Posted on Feb 3, 2021
Do you want others censoring what you should see and hear?
368
15
12
4
4
0
Beatniks on a boat. From the 1962 film Sweet Ecstasy, featuring Elke Sommer and some beatastic bongos. And a great Banana boat dancer.
When I was a college student, a classmate invited me to join him at the theater while the Maryland State Board of Censors viewed a then recently released film. (His uncle was a member and was able to slip us in.) The film was "Sweet Ecstasy" starring Elke Sommer.
It was hard to get into the film inasmuch as one old lady on the panel kept stopping the showing to demand a scene be cut. To be fair, it was "appealing to our prurient interests".
https://youtu.be/qJiC9MGxsrY
Would you believe that my computer spell checker doesn't recognize "purient"? It seems that our ability to offend or be offended has risen above our waists. Ideology, it seems, is now more offensive than sexual arousal. (Or I misspelled it. Still you would think I was close enough.)
This lesson was brought home to me by a recent email I received from PragerU. My Norton's web security system flagged every link to PragerU.com as "SUSPICIOUS". I then had to go through extra steps to access the links to release Norton's from liability for allowing me to infect my mind with any unpopular thoughts.
Yes, I understand that many have a knee-jerk aversion to PragerU. That's not to say I understand why. But that's not the issue. I simply prefer to make my own choices of the websites I access unless, of course, there is an actual threat to my computer device or information. That's what I pay Norton to protect, not my virtue.
It was hard to get into the film inasmuch as one old lady on the panel kept stopping the showing to demand a scene be cut. To be fair, it was "appealing to our prurient interests".
https://youtu.be/qJiC9MGxsrY
Would you believe that my computer spell checker doesn't recognize "purient"? It seems that our ability to offend or be offended has risen above our waists. Ideology, it seems, is now more offensive than sexual arousal. (Or I misspelled it. Still you would think I was close enough.)
This lesson was brought home to me by a recent email I received from PragerU. My Norton's web security system flagged every link to PragerU.com as "SUSPICIOUS". I then had to go through extra steps to access the links to release Norton's from liability for allowing me to infect my mind with any unpopular thoughts.
Yes, I understand that many have a knee-jerk aversion to PragerU. That's not to say I understand why. But that's not the issue. I simply prefer to make my own choices of the websites I access unless, of course, there is an actual threat to my computer device or information. That's what I pay Norton to protect, not my virtue.
Posted in these groups: 
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech
Edited 4 y ago
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
Norton's web security system may have fallen within the control of the Geheime Staatspolizei Sir.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Definitely Agree with You CPT Jack Durish! It ‘should’ be our right to free speech; however, it certainly does NOT appear this way. In regard to auto spell correct; I am definitely curious as to who wrote this program which is thrust upon us! I have been unsuccessful on numerous occasions to utilize vocabulary words and ‘proper’ English grammar. These practices and censorship could account for the failure of younger generations actually learning and increasing their vocabulary...just my two cents
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
In general, censorship is bad. However, there are no absolutes. As a parent, I absolutely censor what my child sees and hears, as well as what she accesses on the interwebs. As a (former) intelligence professional, I absolutely censored what information was released, to whom, and in what format.
The government does have a responsibility to its citizens and there may be times when it is appropriate to restrict, redact, or forbid the dissemination of certain information. I believe in these rare instances (and they should be rare) the onus is on the government to prove that necessity for censorship, not on the public to disprove it.
The government does have a responsibility to its citizens and there may be times when it is appropriate to restrict, redact, or forbid the dissemination of certain information. I believe in these rare instances (and they should be rare) the onus is on the government to prove that necessity for censorship, not on the public to disprove it.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google