“It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by an unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to produce her…It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so.” —C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”
Western news organizations are falling all over themselves to censor images that raise the ire of violent terrorists, and C.S. Lewis predicted their exact behavior over 70 years ago when he published “The Abolition of Man,” his treatise on how the corruption of language leads inevitably to the corruption of mind and soul. Which brings us to the pathetic and censorious response by so many media organizations to the Islamic terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical publication.
The main photo for this story is courtesy of the New York Daily News. (The absurd pixelation of the cartoon on the front page of the Charlie Hebdo paper was done by the New York Daily News, not by The Federalist.)
The New York Daily News’s censorship is emblematic of the response of far too many media organizations to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Peaceful people who are offended must deal with offense, but violent sociopaths who are thrown into murderous rages by cartoons? Their feelings must be respected. Welcome to 2015, where polite requests for decency are ignored, and childish temper tantrums are exalted as the means by which developmentally stunted neanderthals get whatever they want. Which brings us to CNN.
Following the Charlie Hebdo attack, CNN allegedly issued a memo to staff detailing what types of images and words would be banned by the network and what would be allowed:
Although we are not at this time showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet considered offensive by many Muslims, platforms are encouraged to verbally describe the cartoons in detail. This is key to understanding the nature of the attack on the magazine and the tension between free expression and respect for religion.
Video or stills of street protests showing Parisians holding up copies of the offensive cartoons, if shot wide, are also OK. Avoid close-ups of the cartoons that make them clearly legible.
It’s also OK to show most of the protest cartoons making the rounds online, though care should be taken to avoid examples that include within them detailed depictions of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Read the full article at The Federalist.com.
“In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the gelding be fruitful.”—C.S. Lewis
As the media prepared to vacate newsrooms for the weekend, Democrats snuck in a last minute proposal that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) be allowed to heavily regulate political content on internet sites such as Youtube, blogs, and the Drudge Report.
Obama FEC Vice Chairperson Ann M. Ravel announced late on Friday that the FEC was preparing new regulations to give itself control over videos, Internet-based political campaigns, and other content on the web. She insisted that, “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue.”
At issue was a case considered by the FEC – the chief campaign-finance regulator – in September involving a group that ran pro-coal videos critical of Democrats in 2012. The group initially was accused of failing to report the cost of the videos and of failing to include the routine “disclaimers.”
But the group maintained that since they were only run on YouTube, they were exempt.
The case ended in a split, 3-3 decision at the FEC and was dismissed. But the vote itself aired a striking divide: despite a decision clearing the organization by the general counsel, Democrats voted to pursue an investigation anyway while Republicans voted to drop it.
Ravel was blunt in her written statement Friday explaining her side’s vote. She scolded Republicans for arguing rules that would apply to TV ads should not apply to web videos.
Until now, videos and other political content that is not posted for a fee are unregulated by the FEC. Only paid advertising is regulated under election rules. It is this that the Democrats want to change.
“FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site, or even a chat room could be regulated,” the Washington Examiner reported on October 24.
13-year-old Chloe Rubiano is in the eighth grade. She is also a good church-going girl. So you can imagine her mom’s surprise when she got in trouble at school for wearing a T-shirt that reads: “Virginity Rocks.”
“It’s a positive message,” said Bambi Crozier, Chloe’s mom.
But school officials disagreed. They said the shirt could cause a classroom disruption and contained sexual content. Apparently some folks at Ramay Junior High don’t understand the concept of virginity.
The 13-year-old, who bought the shirt at a Christian music festival, was told she had to change shirts.
“It was so bizarre,” Mrs. Crozier told me. “She had the shirt for several years at wore it a number of times to school.”
The mother is a bit of a scatterbrain, however, telling Fayetteville’s Channel 5, “If you have the right to say (‘Virginity Rocks’), you also have the right to say, ‘Sex Rocks.’” However that would also mean that if they allow a t-shirt that says, “Say no to drugs,” then they’d also have to allow a t-shirt that says, “Say yes to drugs.”
Banning appropriate message on the idiotic reason that then inappropriate message would have to be allowed is insane. Also, most high school students are convinced that all their peers are having sex, and they feel pressured to do it to. So why in the world would you want to censor the message that not all of their peers are having sex?
Social media giant Facebook was forced to apologize to a couple who is using a Facebook page as a means of generating awareness and funding for their little boy who desperately needs a heart transplant.
Father Kevin Bond posted a photo of two-month-old Hudson, who has the heart disease cardiomyopathy. When Bond attempted to advertise the page, Facebook banned the ad, claiming the picture of his son was too “gory” to qualify under its advertising standards. After contacting Facebook, the social media company offered Bond an apology and a $10,000 advertising credit to help his family promote the page.
Hudson desperately needs a heart transplant to survive and Bond created the page Hudson’s Heart to bring more attention to his plight.
Bond said he doesn’t need that much so he’s asking Facebook to give $5,000 of the ad credit to another child in need.
I met Eliza O’Neill before Hudson was born. She’s a remarkable four year old girl racing the clock against Sanfilppo Syndrome. A clinical trial that may very well save her life is nearly funded. We’ve asked Facebook to give $5,000.00 of those add dollars to her.
As it says on Eliza’s page, “You’ve come this far maybe you’re willing to come a little further.” Please watch, and share little Eliza’s video. Her family has been very supportive of ours throughout Hudson’s ordeal.
We’re so lucky Hudson has all of you pulling for him.
Read the full story at LifeNews.com.