Editor's double standard
From: Robert Robusto
Mark Guidera's column in the Harford County Sun of April 26 ["Deletion of play's few curse words is profane act"] was his usual lengthy editorial, this time on his opinion on freedom of speech. He referred to the "cuss" words used in a [North Harford High] school play, "Jabberwock."
Guidera wrote: "Literature, even though it may include profanity or racial slurs or sexual innuendo, is meant to help us reflect on the deeper meanings and actions of our lives." This noble statement reflects the double standard of those who are willing to expose the masses to their version of free speech, and especially if it doesn't offend them.
These same pushers of free speech and expression in most cases are ready, willing and able to stifle even those who write letters to the editor in the guise of declaring them offensive and unsuitable to a "family newspaper." Freedom of the press is only for those who own the press.
The first amendmenteers whine censorship whenever they are opposed by decent society sick of the filthy "art," "language," "music" and "movies" that they see fit to shove down our throats.
For example, a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine is hunky-dory with these hypocrites, but just try showing a photo of Martin Luther King in a jar of urine. The "art" defenders mind not at all winking at one homosexual inserting a bullwhip into the rear end of another, but just try showing a Ku Klux Klan person doing the same "art" to that homosexual. Freedom of speech/expression? Bah!
When religious groups protest against movies and television shows considered pro-homosexual, these first amendmenteers squeal censorship. But it's never called that when the "gays" protest against the movies and TV they consider anti-homosexual. What hypocrisy.
When the militant "gays" invade churches, throwing condoms into the congregation, shouting obscenities, kissing each other, shouting down the preacher or priest, it is, of course, considered freedom of speech at its finest. But let some KKK people invade a "gay" bathhouse, interrupting "lovemaking," and watch the first amendmenteers cry to high heaven. These that would give the foul-mouths the right to let it all hang out are the very same people that would silence one using the words "sodomite," "perverts," etc., in a letter to the editor. How strange these defenders of free expression are.
Guidera in his April 26 column wrote: "Plays, books, music, films and poetry do not corrupt."
If so, then why are there those who would like to see all points of views not allowed? Personally, I could offer some poems and writings that would show how hypocritical that statement really is, since, of course, those of the mind of Guidera would find that, after all, these things do corrupt.
How about some David Duke literature in the public library, for example. If any knowledgeable person cannot see how some music corrupts, it may be only because they themselves are already brain dead from it.
The editor also wrote: "Beware of the censor and their clip, clip, clip." There they go again yelping "censor" simply because (maybe) they love to hear vulgar words in a play or whatever, yet can't fathom the thought that many of us can fully appreciate the subject without the vulgarity.
The best films of all time were made in an era when not one cuss word or pulling down of someone's drawers was needed. Did that offend anyone?
Actually, why do we need obscenity, hang-out sex and these other things in entertainment anyway? Does it only express the bringing up and the disgruntled and malcontent mind of those who exclaim "misery loves company"? Someone once wrote, "A restrictive speech code used against your enemies one day can be used against your friends and even you the next. Suppression of speech [by the first amendmenteers and the censor squealers] is an admission of weakness, an insidiously deceptive defense by those who lack faith in the potency of their own good ideas and the good sense of others." How true.
A need for profanity and sex deviation in our plays, books, movies, etc., emits a message of ugliness, paranoia and certainly a disrespect for those who don't need it.
Whose freedom of speech/expression are these people defending anyway? If those of us are forced to stomach certain filth to please the warped minds of a few hypocrites, then who is really free?
Guidera says "Jabberwock" (perhaps) is meant to help us reflect on the deeper meanings and actions of lives." Sorry, but we didn't need such language to reflect meanings or actions. We were just plain civilized, kept our pants buttoned, watched our words and respected those around us. We got along without condoms in school, without Donahue, Jesse and their ilk, without music "rapping" out race-mongering, without Jimmy Cagney telling some "broad" to you-know-what. So, Mr. Editor, whenever you hawk the theme of free speech, imagine that maybe your icons, heroes and morals may be stamped on.
Opposed to facility