NocturnalQuilter wrote:
So what is the solution?
Publicly or privately voiced dissent from views/statements/assertions one finds unreasonable, unrealistic, harmful or offensive?
Quote:
Censoring organizations so that they say only what suits us?
What do you mean by censoring?
An organization has voiced certain views, and some people have contrary views and have voiced them in response. I see that more than one view exists and has been expressed, but I do not see any evidence of any view being forcibly excluded, or any voice being forcibly silenced.
I cannot see how any of this remotely suggests censorship.
There will always be someone somewhere that finds offense with something someone else said, or televised, or printed. [/quote]
Aha, and what is the solution? Should we censor people so they can only say what suits any organization that offend them? Or should interested parties who choose to comment be allowed to simply do so?
Quote:
Again, people find demons where they choose to look for them. Perhaps it's the viewers of this commercial that has the real issue with autism and not it's creators...
Maybe. But unless this constitutes grounds for censoring them, it does not constitute grounds for censoring them.
No one has to agree with, abide by or even listen the opinions of those who object to this portrayal of autism, but it would be censorship to prevent them voicing such opinions.
03 Feb 2009, 5:22 pm
Thanks!
