Richmond is taking down Confederate statues: Is this the end for other Confederate memorials?

#2,053
#2,053
evillawyer said:
Seems like the speaker here is the government. So question for you is whether a speaker can decide to say something different than he had said before? Is that censorship? If the government wants to build a new courthouse to replace it's aging one and that aging one has "In God We Trust" on it, is it censorship if a new courthouse goes up without "In God We Trust" on it?
Click to expand...

Nazis were a government. Did their actions like book burning, urban redevelopment (Kristallnacht), reeducation of those with a different message not constitute censorship, or does that just apply to our government?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#2,054
#2,054
AM64 said:
Symbolism is free speech - as determined by libs burning flags and stuff. Limiting that is censorship.
Click to expand...

The government puts up a statue on government property, then they decide to take it down years later. You put up a gay pride flag, but then decide to take it down. Who is being censored by any of this?
 
#2,055
#2,055
Weezer said:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or art or other forms of communication that are considered obscene, or politically unacceptable. What was the reasoning for removing the statues again?
Click to expand...
I am not knowledgeable about the statues but if this is true, it seems like a valid reason.

“According to the AHA, memorials to the Confederacy erected during this period "were intended, in part, to obscure the terrorism required to overthrow Reconstruction, and to intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life."
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and AshG
#2,057
#2,057
AM64 said:
Symbolism is free speech - as determined by libs burning flags and stuff. Limiting that is censorship.
Click to expand...
The government is the one doing the speaking though. They can decide if they wanna change the message they're conveying. That's no more censorship than you deciding to remove a "back the blue" bumper sticker from your car after participating in the Capital riot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#2,059
#2,059
evillawyer said:
The government puts up a statue on government property, then they decide to take it down years later. You put up a gay pride flag, but then decide to take it down. Who is being censored by any of this?
Click to expand...

Since the government is supposedly us, and it seems like there's about a 50/50 split in political thought (neglecting a middle portion who don't hold strong views) would you say that any move by government that supports one segment of the people oppresses the remainder? Doesn't not representing those voices equal censorship? Weren't a number of Civil War memorials (maybe just a marker commemorating one side or the other) actually put there by entities other than a government? Does government removing those not equal censorship? There are two distinct sides to the argument about removing reminders of a troubled history. One part may be about soothing feelings, but the greater part is about attempting to erase history by claiming it glorified what we currently hold as a wrong position.
 
#2,060
#2,060
AM64 said:
Symbolism is free speech - as determined by libs burning flags and stuff. Limiting that is censorship.
Click to expand...

So put the statue in your front yard and claim 1A protection. Government owned public space is afforded no such protection.
 
#2,066
#2,066
Septic said:
or not get your panties in a wad when you don't.

That's a knife that cuts both ways.
Click to expand...
You sound like a former next door neighbor that I once had. I had a giant oak tree on my property that was 10 feet or so away from his property. Every fall it did what all deciduous trees did and dropped leaves. He asked me several times to cut it down and he'd pay for it, I refused. Just because he didn't like raking leaves didn't mean I needed to cut it down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and AM64
#2,067
#2,067
Septic said:
So put the statue in your front yard and claim 1A protection. Government owned public space is afforded no such protection.
Click to expand...

By your analysis then no one should be able to use public roads, etc for demonstrations, etc. One time I'd agree with you, if you held true to that view.
 
#2,069
#2,069
VolStrom said:
You sound like a former next door neighbor that I once had. I had a giant oak tree on my property that was 10 feet or so away from his property. Every fall it did what all deciduous trees did and dropped leaves. He asked me several times to cut it down and he'd pay for it, I refused. Just because he didn't like raking leaves didn't mean I needed to cut it down.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you thought that this sounded like a reasonable analogy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#2,070
#2,070
Septic said:
I'm sure you thought that this sounded like a reasonable analogy.
Click to expand...
Yes I did. Just because some people think something "offends" them doesn't mean it should be torn down. We have developed a nation of pussies and at some point our kids or grandkids are going to reap what we have sown. I'm just glad I won't be around to see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and UT_Dutchman
#2,071
#2,071
AM64 said:
By your analysis then no one should be able to use public roads, etc for demonstrations, etc. One time I'd agree with you, if you held true to that view.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you got from a to b on this one. I'm not "analyzing", I'm repeating what the Constitution states and how the amendment is applied.

Your weird conflation not withstanding - this notion that this is a "free speech" issue is confirmation that too many folks don't understand what the 1A is, who it protects or what it protects from.
 
#2,072
#2,072
VolStrom said:
You sound like a former next door neighbor that I once had. I had a giant oak tree on my property that was 10 feet or so away from his property. Every fall it did what all deciduous trees did and dropped leaves. He asked me several times to cut it down and he'd pay for it, I refused. Just because he didn't like raking leaves didn't mean I needed to cut it down.
Click to expand...

What if he had cut all the branches that crossed over the property line?
 
#2,074
#2,074
VolStrom said:
Yes I did. Just because some people think something "offends" them doesn't mean it should be torn down. We have developed a nation of pussies and at some point our kids or grandkids are going to reap what we have sown. I'm just glad I won't be around to see it.
Click to expand...

Your tree isn't isn't widely viewed as a symbol of oppression, it's not being paid for and maintained by the tax dollars of the people who view it that way and lastly isn't owned by a government that gets to decide (and has decided) to remove it.

Sorry but the analogy fails on every level.

Removing a statue of a regime of treasonous losers isn't going to make your kids pussies, though whining about not getting to pay homage to them might.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAD
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top