Difference between revisions of "Talk:Libertarian censorship"

Revision as of 04:45, November 17, 2008

Homosexual beliefs?

Which homosexual beliefs would these be, then? Do homosexuals have some special scientific theories the general public is unaware of? --Gulik5 22:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Sure, like the "gay gene" or the denial of shorter lifespans for homosexuals.--Aschlafly 23:03, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Really?

I hang around many libertarian circles, and in every one of them they would get offended at the thought of one of their members censoring others. Are there any examples of actual libertarians censoring? HelpJazz 15:44, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I think this should probably be deleted. HelpJazz 13:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)

That's what I was thinking. The only thing I could find to be true in the article is that libertarians are known for favoring free speech. Which is kind of opposite to the point of the article. FernoKlump^{Look at this petition!} 13:50, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Cite tags

First, I will make an admission - in this case I misread the title and thought it said "liberal censorship". An honest mistake after having reverted ideological fact tags on "liberal logic" and the words are similar. Now, in deference to that mistake, I've read the above talk to see if I may have reverted good edits by accident. But the above talk seems to miss the point of the article, which is that despite the open proclamations of libertarians to not censor free speech, they still manage to censor it in regard to certain topics. Andy didn't create this article on a hunch, and it's awfully presumptuous to want to *delete* the article just based on the personal experiences you've had with several libertarians. Don't you think you're being hasty? -Foxtrot 06:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I don't think anyone was hasty here. The fact that nobody can find any instances of this happening gives strong evidence that it just doesn't happen. Sure, it's an interesting theoretical concept -- what would happen if libertarians censored -- but should we have encyclopedia articles about things that aren't true? I'm fine with keeping the article if we can actually find some examples of this happening. HelpJazz 13:08, 16 November 2008 (EST)

• Seems like some would be much happier at Wikipedia, or the hundred others that enjoy political correctness, make it their watchword. An article put up by the Owner should be a good indicator of its veracity, especially coming from one with such high public/academic standing as Andy Schafly. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Shame on all of you. --₮K^/Talk 23:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)

What does this have to do with political correctness? And just because Andy says something is true makes it so? FernoKlump^{Look at this petition!} 23:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I should really just put the following into AutoText: "It is not censorship for someone to say 'that's wrong and you shouldn't say it.' It's only censorship if somebody has the ability to keep you from presenting your speech in whatever forum. When people didn't buy Dixie Chicks albums and tickets, they weren't censoring the Dixie Chicks, they were using their own speech just as freely."

What libertarian, in what position of power/authority to deny anybody their rights, has used that power/authority to censor any of the concepts listed in the article? And yes, 90/10 and all that, but it's not like I'm talking just to read my own voice; this is for the good of the project just as much as correcting the spelling mistakes in whatever article I randomly choose. Aziraphale 23:28, 16 November 2008 (EST) <-not that this is likely to stop anybody...

[1] is worth a look. It says libertarians and conservatives share similar values on school prayer Markr 23:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)