When you lose the New York Times, you know you have an electoral problem. Below is their editorial on Free Speech and Cancel Culture. Numerous polls have pointed out that across the board many Americans have a problem with Cancel Culture. The Ann Selzer poll has some interesting takes. I believe Nate Silver gives the Selzer poll the highest rating. Americans remember what happend to Brett Kavanaugh, Nicholas Sandman etc. They also remember the myriad of conservatives who were banned from Social Media platforms, while no such thing happened to the other side. Trying to pretend it does not exist only hastens the November shellacking (to quote President Obama.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture...
https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1506676547616493568

Here's how easy it is (with regard to saying the Left gets cancelled too.) This is somewhat akin to someone in Atlanta telling someone in Buffalo they know all about winter weather simply because Atlanta may get one or two ice or snow storms a year. Yet, the frequency and duration compared to Buffalo is so miniscule that it should barely be mentioned.

As I said, you are not worth getting into a long debate with because of your passive/aggressive nature and your utter arrogance, as evidence by your quote above. However, I'll cite one example of the NYT's and your misuse of parallelism: The NYT article in its attempt to be "fair" made an incorrect comparison, as did you, at least by implication, between things like the Florida law, which is aimed in part at keeping young children (particularly grade school kids) from being exposed to concepts that they are too young to understand and that would confuse their own developing gender identity, and actual cancel culture as practiced by those on the left. It's unfair, for instance, to compare that Florida law with BLM's attempts to try to silence all disagreement on a college campus, as has happened on several occasions.

Another major aspect of the Florida bill is to keep parents rather than school officials in charge of educating their children on sexual issues. Where attendance is compulsory, and there is a power imbalance between teacher and student, we are not looking at a free and open marketplace of ideas. I believe that Douglas, though perhaps not Black, would agree that the Florida law is not suppressing free speech but rather helping to insure that children are protected and that parental rights are maintained.

I suspect you haven't read the Florida law. It's actually quite limited in its scope. You have probably only looked at third-party interpretations of the law. I also suspect that that's also true of many of your other assertions, which I have no inclination to review one-by-one because debating you on BA, where I come for sports information about my beloved OHIO Bobcats, is not high on my priority list.

If you want to read an official summary as well as the full the text of the Florida law, they are here:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1834/?Tab=Bill...

So, since I know you love my poetic waxing, here's another one for you:

“Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

Our goal is to make the debate on these issues "free and open" which cancel culture tries to deny. If we do manage to have this kind of free and open debate in our nation, regardless of the subject, we will have nothing to worry about. If we don't allow unfettered debate things will go to hell in handbasket.

Now back to OHIO athletics! Go Bobcats!
[/QUOTE]It's not passive aggression. I'm quite frank with you. I think you're a hypocrite and completely feckless on this subject. You state ideals and lecture others but the ideals you support are fully inconsistent with the ideals you think you embody. Intellectually, I no longer consider you a person capable of any introspection or unbiased analysis. Regardless of who you quote. I've told you this before. I'm telling you again. There's nothing passive about that.

You're steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the very obvious truth that both extremes of the American political spectrum threaten the first amendment. Partisanship has broken your brain.

Instead of considering the possibility that both parties might play a role in this, your response is to assume I haven't read a bill, assume I'm misinformed, and then state your refusal to examine other examples for that reason. Intellectually dishonest to it's core. You can't defend those things, and you know it. So you've convinced yourself you don't need to and decided your view here is beyond reproach.

All because you aren't capable of entertaining the possibility that a political party that just flirted awfully hard with overturning a Democratic election might also have some state level representatives with damaging views of the First Amendment.

You're not a free speech absolutist. You're a partisan hack who thinks free speech is a noble concept, but one that's less central to your identity than your partisanship. And now that those two things are in obvious conflict with one another, you've chosen partisanship, and are too much of a coward to examine your own inconsistencies.

Or have you forgotten that everybody here knows whine to the mods to try and get people banned when you don't like what they have to say? All while insisting the most important ideas to defend are the ones you hate, and that you're a proponent of unfettered access to ideas. You don't have to look hard to see the hypocrisy.

As for this:

[QUOTE=OhioCatFan]
I suspect you haven't read the Florida law. It's actually quite limited in its scope.

It's been widely known for years that Walt Disney held racist and anti-Semitic views. Many of his supporters are likely Nazis.

My children only watch government-approved cartoons on PBS like Sesame Street.