The left says they are not calling for censorship, but...

NorthernHawkeye

HR Legend
Dec 23, 2007
26,897
16,783
113
Letter writers cite Barrett's Roe v. Wade vote, claim they're 'not calling for censorship'

In the letter, the progressive signers claimed that while they "care deeply about freedom of speech," they also believe it is important for publishers to uphold their own dedication to the First Amendment with a "duty of care."


Angry literary figures demand Amy Coney Barrett book deal be shut down in open letter to publisher

 
  • Wow
Reactions: Hawkman34

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
9,727
6,950
113
It's amazing that some American's believe irresponsible speech is important for them to lead their lives.
It’s amazing that idiots on the left think limiting speech is an ok road to go down as long as it benefits them. Speech is the most important right that we have. You have any idea what limits dissent for an authoritarian regime? The fact that you can get put away for speaking out against them.

Guns are important as well, but that’s more related to a hostile takeover of sorts (hilarious that the 1/6 obsessed left doesn’t realize the right to bear arms makes this a conspiracy that would never be successful)
 

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
9,727
6,950
113
OP Pwned the Libz guys!
SMH. You get OT tomorrow? Honestly, I thought about buying 50 yard line tickets and flying in because they’re like $45 a pop lol. Then an image of Brian ferentz entered my mind and decided to just stay here where I can at least throw on a movie.
 

TheonGreyJoy

HR All-American
Aug 9, 2022
2,751
3,717
113
SMH. You get OT tomorrow? Honestly, I thought about buying 50 yard line tickets and flying in because they’re like $45 a pop lol. Then an image of Brian ferentz entered my mind and decided to just stay here where I can at least throw on a movie.

Bruh, Im still working for another 15 minutes or so tonight, and I am working in the AM tomorrow. Will be home for the shitshow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,830
53,923
113
Letter writers cite Barrett's Roe v. Wade vote, claim they're 'not calling for censorship'

In the letter, the progressive signers claimed that while they "care deeply about freedom of speech," they also believe it is important for publishers to uphold their own dedication to the First Amendment with a "duty of care."

Angry literary figures demand Amy Coney Barrett book deal be shut down in open letter to publisher


Over 500 literary figures have signed an open letter demanding Penguin Random House shut down a book deal with Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett valued at $2 million over her vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Soooo...they're exercising their...what do you call it?...oh yeah, freedom of speech. And for the letter writers...this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The company isn't the govt. They're free to publish her musings or listen to the group calling for them to drop the deal. They get to decide what's in their best interests.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,926
113
Over 500 literary figures have signed an open letter demanding Penguin Random House shut down a book deal with Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett valued at $2 million over her vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Soooo...they're exercising their...what do you call it?...oh yeah, freedom of speech. And for the letter writers...this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The company isn't the govt. They're free to publish her musings or listen to the group calling for them to drop the deal. They get to decide what's in their best interests.
Again you’re conflating the concepts of censorship and freedom of speech with the first amendment.

If you support freedom of speech, you don’t want to censor people.

The first amendment is intended to prevent those who control the government from making it a censor, but the first amendment is not the alpha and omega of either the concept of freedom of speech, or censorship.

Do you think the signers of the letter are correct, that Random House’s decision to move forward with her book is a violation of "international human rights."?

I found this the more interesting part of the story:

The list of dissenters who signed the letter include… various other publishers, authors and members of the press.
 

franklinman

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2011
3,703
4,140
113
It’s amazing that idiots on the left think limiting speech is an ok road to go down as long as it benefits them. Speech is the most important right that we have. You have any idea what limits dissent for an authoritarian regime? The fact that you can get put away for speaking out against them.

Guns are important as well, but that’s more related to a hostile takeover of sorts (hilarious that the 1/6 obsessed left doesn’t realize the right to bear arms makes this a conspiracy that would never be successful)
I thought thats what the cons in TEXAS, Florida did with books?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer

franklinman

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2011
3,703
4,140
113
Phuquin’ Supreme Court Justice hasn’t even changed her panties yet as a Justice...and she has a money-making book deal on the table? WTF is goin’ on in America these days? Boyz....We is phuqued....and “the right” is leading us down the prim Rose path to destruction! (And they are doin’ it with a straight face!)
Yep, a con political hack can take away a womans right away, she had for 50 years, and now wants millions for doing that, fuc'n stupidity.
 

notlongago

HR Heisman
Jul 28, 2012
5,440
2,673
113
Over 500 literary figures have signed an open letter demanding Penguin Random House shut down a book deal with Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett valued at $2 million over her vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Soooo...they're exercising their...what do you call it?...oh yeah, freedom of speech. And for the letter writers...this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The company isn't the govt. They're free to publish her musings or listen to the group calling for them to drop the deal. They get to decide what's in their best interests.
Just to be clear, OP didn't bring up the 1st - the letter writers did. OPs point is censorship, which this is attempting to do. So kudos for pointing out the letter writers hypocrisy.
 

mnole03

HR Legend
Mar 20, 2005
24,197
62,156
113
Phuquin’ Supreme Court Justice hasn’t even changed her panties yet as a Justice...and she has a money-making book deal on the table? WTF is goin’ on in America these days? Boyz....We is phuqued....and “the right” is leading us down the prim Rose path to destruction! (And they are doin’ it with a straight face!)
It’s also an ethical issue. She’s selling books because she did something popular with a certain group.

The definitive book on Byron White (who is the most interesting Justice in the modern era) sold less than 25k copies.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,926
113
It's funny that maga scum want to limit to whom a private business can listen.
LOL

No one is saying the wannabe censors shouldn't be listened to (something they're unwilling to afford their targets), but people are saying they shouldn't be empowered to censor what they don't agree with.

Can you understand the distinction?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tom Paris

CarolinaHawkeye

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
44,807
46,150
113
Iowa
LOL

No one is saying the wannabe censors shouldn't be listened to (something they're unwilling to afford their targets), but people are saying they shouldn't be empowered to censor what they don't agree with.

Can you understand the distinction?
Yes, but the decision isn't their's. Can you understand the distinction?
 

joelbc1

HR King
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2007
74,537
39,790
113
you can’t always get what you want!
Free speech isn’t what you want it to be. “Free speech” has always has carried the caveat of ethical content with it....Remember that the SC when defining free speech said that yelling “Fire” into a crowded theater was NOT protected speech. Just because you “say it” doesn’t mean it is protected. Always caveats...always limits...yes, even in a “free society” there are restrictions. Ethically, SC Justice writing a book at this targeted audience probably deserves to be questioned. It appears to be a rather obvious “ka-Ching” move and not much else.
 

SL Hawk Fan

HR Heisman
Feb 5, 2003
5,321
5,826
113
I don’t agree with this group’s objection based on some notion of censorship or freedom of speech.

However, because Barrett now has a financial interest in this particular issue, she should have to recuse herself if this issue comes before the Court again. She has forfeited any appearance of independence or objectivity.
 

fredjr82

HR Legend
Gold Member
Nov 13, 2007
23,891
14,254
113
Gosh, can't believe this thread only has 2 replies in over 3 hours.. This is riveting stuff by OP. Good find!

But OP thinks people actually want converse with them logically/reasonably. 🤣. They even think people don't view their political opinions as being completely ignorant. It's truly amazing
 
Last edited:

TheonGreyJoy

HR All-American
Aug 9, 2022
2,751
3,717
113
Remember when Trump Supporters felt the need to tell every to "phuck your feelings?" Wouldn't that be censorship of someones freedom of speech or naw???
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris

CarolinaHawkeye

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
44,807
46,150
113
Iowa
Remember when Trump Supporters felt the need to tell every to "phuck your feelings?" Wouldn't that be censorship of someones freedom of speech or naw???
They would tell you they were expressing their free speech, which they were. Now if a tee shirt business decided not to put that on tee shirts due to public outrage, they would consider the public outrage censorship, rather than a business making a business decision. See how that works?
 

TheonGreyJoy

HR All-American
Aug 9, 2022
2,751
3,717
113
They would tell you they were expressing their free speech, which they were. Now if a tee shirt business decided not to put that on tee shirts due to public outrage, they would consider the public outrage censorship, rather than a business making a business decision. See how that works?

They are just a bunch of dingbats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarolinaHawkeye

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
I don’t agree with this group’s objection based on some notion of censorship or freedom of speech.

However, because Barrett now has a financial interest in this particular issue, she should have to recuse herself if this issue comes before the Court again. She has forfeited any appearance of independence or objectivity.
Don’t think she forfeits objectivity. She’s not going to sell more books by voting for or against abortion later. But, I think that generally politicians or public servants should not be able to profit off said public service. No Bernie sanders life story books. No sins of my father Obama stuff. No Ted cruz treatise on how bad Dems are. And, no this. I’d also ban politicians from being paid for speeches and from lobbying and from returning to elected office or gov appointments should they profit in such a manner.

the personal profit corruption in politics is massive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BanjoSaysWoof

IaHawk44

HR MVP
Feb 20, 2006
1,707
1,923
113
It’s amazing that idiots on the left think limiting speech is an ok road to go down as long as it benefits them. Speech is the most important right that we have. You have any idea what limits dissent for an authoritarian regime? The fact that you can get put away for speaking out against them.

Guns are important as well, but that’s more related to a hostile takeover of sorts (hilarious that the 1/6 obsessed left doesn’t realize the right to bear arms makes this a conspiracy that would never be successful)
Your type of free speech killed Ashli Babbitt and will have caused thousands of ignorant ass Trump supporters to be arrested. Your type of free speech attacks common sense precautions for a contagion which ended up killing hundred of thousands of Americans and shitload of right wing radio hosts.

Your type of free speech is also blinding because none of you can see through it's murderous bullshit.

Keep drinking that free speech koolaid, bruh.
 

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
Your type of free speech killed Ashli Babbitt and will have caused thousands of ignorant ass Trump supporters to be arrested. Your type of free speech attacks common sense precautions for a contagion which ended up killing hundred of thousands of Americans and shitload of right wing radio hosts.

Your type of free speech is also blinding because none of you can see through it's murderous bullshit.

Keep drinking that free speech koolaid, bruh.
And your type of speech leaves people mired in poverty and fosters the proliferation of drugs in the us, directly fueling drug overdose deaths across the country. Your type of speech contributed to huge learning losses in the last two years for our nations’ children.

free speech has consequences.
 

IaHawk44

HR MVP
Feb 20, 2006
1,707
1,923
113
And your type of speech leaves people mired in poverty and fosters the proliferation of drugs in the us, directly fueling drug overdose deaths across the country. Your type of speech contributed to huge learning losses in the last two years for our nations’ children.

free speech has consequences.
Mired in poverty, lol.


The proliferation of drugs, lol.


But it's those Democrat mayors and cities, lol.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
Mired in poverty, lol.


The proliferation of drugs, lol.


But it's those Democrat mayors and cities, lol.

Gary Indiana. Republican controlled state, right? lol
 

IaHawk44

HR MVP
Feb 20, 2006
1,707
1,923
113
Gary is a city. My point being it's incredibly stupid to not blame both political parties for contributing to crime and violence.
 

fredjr82

HR Legend
Gold Member
Nov 13, 2007
23,891
14,254
113
Your type of free speech killed Ashli Babbitt and will have caused thousands of ignorant ass Trump supporters to be arrested. Your type of free speech attacks common sense precautions for a contagion which ended up killing hundred of thousands of Americans and shitload of right wing radio hosts.

Your type of free speech is also blinding because none of you can see through it's murderous bullshit.

Keep drinking that free speech koolaid, bruh.

In

O/U on 69 posts from NC in the thread alone after that response. Opposite the Hawks give me the over baby!!
 

SL Hawk Fan

HR Heisman
Feb 5, 2003
5,321
5,826
113
Don’t think she forfeits objectivity. She’s not going to sell more books by voting for or against abortion later. But, I think that generally politicians or public servants should not be able to profit off said public service. No Bernie sanders life story books. No sins of my father Obama stuff. No Ted cruz treatise on how bad Dems are. And, no this. I’d also ban politicians from being paid for speeches and from lobbying and from returning to elected office or gov appointments should they profit in such a manner.

the personal profit corruption in politics is massive.
I don’t care if politicians want to tell their life stories and potentially profit from that. That’s capitalism and the American way.

My point about Barrett’s objectivity is that she has now tied a financial interest to one of her beliefs, in the form of future book sales. If another abortion case were to come before the court, she would be in a bind because any vote she cast or opinion she gave that isn’t consistent with her views expressed in the book could undermine her credibility and hurt future book sales.

It doesn’t matter that Barrett still holds the same beliefs, this book deal creates the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interests and we won’t know whether Barrett made her decision based on the facts and merit of the case or if she simply wanted to protect her financial interest.

I know this is a fairly nuanced topic for many, but those of us in professions involving the “public trust” will understand what I’m getting at; it’s an issue that we frequently encounter.