Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Actually, it's for the same reason conservatives don't generally stand up for people whose rights are abused by conservative zealots. It's too obvious that what they did was dumb. Plus, in this case, aside from being obvious, it's not really that big a deal.
So for the record, yes, this is obviously a case of much ado about nothing. But protesting is not censorship. As far as the "rene-a-mob" the guy obviously got exactly what he wanted, there. Clearly he was trying to anger people, and he succeeded. Well done. But not censorship. And as for politicians knocking on his door to speak with him, again, well within their rights. The censorship would be if the police or some other OFFICIAL person takes the sign down. It would appear that local government is trying to censor someone who disagrees with his neighbors, but this is America, what else is new.
Tu toque? Well, I guess it depends on how you define "big deal." If you're a homeowner and a mob, the police, local TV, a former mayor and a current city councilman all show up, determined to "persuade" you to take down the signs, you might not think it was a small deal. Which then sets up varying degrees of free speech, depending on how big a deal the situation is. No, it's not a big deal. But it is illustrative of my point (my only point) that too many of us, on boths sides, are too willing to shut somebody up with whom we disagree.
Did you watch the tape? And that idiot woman says "he (meaning the guy with the signs) wouldn't do that with Bush." She's probably right. But her titanic intellect is unable to wrap itself around the concept that tens of thousands of OTHER homeowners might have (and presumably did) put up anti-Bush signs. This was attempted censorship. So far they've been unsuccessful, doesn't mean they're going to give up. Don't fall into the legalistic trap of using Clintonian constructions to defend the indefensible. This was clearly an effort to intimidate this guy into taking down his signs. And, failing that, the city councilman says; "Fear not, I'll find a rule or regulation to shut him up." Whether they're successful or not, the impulse is identical, and since you have a DU education, I think you know it.
And whatever else they are, that mob was not made up of the guy's "neighbors." This was a co-ordinated effort at intimidation.
My training and experience teaches me that all censors deny being censors. And assert that they have some special, justifiable reason for their efforts. In fact, a censor is a censor is a censor.
You may be too young to remember the flap over an unflattering painting of Mayor Harold Washington displayed in the Art Institute. It showed Harold dressed only in a bra, garter belt, g-string and stockings. It was called "Mirth and Girth," and referenced Harold's well kept sexual secrets and went up shortly after his death. Anyway, a couple of Chicago city aldermen, one of them armed, waltzed into the museum and took down the painting. We can both agree, no nuance, that was censorship.
