Is the Horse Dead Yet?
Nothwithstanding, by the nature of your position, that Muslims are the ones being portrayed as barbaric savages whilst adhering to a radical form of Islamic fundamentalism, your remarks trodden down the path of vigiliantism to justify the perfidious tactics used against legitimate (and seemingly necessary) state censorship.
Comment by Daniel Simard Lawiscool
Part of the problem with lawiscool and the law students who filed the complaint against Mark Steyn is their sheer incoherence – the faux legal language adding another layer of opacity.
Read the sentence quoted. What can it possibly mean? How would one “trodden down the path of vigiliantism (sic)?
On the other hand, Simard is not shy about what he wants “legitimate (and seemingly necessary) state censorship.”
If there was any doubt about fighting for free speech Simard’s call to protect “state censorship” should end it. This is purely and simply totalitarian. Incoherent, but the beauty of totalitarianism is it does not have to make sense because no one is allowed to question it. Which is, apparently, cool with Daniel Simard.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
When he says “seemingly necessary”, is Mr. Simard really saying that said state censorship is actually not necessary?
Stop the presses! (What’s the internet equivalent to that expression? Hit the stop button?) The man’s actually on our side!
January 14th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
So basically what the enlightened young progressives at LawIsFool are implying is: gay people are wimps.
They just don’t think stuff through, eh?
January 14th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: scratch a liberal, find a totalitarian.
And Daniel, hire yourself a copy editor. Sheesh.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:00 am
You’ve been attacked by Mr. Protocols.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Jay,
Mocking Islam as the “religion of peace” (in your reply to Mr. Protocols) isn’t really any different from what he does when discussing Jews.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Actually Marky Mark I am not mocking so much as using the term ironically. I have yet to see McClelland or the dreadful Arthur Drecco use irony save unintentionally (which really doesn’t count.)
January 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Marky Mark has been going all around the blogosphere, cutting and pasting what artdecco has written elsewhere.
You’re really just sour little gossip, MM.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
It’s not about gossip. Thoughtful people have been considering and debating how blogs should handle rogue commenters. Progressives rightly point out the many instances of commenters going way over the line on right wing blogs, particularly with regard to Muslims and aboriginals. But some of those critics turn a blind eye to arthurdecco’s equally pernicious and persistent pattern of attacks against Jews.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:11 am
How should blogs handle rogue commenters?
Easy. Delete their comments and block their IPs, if your platform allows it.
No-one is entitled to comment space—it’s a privilege, not a right.
Those people can create their own blogs, if they want to spout off.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:51 am
“No-one is entitled to comment space — it’s a privilege, not a right.”
But failing to provide it (comment space) can land you on the pointy side of an HRC complaint. So maybe the horse isn’t dead enough.
[WHACK!]
January 21st, 2008 at 3:46 am
I see Anonymous has now followed me over to my (running) blog to try to intimidate me. Very interesting that that anonymous commenter would try to shift the focus away from one or more people who have used the arthurdecco handle to smear an identifiable group of people. Clearly the attempt is to instead place the focus on someone who has taken on those ideas in the marketplace of ideas.
One explanation is that Anonymous knows and likes arthurdecco.