And then they banned the Banned Book List

in

My favorite example of the bizarre censorship practices of early modern academia is this: there were, indeed, varying lists naming every book banned by Church and/or College. The lists became more and more comprehensive as time went by, and in some cases became more and more in demand…as people used them as a sort of Zagat’s Guide for finding out what books might make a good, scandalous read.

In one instance, and in what can only be characterized as the inevitable conclusion to any system embracing censorship, the list itself was banned. Fabulous.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Liberal censorship alive and well on campus

 

Dozens of examples of campus thought/idea/viewpoint suppression:

http://webpages.charter.net/tomeboy/leftout.html

 

How campus intolerance betrays liberalism:

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8553.html

 

Va Tech student suspended for daring to question the anti-gun policy of the school!!

http://www.newswithviews.com/Takala/rudy18.htm

Liberals engaged in theft and suppression of the press:

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/711

Earlier this month at nearby UC Riverside, student activists stole 8,000 copies of the campus newspaper, the Highlander, in response to a front-page report about a recent student Senate meeting.

At this meeting, campus radicals denounced fellow white students as "crackers" and compared the campus police and Greek fraternity system to the Ku Klux Klan.

 

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_free_speech.html

The censors have only grown in power, elevating antidiscrimination rules above “absolutist” free-speech principles, silencing dissent with antiharassment policies, and looking away when students bar or disrupt conservative speakers or steal conservative newspapers. Operating under the tacit principle that “error has no rights,” an ancient Catholic theological rule, the new censors aren’t interested in debates or open forums. They want to shut up dissenters.

In October, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal-immigration group. The students shouted: “They have no right to speak!” Campus opponents of Congressman Tom Tancredo, an illegal-immigration foe, set off fire alarms at Georgetown to disrupt his planned speech, and their counterparts at Michigan State roughed up his student backers. Conservative activist David Horowitz, black conservative columnist Star Parker, and Daniel Pipes, an outspoken critic of Islamism, frequently find themselves shouted down or disrupted on campus.

School officials seem to have little more interest in free speech. At Columbia this fall, officials turned away most of a large crowd gathered to hear former PLO terrorist-turned-anti-jihadist Walid Shoebat, citing security worries. Only Columbia students and 20 guests got in. Colleges often cite the danger of violence as they cancel controversial speeches—a new form of heckler’s veto: shrinking an audience so that an event will seem unimportant is itself a way to cave to critics. In 2003, Columbia, facing leftist fury at the scheduled speeches of several conservatives (myself included), banned scores of invited nonstudents who had agreed to attend.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/11/11/liberal_censorsh...

But what is even more frightening than the sinister schemes of liberal politicians to silence and criminalize political opposition is the apparent eagerness of rank-and-file liberals to go along with them, as witnessed by the many examples I've cited and numerous gleeful e-mails I get taunting me about the imminent re-invocation of the Fairness Doctrine.

I believe this arrogant attitude can largely be traced to the top-down indoctrination in our schools, cultural institutions and media that liberalism is morally superior because it is tolerant, diverse, intellectual and enlightened. This view holds that conservative expression doesn't deserve constitutional protection because it is inherently evil. As one liberal academic administrator said in justifying his Draconian action in suppressing a Christian viewpoint, "We cannot tolerate the intolerable."

This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets, Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas. It's how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while unilaterally declaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed. It's how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots. It's how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise "fair elections" and pooh-pooh ACORN's serial voter fraud in their own country. It's how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don't endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church's direct electioneering for specific candidates. It's how they can ludicrously depict President Bush as a dictator while romanticizing brute thug tyrants Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. It's how they can falsely accuse President Bush of targeting innocent civilians in Iraq when he does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties but demand our withdrawal from South Vietnam, which resulted in the massacre of millions of innocents. It's how they can advocate the banning of DDT in the name of environmental progress but be unconcerned about the untold malaria deaths that resulted. It's how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn. It's how they can prevent the teaching of "intelligent design" in schools in the name of science but defend the many documented myths of biological evolution in public-school textbooks, also in the name of science.

If you believe the left is tolerant, open-minded and democratic, you're in for a rude awakening.

 

II. A thing is called 'finite after its kind' when...

...it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body.  So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body.
 

---Spinoza 

Ironic. I hadn't expected a discussion of epistomology here.

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/dmeconis/familyman/series.php

;-)

 

the webcomic references Spinoza too...

Why?

Why is that RisingRedTide? Is it because you had to go look up what epistomology means?

Yes, October Purge, it is because I had to look up what

epistomology means.

no it was because the webcomic i got that from references Spinoza. I think it would appeal to your romantic ideals, kinda like Tolkien.

I live in Mordor ;-)