Difference between revisions of "Liberal censorship"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RodWeathers (talk | contribs) (relavent links, template) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
In an attempt to divert attention from this demand, | In an attempt to divert attention from this demand, | ||
| − | Liberals charge that [[Conservative]]s also censor when they can. An example some | + | Liberals charge that [[Conservative]]s also censor when they can. An example some give is Conservapedia. They claim that edits that disagree with the prevailing conservative viewpoint here regularly lead to a block, even though Conservapedia says it does not block for ideological reasons <ref> [<ref> For example, a Conservapedia administrator makes the charge [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=561372&oldid=561371 here] and a previous administrator admits that he and the site owner engaged in ideological blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=561457 here]] </ref>. |
== See Also == | == See Also == | ||
Revision as of 17:05, November 25, 2008
Liberals inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views. This is especially true in the most its most extreme political manifestation, communism.
The NRSC makes this claim:
- Realizing that their ideas couldn't compete in the Free Market, Democrats schemed for ways to crush conservative talk radio's success. Their answer? The so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” would have the chilling effect of censoring conservative talk radio by requiring radio stations to air liberal content. Air liberal content or your station license will be revoked. It's unfortunate that Democrats are willing to trample on our First Amendment rights for political gain.[1]
In an attempt to divert attention from this demand,
Liberals charge that Conservatives also censor when they can. An example some give is Conservapedia. They claim that edits that disagree with the prevailing conservative viewpoint here regularly lead to a block, even though Conservapedia says it does not block for ideological reasons Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.