The Moral Minority and the BBC --- (jesus admits "a bit gay")

[bin.dare]

The Moral Minority and the BBC: a reality showdown close to Jerry Springer's heart

By Anthony Barnes, 09 January 2005

The BBC placed a guard on the homes of some senior staff and took legal action to shut down a Christian website that published the addresses and phone numbers of its executives, as the row escalated over last night's broadcast of Jerry Springer - The Opera.

The BBC action followed threats of "physical violence" and even "bloodshed" against staff, including Roly Keating, the head of BBC2, and their families. Personal details had been made available both on the website and in an email distributed by Christian Voice, one of the groups that has led the extraordinary backlash against the corporation for refusing to pull the broadcast. The protesters claimed its content was blasphemous.

The email from Christian Voice's national director, Stephen Green, to subscribers - obtained by The Independent on Sunday - stated: "We make no apologies for giving their home addresses and in as many cases as we can, their phone numbers ... We know normal protests are channelled in such a way as to be ignored."

The strength of the protests had taken the BBC by surprise. Last night, many in the arts and broadcasting feared a rise in aggressive campaigning to curb artistic freedom in Britain

(more)
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/story.jsp?story=599122

[AlbizuX]

1. can anyon say....

WITCHHUNT?

Next they bring back burning at the stake...these Christianofascists make me sick.

[saltpoint]

2. I expect unstable and psychotic reaction from --

-- Christofascists, but hells bells, over JERRY SPRINGER: THE OPERA?!

Jesus.

[CatholicEdHead]

19. How is that opera anyways?

Will be seeing Jerry Springer: The Opera anytime soon over here? Will it come out in sweeps in the next year or so as a way to attack the "Liberal Media" and rile up the "Christian Moral" base?

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. It is due on the San Francisco stage in the spring

and New York in the fall. Having seen it last night, I think very few US channels would show it - I think it would guarantee a boycott from right-wing organisations.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

67. Not all Christians are right wing

Many CHRISTIAN groups would oppose it -- from the left and the right.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. But I doubt the left wing ones would boycott

because they are more level-headed. And Right wingers, especially in the USA, seem to call for boycotts whenever they think it will increase their power - eg the fuss over the Reagan film.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

85. We might surprise you

if the networks decide to run this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. I can guarantee the broadcast networks won't show it

the swearing alone would stop that. I would guess it did have more than any broadcast program has ever had on British TV before.

[VegasWolf]

73. Do you recommend it as worth seeing? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. It's not a must see

It's musical theatre trying to imitate opera. I'm not a fan of either (though the quality of the singing seemed pretty good to me). The swearing was at times funny to me; sometimes it seemed more to be swearing just to get the word count up. The comedy wasn't too bad, but a bit thinly spread over 2 hours. You'd fit it into half an hour without the 'opera'. It's a bit better than, say, South Park, but still in that league.

[VegasWolf]

3. "physical threats" "bloodshed" "christianity" n/t

[arwalden]

68. That Just Makes Me Want To Vomit... And So Do The Defenders...

... of such tactics that use intimidation, threats and violence.

This thread has REVEALED MUCH... and it's VERY DISTURBING.

[arwalden]

4. Why Do So Many Christians Act This Way?

[VegasWolf]

10. Probably bible-head-whacking has something to do with it. n/t

[AliciaKeyedUp]

5. Threats are wrong, violence is wrong, protests are right

The website is within their rights to publish the information.

[rustydog]

6. So, if you know that publishing the personal info of these people

may provide the impetus for some Jesus-freak to oh, I don't know, bomb a home, or pop a cap in someone's head in the name of Jesus is all OK because you did not pull the trigger?

your rationale sounds a little smug and sick. Knowing the instability of so many of these fundamentalists and then posting private addresses and phone numbers would be tantamount to aiding and abetting any crime that may be perpetrated against the victims.

[VegasWolf]

9. No, no, they published the info so that they could "save them from

Hell" <sarcasm off>

[tx_dem41]

11. The question is...how would you ever prove that?

And, as a civil libertarian (including the right to a free press), I would demand that the Government present strong evidence supporting some sort of conspiracy. If they didn't, and got away with it, it would be a huge blow to all of us.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

13. So, they should be free from protest?

I certainly wish no harm on them, but if people wish to protest their homes, I think that is perfectly OK.

[Laughing Mirror]

7. Artistic freedom is a nice thing too

Free from threats and intimidations and censorship by fanatics of all stripes.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

15. But not free from protest

It should be open to the opposite view.

[Laughing Mirror]

22. Apparently it is open to the opposite view

Which are perfectly within their rights to protest and go home, but cannot be allowed to shut things down that don't agree with their point of view.

And a Merry Christmas to You!!

[AliciaKeyedUp]

24. They can and should protest

If the BBC shuts it down, that is their choice.

[Laughing Mirror]

30. Nothing beats choice like choice with a gun to your head

Happy New Year Too!

[AliciaKeyedUp]

33. No gun to anyone's head

But public actions should be open to protest.

[Laughing Mirror]

45. A Fatwa, which is what this is, is a gun to BBC's head

Whether you are willing to accept this or not.

Now. Go out and protest to your heart's content, but if your threats shut me down from expressing my opinion, you are denying me the right you so fully accord yourself.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

47. I will stand with you against threats

But I will act on my rights to protest.

[Laughing Mirror]

56. So you will act on your rights to protest your threats

Which is what this so-called Christian group is doing. They are not making the distinction you are making, according to the article. The words "bloodshed" and "physical violence" were used.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

61. And, as I have said, THAT is wrong

But protesting at the homes is not.

Threatening people is a crime, at least in the U.S.

[Laughing Mirror]

71. Would you personally be pleased if BBC gave in?

Do you personally support this Christian Voice group and do you consider it's actions Christian?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

75. Threats are not Christian

If they are engaging in actual threats, I don't support it. I do support opposition to this event and think protesting at home is a valid way of doing it.

If the BBC gives in to a protest -- any protest -- that is their choice. But they should know there are consequences to not doing so, just as Sinclair found out.

[Liberal Veteran]

79. Yeah, I remember us picketing outside the Sinclair CEO home.

Could you please point me that article again....I seem to have misplaced it.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

83. Other CEOs have been picketed

And I guarantee that had people protested at the Sinclair CEO's home, there would be widespread support for it.

[Laughing Mirror]

84. Well they ARE engaging in actual threats

Are you a supporter of this group of fanatics, warts and all?

[Liberal Veteran]

49. Yeah, I bet you supported the free speech of thos "most wanted lists"

...that anti-abortion nutjobs published on the web too, in old west style wanted posters.

Enabling violence and terrorism is almost if not more contemptable than actually performing it.

[tx_dem41]

58. As I remember, those websites were saying Wanted: Dead or Alive...

...and were crossing out the names of the dead doctors. The conspiracy involved there is easy to prove. That doesn't necessarily apply in this case.

[Liberal Veteran]

Oh, come on....it was just freedom of speech!

Perfectly harmless....right?

[tx_dem41]

69. If you read my post, I said that there was an obvious conspiracy....

meaning it made the website owners criminally liable....

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth (and not even subtly)?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. It's quite likely that they are breaking the law

The Data Protection Act in the UK prohibits organisations from storing and using personal information on computers without their consent, broadly. I would imagine that publishing personal addresses on the Web in conjunction with a protest would violate this. A British lawyer may be able to comment.

Morally, I'd contend that publishing personal addresses and phone numbers is also wrong - it encourages people to involve the families of the executives. "Christian" is a misnomer in this organisation's title.

[VegasWolf]

14. Be nice if these clowns end up in jail. n/t

[AliciaKeyedUp]

18. That position supports a weak 1st Amendment

nt

[VegasWolf]

20. We are talking about England, genius. n/t

[AliciaKeyedUp]

21. So, you don't think they should be as free?

I support the same freedoms here as elsewhere.

[VegasWolf]

23. Are you crazy? You want to publish names so that some psycho

can target these people. Free to be targeted, you are
insane. Boycot if you must. leave people's personal lives
alone.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

27. It's not their personal lives, it's their work lives that are at issue

And they should not be free from protest or able to hide behind anonymity.

[VegasWolf]

29. You want to publish their home addresses where there children

are!

[AliciaKeyedUp]

31. They are taking public actions

Their addresses should be public as well.

However, no one should lift a finger to harm or threaten anyone.

[VegasWolf]

35. Religious maniacs will though, you position is absurd. n/t

[AliciaKeyedUp]

36. My position supports free speech and free protest

Opposing it is absurd.

[VegasWolf]

39. Your position supports targeting innocent people. n/t

[AliciaKeyedUp]

42. No, my position supports targeting the people involved

nt

[tx_dem41]

43. Vegaswolf....I have read of many (and participated in a couple) protests..

at the homes of CEOs and politicians. The targets were obviously RW'ers. No private property was encroached. Do you believe that this is wrong? Do you believe that it is illegal? Do you believe that it is terrorism, as has been suggested on this thread?

[VegasWolf]

54. I believe that targeting people at home, in front of their wives and

children, for decisions made at work is wrong.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

57. It is a common tactic

Actions have consequences and embarrassment should be one of them.

I support peaceful protest at these homes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. Peaceful protest would not need phone numbers

and those were given out too. That seems to show these "Christians" want to disrupt the family lives of the BBC employees.

By the way, here are some of the beliefs of "Christian Voice":

"Why is the UK under God's judgment?

We have sown the wind ...

Abolished the death penalty but legalised the murder of children in the womb

Enacted no-fault divorce on demand and forced mothers out to work

Legalised trading on the Lord's day and instituted a national lottery

Legalised pornography and homosexual acts and taught evil to our children in school

Given away the Queen's sovereignty - owed to Almighty God alone - to the European Union"

So, they are the true right wing fundamentalist types, wanting to keep women in the home, make homosexual acts illegal, bring back the death penalty, etc.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

78. If protesters can't get through at work

If they are screened away as we both know they are, then this is a way for them to voice their concerns.

I don't have to agree with an opinion to support their right of free speech. The day that becomes a requirement is the day that the dark forces have won.

[tx_dem41]

60. Illegal? Terrorism? n/t

[VegasWolf]

63. Wrong. n/t

[tx_dem41]

65. Well, heck since we all agree its not illegal then....

why the heck are we wasting our time on DU?!? There's football to watch. :-)

[VegasWolf]

76. Because it's fun to talk about despicable things? n/t

[tx_dem41]

82. Well, the way the Colts are killing the Broncos right now (28-3)...

..you might have a point.

[VegasWolf]

89. I KNOW, I thought 10 point spread was too rich so I bet on the Packers.

Damn!

[rockedthevoteinMA]

England doesn't have the First Amendment that we do...

:eyes:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

59. It should

And many here seem to be expressing the view that this is wrong anywhere, not just England. Since I sense this will be coming to America, expect the protests to follow.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

16. Protest is moral

Threats and violence are not.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. you're wrong

This is intimidation by physical threat. When you publish someone's home address and there are threats of physical violence you are threatening terrorism. When right wing Christian groups have done this here, people ended up dead.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

28. I don't want anyone hurt

I also want people free to publish public information and free to protest to have maximum effect.

[VegasWolf]

32. Why, because people produce a show that violates your absurd

ideas.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

34. It doesn't matter what the show says

If someone objects, then protest is a perfectly legitimate way to act.

[VegasWolf]

38. By targeting their homes? That's a little over the top. n/t

[AliciaKeyedUp]

44. This cracks me up

Since when at DU is a protest opposed?

[tx_dem41]

51. I think the answer is obvious, Alicia.

;)

[AliciaKeyedUp]

53. The double standard rules

or so it seems.

[Cheswick2.0]

37. bullshit

you want people intimidated and hurt if necessary to shut them up. You know damn well this is putting these people in danger from religious nut cases.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

48. Look at the post about protests at CEO's homes

So, it's OK to protest against people you oppose, but not for the reverse?

[Liberal Veteran]

46. You don't want anyone hurt, but you won't take any action to stop

people from encouraging nutcases on the fringe to commit violence against people by publishing their home addresses and other personal information.

In other words....you are just an enabler who will stand idly and hide behind the "freedom to terrorize someone in their own homes".

How contemptable.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

50. Freedom of speech is not contemptible

If they are free to produce this program, then we should be free to protest it.

[Liberal Veteran]

55. Of course not....that's exactly what the anti-abortion forces say...

...as they wrap themselves in the first amendment and publish the home address of doctors who perform abortions.

And hey, when someone's property is vandalized or a doctor is shot in the head in his own home, at least we didn't infringe on those oh, so holy first amendment rights.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

64. It sounds like you strongly support hiding public information

I think public information should be public. And yes, that is an imperfect or even dangerous solution. But the position you support was the government's position when they tried to block harmful information about our government.

[Liberal Veteran]

70. Let's see....Government=Public

Guess you can't see the distinction between the government and personal.

Finding ways to harrass private citizens in their homes sorta bugs me.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

72. So, should politicians be free from protest away from their jobs?

No, of course not. Public actions result in responses.

[Liberal Veteran]

77. Politicians are ALWAYS public servants....

It's like saying president isn't the president 24 hours a day, which of course is simply ludicrous. That's why we call them PUBLIC servants.

But nice try.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

81. Media people serve the public just the same

Sinclair Broadcasting was an identical case.

[Liberal Veteran]

86. Sorry, but you are just wrong on that.

Trying to compare a politician with with a private citizen because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Are you trying to say that the BBC people have the British equivalent of secret service too?

If they don't, then ask yourself why that would be.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

92. The airwaves are public

In both nations. They are a limited PUBLIC resource.

[tx_dem41]

88. Then you have no problem with this case....the BBC is subsidized..

and chartered by the UK Government. These people are PUBLIC servants.
See, we can all agree now.

[Liberal Veteran]

104. Farming in the US is subsidized! That makes farmers public servants?

ROTFLMAO!

[AliciaKeyedUp]

106. Everything in the U.S. is subsidized in some way, most likely

but the airwaves are public property. That's not a subsidy, that's an outright reality.

[Liberal Veteran]

107. Ranchers get grazing rights on public land! They are public servants too!

LOL!

[AliciaKeyedUp]

110. Their lease information is public

And that includes their home addresses and possibly phone numbers.

[tx_dem41]

109. But unlike farmers, the BBC domestic.....

is totally funded by the UK Government, the Director-General and Board of Governors of the BBC are political (actually monarchical) appointees, and are directly accountable to Parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Governors_of_the_BBC


I don't know of any farmers that are appointed by Bush (or Rove) and are totally funded by the government.

These are PUBLIC servants!

[tx_dem41]

17. Since you live in the UK, do you know if the illegality is ...

..mitigated if the information was already in the public domain? In that case, it might not be considered "personal information".

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. A question for a lawyer, I'm afraid

but there is this from a government website (aimed at website owners: I see that actually the addresses were sent out in emails - I'm not sure how that would affect things):

ARE WE ALLOWED TO USE PERSONAL DATA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET FOR OUR OWN PURPOSES?
Website operators should exercise caution when obtaining personal data from a source other than the individual him or herself. It is by no means the case that the processing of personal data obtained via the internet is free from restriction.
...
IF WE HAVE COLLECTED INFORMATION ABOUT SOMEONE OTHER THAN DIRECTLY FROM THEM, DO WE HAVE TO TELL THEM THAT WE HAVE GOT IT?
Where information is obtained from a third party, for example where one website operator obtains information about an individual from another website operator, there is still a duty to ensure that the subsequent processing of information about the individual is fair, i.e. that the individual is aware of such matters as the identity of the person or organisation that now holds the information and the purposes for which it is to be used.
...
CAN WE PUBLISH PERSONAL DATA ON OUR WEBSITE?
The eighth principle of the Act states that personal data shall not be transferred outside the European Economic Area if the country to which the data are transferred does not ensure an adequate level of protection for the individual in each case. Placing personal data on the Internet potentially involves a transfer to any country worldwide. In many countries the processing of personal data is not protected by legislation so it will not always be possible for website providers to guarantee the protection of personal data placed on their website. However, all the circumstances of such a transfer can be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of protection provided for the data. In some cases the risks arising as a result of a transfer, even in the absence of protective legislation, may be negligible. This may be the case with information that is already in the public domain, for example publication of details of the sporting achievements of well known athletes. It may also be a relevant factor if the information published does not enable the individual to be contacted, although the sensitivity of the information will have to be taken into account. In other cases it will be necessary to obtain the individual’s consent for their data to be published on the Internet. This consent must be ‘informed’, in that the website operator must explain the possible consequences of publishing the data. Consent must also be ‘freely given’ in that the individual must be able to decline without penalty.

Although likely to lead to similar conclusions, in most cases the general requirement of fairness in the processing of personal data must also be addressed when considering publication on a website. For example, a yacht club may have traditionally published the names and contact details of its members in a handbook distributed to all members and placed in local libraries. The club now intends to publish these details on its website. Although the information has always been publicly available, the implications for members of publication on the web are significantly different. Fairness requires that the individuals concerned are told that there is an intention to publish information about them on the website and that the wishes of individuals who object are respected. If the intention is that information about the club’s membership is only made available to other club members, the club should employ technical means to prevent access by unauthorised individuals, for example, by preventing general access to the site or to the part of the site where information about the club’s members is published through the use of password protection.

http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/cms/DocumentUploads/Website%20FAQ.pdf

And there is a general right for an individual:

Preventing processing that may cause damage or distress

If you think that certain processing is, or is likely to, cause you or someone else to suffer substantial damage or distress which is not justified, you can ask the data controller to stop that processing.

http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=6789&expmovie=1

I think that this might mean that the law hasn't been broken yet; but the "Christians" can be asked to remove the data, since their use is likely to cause distress to individuals; and they would break the law if they refused.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. Yeah, I like it when anti-abortion sites publish personal information too.

So that borderline personalities in their group will harrass the families and even commit violence against doctors who perform abortion.

[kitkatrose]

62. So it's okay for anti choice people

to publish the pictures and personal info of people going into Planned Parenthood? :puke:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

66. That's private information about a private act

The doctors there are engaged in public health and, typically, also take government funds.

Private medical records are indeed private.

[Jen72]

97. No

I am a left wing Christian but I do not advocated putting people in danger by giving out personal details. Protest by all means, don't watch, how about boycotting the BBC for awake but their actions were nuts.

[tx_dem41]

99. But there are two levels to the argument....is it "wrong" (which I lean ..

...towards that camp, making a LOT of assumptions), and is it "illegal". I strongly affirm that the actions referenced (if it was in the US) are not illegal.

[Trajan]

101. You are so wrong ....

If you know that some members of the angry faction could possibly resort to illegal acts if given the exact location of those individuals and their family members, then it is wrong to support releasing the information ....

You make it sound like it is a 'right' to harrass the family members of those who promote 'art' that 'offends' one's beliefs ....

How dare you ! ...

I dont care WTF you dislike about any artworks that 'insult' your faith: freedom of expression is a paramount natural right ... Freedom from violence is a declared civic right ... YOU do not have an explicit right to defend your faith from 'insult' ....

I cannot believe that some here dont seem to care if innocents are hurt in the cause of their 'faith' ...

What a second .. strike that ...

Same as it ever was ....

Despicable ...

[AliciaKeyedUp]

105. Freedom of expression includes protest

And I support our right to protest. Opposing protest is exactly what the powerful have in mind.

Yes, they have a right to be free from violence, but not free from protest.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

115. "If you know that some members of the angry faction could possibly resort

...to illegal acts...."

Wow, "possibly"? With that standard, you have really cut off all forms of protest in that case. I guess we would have no Boston Tea Party, Declaration of Independence, etc.....

I'm starting to understand how soooo many people swallow the Patriot Act hook, line, and sinker. They don't care about civil liberties.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

40. Some of the logic displayed on this thread, is making the creators..

of the Patriot Act quite happy!

Example: publication of public information = Terrorism.

Remember everyone....what you ask for can be turned against you quite easily.

CAVEAT: I realize that this case occurred in the UK.

[Divine Discontent]

94. Christian values are

that no one under God should physically harm or doing anything to spitefully hurt anyone else. Many a bad thing has been done in the name of God. We have 1st amendment rights to protest, whomever, wherever, and whenever as long as it's cleared up to the authorities what we'd be doing and we're not a threat (I think that's how it works), so, protesting at someone's home, is a right. Of course, that right can be used in a cruel manner, per se, a right wing group protesting outside a gay church. it is their right to protest, and do nothing else, but we know they would be hateful and say cruel things, but, they will answer for them.

Freedom guarantees rights. Simple as that. You can go near someone's residence and protest in a respectful manner over whatever you think is an injustice on their part, get over it!

[tx_dem41]

96. Ummmm....read my posts again...we agree, except for...

"cleared up to the authorities". Not sure what you mean by that.

I'm not sure what I am supposed to "get over"?

[VegasWolf]

87. Hey Alica! What if some crazy fundie kills someone on that list? You

know, like they did when crossing off abortion providers.
Would you feel sad?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

91. If a crazy anyone kills somebody, I would be sad

But publishing that list only makes it slightly easier to track people down. If a crazy person wants to kill, there is nothing stopping them.

[Divine Discontent]

95. It wouldn't be her fault

even for approving of information of people's residence's being made known, because, anyone can track down & disgustingly kill someone else, if they want, these are public figures who are involved in a for broadcast play, who's to stop anyone from attempting to hurt someone? It seems as if you are stepping over the bounds of what is private & what is not. This is a "for entertaintment" play, not a private medical situation. There are lines that should and shouldn't be crossed. It would be the wacko fundamendalist crossing the line if they harmed anyone.

on edit: how is protesting anything but an inconvenience to whomever you're protesting to begin with, ya know? they just can't cross the boundaries of being a threat or overly loud, disruptive, etc. it's all a judgement call. but still, it's people's right, to protest.

[stepnw1f]

98. Right Wingers=Terrorists

Fanatics are fanatics with no interest in compromise. There is no difference between them and any other fanatical group out there (Terrorists) They just can't help it, can they?

These folks are sick and should never have been given any quarter. They steal, cheat, incite violence and preach hatred towards all others, who disagree with them. They have been allowed to breed this hatred for years and now we see it's result. All in a god's name... the biggest and most despicable lie ever.

If we tolerate them, we give them validity. They are the "Fringe". They are the "evil" they claim to be fighting against.

[tx_dem41]

100. But there are two groups to address here....

clearly making threats is illegal. But, the website owners are not doing anything illegal (if this were the US). They might be doing something "wrong" (i.e. immoral..in a non-religious sense).

Question: Do you equate the act of protesting at someone else's home (not on their property) a terroristic act?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

103. Funny, I bet they say the same about you

That's why the right to protest must be supported by both sides.

[Blue_Tires]

102. first the muslims shut down a play

now the christians??? jeez....why even HAVE theater, music, movies or art anymore????

[Flammable Materials]

111. So I guess Christianity is not the religion of peace after all. n/t

If it's not, then let the larger Christian community rise up and speak out against these terrorists.

(Well ... that's what they told Muslims to do after 9/11.)

And let's not forget what happened to Theo van Gogh for saying things about a religion he disagreed with.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

112. Christianity has bad people, so does atheism

There are bad people or misguided people or even insane people in every belief system.

[arwalden]

113. For Precious Few...

... but obviously not for these lunatic zealots.

[VegasWolf]

114. Isn't this like a remote control, Christians don't have to watch if

they don't want to. Almost any satire will have some
minority protesting it. The minority is trying to impose its
will on the majority.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

116. The right says the same about this site

But protest is a right. Squelching it is wrong.

[Moderator]

117. This thread

is no longer providing productive discussion.