No one’s asking you to throw a “Samples” CD in to the disc drive and swim with the whales. Just let her speak…
Cheers,
3. B Jon Traylor | November 28th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Kudos to you Sue. We certainly disagree on many things, but I'm with you on this one. Thanks for making others of us aware of this. At least you have this forum (aspenpost.net) to speak and be heard.
I'm sure you have already considered this: take this same post, copy and past it into a Letter to the Editor , and email and it to Mr. Hooper. I'd like to see it it gets printed.
If the slogan of that publication is truly "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen" then I say printing your post here is indeed worthy of printing.
Dialogue, however controversial or in Hooper's words "unnecesarily divisive" is still the tool that drives us. It is important we have difficult dialogue and debate such as middle eastern policy.
I say keep sending your thoughts. If you can document the censorship that might begin occuring, then I thinks we gots ourselves a real barn burner topic!
All hail the First Amendment rights granted us via The Constitution of the United States of America.
4. reckless G | November 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Thanks for your support guys, I appreciate it.
Jon,
In a heated email exchange between Troy and I yesterday, I threatened to send the above post as a letter to the Editor of the Aspen Times. In response, he asked me to keep it quiet, so I assume he would be averse to publishing the letter in his own newspaper.
From the defensive tone of Troy’s emails I’m not certain he even had the blessing of the Aspen Daily News staff in threatening both Steve Campbell and I with changing the policy. It may have just been intended to intimidate us into ceasing our submission of letters.
I still have not decided whether to expose this issue in the Aspen Times. I’m not sure what purpose it will serve other than revenge or retribution, and I have a strict personal rule of always having a positive intention to my letters.
On the other hand I’ve received encouragement from several people to expose this issue. They seem to believe it’s the public’s right to know that this is going on. I’ve already distributed it widely to friends and other peace organizations in Colorado as well as here on Aspen Post, so the question of whether to go public may already be moot.
As for the possibility of documenting the censorship by sending letters on Middle East policy to the Aspen Daily News, I have already shut that door. I told Troy that as long as he was editor I would not submit any more letters to his newspaper on the principle that I don’t support newspapers that don’t support free speech. There are still three other newspapers in the Valley that will print my letters.
I believe Troy is shooting himself in the foot on this. Earlier this week, out of the top five most commented on stories in Aspen Times online, four were my letters. Controversial topics bring both readers and participants in the letters. For an editor, Troy doesn’t know much about generating publicity. If he was really smart, instead of banning me, he would’ve offered me a column!
5. Wharf Rat | November 28th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Reck,
You know you have my unqualified support on this one. While I am disappointed with Hooper, I'm even more discouraged that the vitriol sprayed (like that one?) by the Elaine Sandler types gets rewarded. Apparently your letters spark "divisiveness" among the community, and that divisiveness is evidenced by personal attacks against you by the local Jewish community that cannot discern the difference between the message and the messenger. Sandler then presumably becomes the victim because she is so offended by what you have to say that she launches personal attacks against you to help heal her personal hurt. Makes no sense.
The sad thing is that apparently one cannot criticize the policies of Israel without being branded an anti-Semite. I suppose it is the same rationale that is used in labeling a U.S. foreign policy critic "unpatriotic". Narrow-minded, and overall, a sad state of affairs.
I applaud you for sticking to your guns and putting forth your viewpoint in a manner that doesn't stoop to the level of your opponents.
6. ADN Ed | November 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Aspen Post readers:
Sue Gray, aka Reckless G, has mischaracterized our e-mail conversation. Pointing out that there is a dead horse in the living room that has been badly beaten is not censorship. As I repeatedly told Ms. Gray, there has been no change to our letters policy. Our letters pages boast some of the most unfettered free speech in all of the land. It is because barring libelous concerns, we try to publish every letter we get, so long it isn't from some guy in Texas writing about what's going on in D.C. (Even then, sometimes we do if the letter is insightful.)
We like to keep our letters and our reporting local. To date, that has included the publishing of local letters on Middle Eastern affairs. More and more, I hear from readers and coworkers who wonder why we publish the vitriolic writings of Ms. Gray and Steve Campbell. That's not to say that all of Ms. Gray's letters are mean spirited. Often times, she makes good points. Occasionally I even agree with her. But it is undeniable that many members of our community take great offense to her views and interpret them as anti-Semitic. Should we as a newspaper publish letters that are blatantly racist? And if so, how many should we print? So far, as far as I am aware, we've published every letter that Sue Gray and Steve Campbell have sent to us in the ten months I've been the editor here. Censorship? Hardly. I also never asked Ms. Gray to keep this fascinating issue quiet. Rather, I explained to her that the conclusions she was jumping to were incorrect and that writing a letter about a letters policy that has not changed could cause confusion. I repeat: Our letters policy has not changed. For better or worse, it continues to provide one of the most open exchanges of community debate that you can find anywhere.
Ms. Gray's angry reaction to my e-mail to her that the dialogue on our editorial pages had become "unnecessarily divisive" was a surprise. The intent of my message to her was to provide her the courtesy of knowing that there has been such offensive remarks in the newspaper that we are wondering where to draw the line. I expected her to provide a reasoned argument for why we should maintain the status quo or to help in toning down the discussion. Instead, she called me a "pawn of the Israel lobby's censorship agenda" and accused me of attempting "to worm (my) way out of publishing letters about Middle East affairs." This wasn't exactly the productive discussion I was seeking. Furthermore, Ms. Gray is delusional if she thinks she is actually changing anyone's mind on Middle Eastern affairs. Maybe I am wrong. But I'm sure she is offending more people than she is convincing to follow her version of historical and current events.
As for Alpha6 and Mitch Mulhall, "chicken shit" is slamming someone on an Internet post. Why don't you come by my office at 517 E. Hopkins Ave. and discuss this face to face?
Sincerely,
Troy Hooper
7. reckless G | November 28th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Oh brother! He said, she said. I’m just going to post the email exchange between Troy and I and let the readers make up their own minds.
At 06:32 PM 11/26/2007 -0700:
Sue,
I want to give you a head's up that due to letters such as this one, I'm considering revising our letters policy. Currently we try to publish all letters that we receive that (1) are not libelous, (2) are written by locals or (3) have local interest. Debating Middle Eastern politics in our newspaper, however, is getting quite old and has proven to be unnecessarily divisive. So don't be surprised if we stop publishing letters like this one.
Thanks,
Troy
Troy Hooper
Editor
Aspen Daily News
Dear Troy,
I'm shocked that you are considering discontinuing the conversation about Mideast policy in your newspaper. This is the single most important issue we face today regarding American security. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, US support of Israel was one of the reasons we were attacked. Without a change in policy regarding US support of Israel's continued occupation of Palestine, we invite more terrorism coming to our shores. Errant government policies are rarely changed until they are debated and decided upon by the American people. Without the ability to publicly discuss these issues in our community, we can not be active participants in American democracy.
If you're concerned about the viciousness of the debate, why don't you censor the letter writers that stray from discussing the issues and that use the forum to simply vent their rage and hatred for other letter writers?
The "divisive" nature of the topic is a deliberate attempt by certain factions of our society (that are more loyal to Israel than to American democracy and free speech), to prevent debate and discussion of US and Israeli policy in our society. I will be very disappointed in your newspaper if it allows the censorship of debate in our community.
Sue Gray
From Troy;
It is not censorship of debate; we focus on local issues. Feel free to write The New York Times or another paper more suited to handle Middle Eastern affairs. ... We haven't, however, made a final decision as to our policy. When a decision is made, you and the rest of our readers will be informed.
Troy,
from me;
The fact that you are even considering changing your policy so as to worm your way out of publishing letters about Middle East affairs makes you a pawn of the Israel lobby's censorship agenda. US support of Israel is every bit as much the business of Americans in the Roaring Fork Valley as it is in New York or Washington.
What happened to your pride in being the Valley's only independent newspaper and your defiant slogan; "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen," which seems to welcome controversy?
So much for democracy and the free press!
I only hope the Aspen Times still has some courage and integrity.
Sue
Sue,
So now you're calling me a worm and a pawn of the Isreal lobby's censorship agenda! Wow! How to Win Friends and Influence People By Sue Gray.
Unbelievable,
Troy
from me;
Oh please, don't give me that feigned outrage. I didn't call you a worm, and it isn't my words, but your own actions that make you a pawn.
Don't bother changing your policy, I won't submit any more letters to your newspaper. I will however submit one to the Aspen Times describing this exchange. I'm sure the public will be interested in the censorship efforts of the Daily News.
You might want to note that four out of the top five "most commented on stories" in the Aspen Times online are my letters. Too bad you don't recognize the publicity opportunity that the controversy over my letters brings to local newspapers.
Sue
Sue,
Why are you behaving so vindictively? We are simply reconsidering our letters policy and it has resulted in you personally attacking me. You don't even know me. No decisions have been made. When they are, I'll let you know.
Thanks,
Troy
P.S. I'd appreciate that you didn't write a letter about our letters policy since nothing has changed and I assumed this exchange was private.
Troy,
If you wanted privacy you should have called me to discuss this and asked me to keep our conversation private. Or even better, don't give me any warning of your possible intentions, just change your policy and announce it. Then let the chips fall where they may.
You seem to think this is no big deal, as if changing your letters policy to exclude me from educating the readers about an issue that is critical to US security and peace is just a matter of "simply reconsidering our letters policy." Well, as you can probably tell by my response, it's a big deal to me, and a deadly serious problem for American democracy.
I'm sorry for being so blunt and perhaps harsh on you personally, but I see you and the other editors of our local papers as the last bastion of free press and freedom of speech. To adopt a policy that doesn't allow Americans to talk about issues important to America is to close down the few remaining avenues we have as citizens to exercise our rights.
Yes, it is a big deal. And it will soon get bigger.
Sue
Sue,
Again, no decision has been made. I simply was trying to give you the COURTESY of letting you know that things might change. It clearly backfired. I was interested in hearing rational arguments on why it shouldn't change. Steve Campbell provided that ‹ but not unfettered anger and name calling.
Regards,
Troy
Troy,
I believe I gave you rational arguments without anger and namecalling in my first response. It was when you came back defensively with "It is not censorship of debate; we focus on local issues. Feel free to write The New York Times or another paper more suited to handle Middle Eastern affairs" that I felt the need to clarify my outrage a little more frankly. The fact that you took it as a personal attack and that you are worried about my going public shows that you have some reservation about the integrity of your decision to re-examine your letters policy.
There have been a lot of controversial and divisive issues, both local and non-local in your letters section over the years, but only now, when it's about Israel do you consider changing your policy? Don't you see how suspicious that is, especially in light of the recent Grassroots TV controversy and policy change? Why now, why this?
What would be the point of showing me the COURTESY of letting me know that things MIGHT change, other than to discourage me from writing about the topic that is of the most concern to me?
As I said, at this point I don't care whether you change your policy or not, I will not participate in your letters forum regardless. It's a matter of principle. I don't support newspapers that don't support freedom of speech.
Sue
From Troy:
OK. I don't want to argue with you. And I would have called you on the phone, as I did Steve, but I am sick and have lost my voice. I can only whisper. If you choose to boycott our ed pages, that's your decision. I am not "worried" about you going public with our private conversation. Rather, I believe it will only cause confusion since our policy has not changed.
End of letter exchange.
Troy,
I hope you’re feeling better and have got your voice back, you’re going to need it. And a word of advice; you should never assume your emails are private.
Sue
8. Wharf Rat | November 28th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Mr. Hooper wrote:
[Ms. Gray is delusional if she thinks she is actually changing anyone's mind on Middle Eastern affairs. Maybe I am wrong. But I'm sure she is offending more people than she is convincing to follow her version of historical and current events.]
Perhaps you will keep that comment in mind the next time someone writes a letter to the editor spreading the Christian word. I consider that to be a "delusional" effort to change anyone's mind regarding their personal religious beliefs; however, I doubt you or any editor in the valley would consider cutting off John Herbst and his ilk. Nor do I think those folks should be censored despite the personal affront I take at being told I'm going to hell by some bible thumper. Same with Richard T. Moolick. Do you think his efforts to turn everyone into a minerals whore is "delusional"? It probably is, but let him speak his peace no matter how annoying or offensive it may be to environmentalists. It seems as though you are singling Sue out merely by the reaction it causes among certain vocal members of the Jewish community. The "offense" to which you refer seems to be a catch-all affront to the sensibilities of a vocal minority that is more interested in eliminating the dialogue. "Never again" refers to the holocaust, not a discussion of Israeli foreign policy. I'd be more impressed if you went back and reviewed the letters written by Ms. Sandler and could tell me why her submissions do not violate your paper's policy on personal attacks.
Having said that, I'm impressed that you would take the time to write your position, Troy. You have my respect for taking the time to write. That is also the primary reason I respect Sue, Mitch, Alpha, and others who have weighed in on this. I hope you will continue to promote free speech in your paper's letters to the editor.
9. ADN Ed | November 28th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I appreciate your civility Wharf Rat. And on that note, I'm going to bow out of this pissing match. We all have far better things to do.
10. reckless G | November 28th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
As a United States citizen I consider the discussion of free speech a worthy past time. I'm sorry that the editor of one of our local papers does not.
Troy questions the applicability of the word censorship to his threat to remove Middle East policy from the letters section of the ADN. The definition of censorship is; suppression of published or broadcast material considered offensive, and the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable.
Isn't that exactly what Troy was proposing?
11. Mitch.Mulhall | November 28th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
[I’m just going to post the email exchange between Troy and I and let the readers make up their own minds.]
If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen...
Indeed.
Well done G.
Cheers,
12. Valley Watchdawg | November 29th, 2007 at 12:29 am
From reading the above transcript, it seems pretty clear that Reckless G (and just about everyone else that comments on this site) are out to get Hooper at whatever cost. Indeed, Reckless G is reckless and relentless in her pursuit of twisting Hooper's words. She's looking for a fight. In reading her posts and e-mail exchanges, she actually threatens him repeatedly and seems to get off on it. That is a strange reward for a guy that's printed her crappy letters over, and over, and over again. Get a life, losers.
13. reckless G | November 29th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Did it ever occur to you that the reason I and the rest of the bloggers here are being hard on Troy is because we believe in the concept of free speech and the responsibility of the press to provide the public with an uncensored forum?
I have nothing against Troy personally, I just disagree with his position. I don't think I threatened him repeatedly, and I don't "get off on it." I'm not looking for a fight, the fight came to me. I'm certainly not going to roll over and let censorship win.
We all have a right to our opinions and to expressing them. So if you want to call us losers for standing behind that right, that's just fine.
14. Wharf Rat | November 29th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Reckless,
Quit being so divisive already! Apparently you have now caused this debate to be divided between "winners" and "losers".
In comment #12, new Post blogger Valley Watchdawg wrests the title of Anonymous Blogger Who Knows Everything About Everything from two-time champion Wharf Rat.
"I'm a loser, baby, so why don't you kill me." --Beck
15. reckless G | November 29th, 2007 at 10:49 am
"I'm a loser, baby, so why don't you kill me." --Beck
EeeeK! Wharf, despite how it may look, I am trying hard not to get killed for being a perceived loser. So quit giving people ideas!
Interesting take by the Conman on his show this morning. You’d think someone who has the slogan “with liberty and justice for all” might be a little more interested in preserving those qualities for Americans. Instead, he stands behind the right of a newspaper editor to “decide” what he wants to print, and to suppress issues that he deems offensive or objectionable. In other words; censorship.
Nice going Conman. Good con!
16. Will Kesler | November 29th, 2007 at 10:50 am
reckless G,
The bottom line is that you are fighting to be heard. Your voice is important, your message essential if we are to remain free. As the media closes in on “divisive” and unpopular stances one of the only avenues left for a healthy discussion of many critical issues is letters to the editor to our local papers.
And here, Sue, is where, I believe, you are making a mistake. You are letting your principles, “I would not submit any more letters to his newspaper on the principle that I don’t support newspapers that don’t support free speech.” sabotage your right to be heard.
I believe that after all your effort and all this controversy the Daily will support free speech far more than Aspen’s other newspaper. As it already does. To depend on the Times to print your letters would be a huge mistake.
For instance, recently, I submitted a letter to the editor to both newspapers. My letter simply appealed to the veterans of this valley to band together and demand that the government “show us the law” that required us to file an income tax return. What could be more fundamental to freedom than demanding that our government state a law that effects every one of us? The Daily printed my letter, the Times did not.
The Daily also printed “The Petition for a Fair Trial” that documented the tyranny that the Browns faced (they are now in prison) when they demanded to be shown the law. The Times did not.
Thanks to Sue, I will now write a letter to the editor of the Times asking them to explain why they did not print my two paragraphs appealing to my follow veterans. And if they do not respond in print, be assured I will blog.
Meanwhile, Sue, please reconsider your stand not to write to the Daily.
17. Wharf Rat | November 29th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Sorry, Reckless.
I was referring to the plurality of "losers" and directing that lyric toward me--perhaps Watchdawg can help me end my misery. On a more positive note, since I am on sabbatical from Con Games, I didn't hear today's con. The key to my qi, as you well know.
I noticed someone called you an anti-Semite (again) in the paper today. When, oh when, will the hate speech be censored? Wait, I forgot--if you are a "victim" you have the right to pour kerosene on the fire.
18. reckless G | November 29th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Wharf,
Yeah that whole violence-is-justified-if-you’re-the-victim thing is confusing. Supposedly I am a hateful, bigoted, anti-Semitic, terrorist lover who spouts vitriol, therefore it’s ok to attack me. But if I’m attacked, then I become the victim, and it’s then ok for me to attack them. Right? So where does that lead? Endless violence and hatred; exactly what I’ve dedicated my life to eliminating. Which is why I never engage in personal attacks, even though some of my opponents will insist otherwise.
Speaking of spouting vitriol, Conman accused me of that on his show today. “Vitriol: extreme bitterness and hatred toward somebody or something, or an expression of this feeling in speech or writing.” I just don’t see how that applies to my criticism of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. Who or what is the object of my bitter hatred? As far as I recall I’ve never said a single vitriolic thing about anybody or any religion or any race. I think the labeling of my letters “vitriolic” has more to say about the prejudices of the labeler than the content of my letters.
Will,
Thanks for the advice. I’ve been told several times now that I should not let the Aspen Daily and people like Elaine Sandler have their way and push me out. However, it galls me to have to submit my letters for the “approval” of the editor. I realize that this has always been the reality, but having it lorded over me by Troy and now Conniff just rubs me the wrong way. I don’t want to play any part in enabling Troy’s censorship privileges; therefore I choose not to subject myself to his whims. As I said, there are still three other Valley papers that will print me.
Will, I suspect that we are losing this fight against government intrusion and violations of our rights. The US is rapidly becoming a closed totalitarian state. The illegal taxes that you fight and the illegal violations of my civil rights that I battle against are issues that most Americans have resigned themselves to and are too lazy to do anything about.
In the not too distant future America’s “liberty and justice for all” will be just a fond memory. The coming police state is being ushered in not just by our government, but by those like Troy Hooper and John Masters who allow the censorship of disagreeable and divisive issues, and by radio hosts who condone and justify those actions.
Farewell, sweet Liberty. I hardly knew ye.
19. Wharf Rat | November 29th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I accidentally put 87 octane vitriol in my tank during the Thanksgiving road trip, which certainly lessened the fuel mileage. I suggest you upgrade to 91 octane--or trade the Tundra in for a Prius.
20. Valley Watchdawg | November 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Reckless,
This sounds threatening to me: "I hope you’re feeling better and have got your voice back, you’re going to need it." That's nice. Pick on the sick guy. Then you write: "Endless violence and hatred; exactly what I’ve dedicated my life to eliminating. Which is why I never engage in personal attacks." Never? Really? Then why do you write to Troy: "I'm sorry for being so blunt and perhaps harsh on you personally." And didn't you just personalize your argument by calling out John Masters, too? ... Um, you're kind of crazy.
21. Valley Watchdawg | November 29th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Oh, let's not forget the Daily News hasn't actually censored you.
22. Mitch.Mulhall | November 29th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
[Oh, let's not forget the Daily News hasn't actually censored you.]
The First Amendment restricts Congress from writing laws that curtail free speech. It says nothing that prohibits a newspaper editor from refusing to publish a citizen’s letters. In the ADN, the publication of Sue’s letters is a privilege. If Sue starts her own newspaper, or writes in her own blog, the expression is a right.
If the ADN elected to publish Sue’s letters, that sets precedence. To now entertain a policy change that helps quiet her voice is lamentable, not merely because it attempts to solve a problem by ignoring it, but because it removes a forum where crepuscular reasoning can be revealed and adjourned.
Cheers,
23. reckless G | November 29th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Mitch,
Very lawyerly of you! As with the Grassroots decision, I don’t consider this a First Amendment issue. But it is a censorship issue nonetheless. I think I might actually be more comfortable with the government outlawing free speech than I am with voluntary compliance by well meaning editors, media heads and radio hosts. This is a scary new development reminiscent of prewar Nazi Germany. Citizens silencing debate and forcing dissenters underground does not bode well for the future of democracy and freedom in America.
Watchdawg,
So let me get this straight. You accuse me of personal attacks while personally attacking me and defending others who do the same…and you call ME crazy?
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Your perception that what I said was threatening has nothing to do with the statement; “You’re going to need it.” I was simply alluding to the fact that he’s probably going to have some explaining to do when people get wind of this issue.
Calling out John Masters is not a personal attack, it’s an expression of my opinion that he made the wrong decision. I suppose Michael Conniff will feel the need to go on the defensive now too. Why are all you men so sensitive! Oh sorry, was that a personal attack?
For the record I define “threatening” the way the dictionary does; expressing an intention to cause somebody deliberate harm or pain. Have I done that? No. The ONLY threat I made was to send a letter to the Aspen Times, which could cause Troy harm and is the main reason I haven’t done that. I wish no harm toward Troy. Still, I reserve the right to be blunt and harsh when stating my views, without it being labeled a personal attack. If you want some prime examples of personal attacks, just read my opponents letters. They’re full of them!
[Oh let’s not forget the Daily News hasn’t actually censored you]
That isn’t really the point is it? Troy THREATENED to censure me. That’s how this whole thing started. The Daily News didn’t have a meeting, discuss their policy and announce a change to the public. I got an email from the editor saying; “I’m (not Aspen Daily) considering revising our letters policy,” and “don’t be surprised if we stop publishing letters like this one,” indicating this was his personal choice, not a process of the staff coming out with a new public policy.
The choice of words in that last sentence sounds a little threatening to me, what do you think?
24. Wharf Rat | November 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Watchdawg,
A "personal attack" requires a person and an attack for the label to be appropriate. For instance, calling certain people "losers" would be a personal attack. That's a far cry from identifying someone who is responsible for censorship.
25. Mitch.Mulhall | November 29th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
[Troy THREATENED to censure me.]
In Troy’s defense, he did not censure you. A censure is a formal reprimand of an individual by an authoritative body like Congress. Changing a newspaper’s policy on letters to the editor hardly constitutes censure.
Cheers,
26. reckless G | November 29th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
You're right again Mitch. Now why didn't my spellcheck catch that?
27. Will Kesler | November 29th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
In comment #16 I implied that the Aspen Times had censored my letters. I wrote the editor and have been assured it was an oversight, which I accept as the truth.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed