Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 10 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Please stop imposing censorship on the public
Published Wednesday, April 9, 2008
A letter to the editor in Monday's (April 7, 2008) paper was very critical of a comic strip running in The Fergus Falls Journal and the Fargo Forum. The comic strip in question is called "Dilbert."
The writer threatened to boycott both papers if "something is not done to correct the insult to those who hold to a Christian faith."
I find that to be an excellent idea for the writer. If you are offended by Dilbert — stop reading it. If you don't want to see racy photos — don't buy Playboy. If you don't want to scream in the movie theaters— don't go to horror pictures. But please stop imposing your censorship on the rest of us.
By all means, boycott the newspaper. But way too many of us put our lives on the line protecting freedom to just stand by and have any group tell us what can and can't be printed
Steve Wiziarde - Fergus Falls
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by Callie25 (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly
Posted by Synova (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm pretty sure that "not reading it" was exactly what this person suggested, no?
In fact, this sort of censorship is the proper sort. People ought to let others know, and certainly let content providers know, what they find offensive. Choices are made every day to exclude untold numbers of comic strips. Knowing which ones the customers like or dislike is useful.
I like Dilbert.
Posted by otterfan (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We live in an imperfect world, and of course pleasing everybody is impossible.
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Only the gov't can impose a censor, as for the rest of us it's only one persons opinion, and has every right to it.
Posted by sametoyou (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where in the constitution does it say the government has the right to censor?
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It does not say they can, but more or less says they can't. My point is that only the gov't could censor. If someone does not print something, it is not a censor. It is a choice.
Posted by homeslice_g (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Steve:
If you have a problem with censorship, then why do you ask her to stop expressing herself. You are asking her to censor herself from you and therefore you are being hypocritical. You stated "But please stop imposing your censorship on the rest of us." but you are asking her not to express her views and therefore she should be censored according to you. Do you see the problem with your argument. You are asking her not to do exactly what you are doing...the definition of hypocrisy.
Despite Sara's views, she was being a responsible consumer by expressing her distaste for the comic strips and then sharing her intended action with the newspaper companies if they did not remedy the situation. This is not a government issue and I am not sure how anyone would think it was. I am not aware of any taxpayer money being transferred to either newspaper mentioned. A more appropriate response for you would be to write the newspaper on how you like the comic strip and want to see more of the material, not criticize someone else who was expressing their opinion and their intended actions. Then you would be a responsible consumer instead of a censor.
Jesse Tomford
To the editor:
Please feel free to post in the paper copy.
Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mel, the entire point of the "free speech" part of the first amendment is that the government CAN'T restrict speech (except in a few, narrowly defined instances). Private citizens or businesses are free to do so.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." U.S. Const. Amend. I.
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree Elizabeth, I was hoping I made it clear what I meant in the second letter.
Posted by Disvet (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 12:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All of this makes alot of sense but.. Many Americans need to be aware of how it "Really" is. The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, everything is just a piece of paper with writing on it and signatures. They can all be modified as the Government sees fit or appropriate. This is NOT the free country it ised to be and everything wrong in this country is Government controlled. Racism, Immigration, Crime, Troubled Youth, all controlled my the Government and the sooner people see it for themselves and everyone together does something about it instead of just complaining.. The sooner this country will be great again.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)