Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Permission or Ability...to Speak Freely

Dangerous, mass-murdering terrorists will operate freely on the internet, but the ordinary Chinese citizen cannot do so. So says Google. This does give a new perspective on the freedom of speech issue. The executive branch of the U.S. government, in order to fulfill its obligation to protect the American people, wants to pick out the computer identities of folks who make Google searches suspicious of terrorism. "No way," says Google. The communist government of China tells Google it can't stay in China if it allows Chinese citizens to perform searches of words like "Falun Gong, freedom, or Constitution of the United States." "Right away, Mr. Dictator," so again says Google. So what do you think? Is Google sincere in its support of free speech? This just shows you how tough it is to straddle the fence between the bank account and the good graces of your elitist friends on the West Coast. Here's the thing. If you get blown up by a terrorist, you can't speak at all, can you? Your speech is kind of taken away permanently if I've analyzed this correctly. That I know of, Google could lose only some money if you eliminate them in China, you know, to support the free speech movement. Of course, all of this coincides with the ability of the NSA (called in the business, No Such Agency) to "eavesdrop" on conversations highly suspicious of terrorist activity. Does this hinder the ability of anyone to speak freely? I think, again, if my brain is rightly alligned, that if I am not saying anything on the phone that is of a, you know, terrorist nature, that I'm not going to be, you know, subject to the eavesdropping. So like, this will only really threaten, um, terrorists. Why this new vigor and energy for the "right" to support terrorists?

People say they like their free speech rights. We can't scream "fire!" in a crowded theater. I guess that would exclude most theaters as of late, at least with "features" such as Brokeback Mountain and other mind-shrinking drivel offered as entertainment today. Brokeback represents the new definition of freedom of speech, what we might call the Mapplethorpe definition--freedom of "expression" equals a crucifix in a cup or urine. But then, maybe we could redefine "crowded" too. "Crowded" would surely be a Moslem cartoon protest. This has piqued the attention of Europe. Normally European artists are busy lampooning Jesus or another biblical character, but targeting an Islamic figure has raised awareness for sensitivity training among cartoonists. Eavesdropping might be looking better every day.

2 comments:

Cathy McNabb said...

My husband told me about google a week or so ago. He removed the tool bar and when it asked why, he told them what he thought of their policy with Communist China. Google is no longer his home page, nor does he use it anymore.

I am still steamed over the fact we can pray to every other false being, but mentioning Jesus Christ in a prayer is considered "intolerable and offensive" Can I ask when did our Saviour have to start tolerating false gods?

Sorry for the long comment, I actually agree with what you are saying

Kent Brandenburg said...

thanks