Brown Blog is censored

[Peter L. Hudson]

Apparently there is information and commentary that is deemed appropriate by the BrownBrigade and then there is information that is censored. Free speech? Or do you hide under the, this is our private website and is not subject to the Constitution - that is, the Brown folks don't believe in free exchange of thoughts. Guess that's not the Teabagger way!

[Aaron J. Knox]

Now now, if censoring and filtration of content is the Teabagger way then would you not have to say that the media is the biggest bunch of Teabaggers around? Likewise would you not then be forced to distrust everything that is put out by that all important source of information? I would be willing to say that you probably watch a lot of political talk shows and news shows. Do you trust that all the information on all sides are being represented truthfully and accurately? If you do then I feel very disheartened as it shows a sheep mentality that is so prevalent at this time that it is scary. We preach to think for yourself and decide on your own which way and what path your life will take yet we continually bite on each juicy tidbit thrown our way like a dog on scraps.

When you spout off such an asinine line as:
"the Brown folks don't believe in free exchange of thoughts. Guess that's not the Teabagger way!"

Well this lets me see a couple of things, first it seems as though you have bought into every half truth of the opposition to Sen. Elect Brown while discounting all of the half untruths associated with them. You have also found your own voice in the form of a parrot whereas you strive to be a repeater for the statements and propaganda you have heard other than actually participating in the Free exchange of thoughts. If you want to be involved in a free exchange of thoughts then show your own thoughts and not those of the media hack you were just listening to. Of course the blog will be censored to the point of propriety and decency. If a person is being antagonistic towards others or putting in content that is contrary to truth and lacking in even a modicum of merit to the purpose of the blog the of course it will be edited and/or censored. A personal weblog has every right to keep that person from being involved in the discussions or editing out the content delivered. This is common courtesy to respect the beliefs and rights of another human being. Although I strongly disagree with your attitude about propriety in information and commentary on a blog owned and operated by another. The plug could be pulled tomorrow and neither you nor I could stop it as we have no say in the creation or sustainability of the blog as an entity other than constructive discussion. It truly is a sad day however when the ability to have sovereignty over content published to your medium is called into question by the constitution that in itself allows for free speech. Free speech will be my final point, you complain about not having free speech on the BrownBrigade blog yet it is the very same freedom of speech that you espouse is not being granted that allows for the operators of the BrownBrigade the ability to monitor, censor, and regulate what IS said through the information medium they created. Lastly, and of paramount importance, there is no provision to state that free speech extends to an intellectual property of another person or entity. The freedom of speech, as it was written into the Constitution, is to protect citizens from Punishment and Retribution for criticizing government or people in the position of power. Today Americans have no idea what it was like to live in a truly oppressive government, we have been blessed and fortunate to live in a place where criticism of government does not end in mass murders, imprisonment, execution, intimidation, torture, or abuse of a people. Yet as much as we have we complain that the freedom of speech is being denied because content is deemed inappropriate by the owners of an intellectual property. Although the scope of the Freedom of Speech has expanded and adapted still our freedom of speech is what allows for us to talk and criticize what the government is doing or how they are handling the country as it affects our lives. Calling an individual a Teabagger is your right however, when you do so to a private citizen as a private citizen you will have to be prepared to accept the consequences. Claiming freedom of speech will not protect you if you were to enrage another person. Goading a person into a rage will likely end up with that individual making a retaliatory move against you and believe me, claiming your right to Freedom of Speech will not cause a court to find the person you goaded guilty of a crime based on a normal reaction to antagonism.

My main point is Don't hide behind the lies you tell yourself and then try to criticize others when what you are talking about really has no bearing and holds no legal or social sway on the outlet of information being used. There are many regulations on What types of content can be published to a domestic website. Yet the content delivered within the scope of the regulatory precedence is up to the discretion of the operator of the site (provided the content is legal to be published). In other words, back off of the antagonism and if you wish to add to discussions or start your own please don't come with the weak tripe and drivel that is pouring off of the latest MSNBC Broadcast, I will likewise strive to not bring you Fox News rehashed and will attempt to prove the validity of my points and opinions through my own research, knowledge, intuition, and integrity.

[Peter L. Hudson]

Mr. Knox - don't have the kind of time you obviously have on your hands to read your reply or to write a polemical response. My comments did not attack "teabaggers" in any way similar to some of the disgusting comments posted on the BrownBrigade Blog(s). In truth, I find those, like yourself, who seek the easy "truths" that morons like Hannity and Limbaugh spout (to use your term), to not truly be interested in making the situation better. Unfortunately, Darwin's evolutionationary process takes a LONG time and so, teabaggers and the reflexive Browns and Palins will be around a while (maybe measured in months - LET'S HOPE!!!) before going the same way as the Dodo. The Dodo had genetic value, ie. diversity - can't say that for the others...

Aaron J. Knox said:

Now now, if censoring and filtration of content is the Teabagger way then would you not have to say that the media is the biggest bunch of Teabaggers around? Likewise would you not then be forced to distrust everything that is put out by that all important source of information? I would be willing to say that you probably watch a lot of political talk shows and news shows. Do you trust that all the information on all sides are being represented truthfully and accurately? If you do then I feel very disheartened as it shows a sheep mentality that is so prevalent at this time that it is scary. We preach to think for yourself and decide on your own which way and what path your life will take yet we continually bite on each juicy tidbit thrown our way like a dog on scraps.

When you spout off such an asinine line as:
"the Brown folks don't believe in free exchange of thoughts. Guess that's not the Teabagger way!"

Well this lets me see a couple of things, first it seems as though you have bought into every half truth of the opposition to Sen. Elect Brown while discounting all of the half untruths associated with them. You have also found your own voice in the form of a parrot whereas you strive to be a repeater for the statements and propaganda you have heard other than actually participating in the Free exchange of thoughts. If you want to be involved in a free exchange of thoughts then show your own thoughts and not those of the media hack you were just listening to. Of course the blog will be censored to the point of propriety and decency. If a person is being antagonistic towards others or putting in content that is contrary to truth and lacking in even a modicum of merit to the purpose of the blog the of course it will be edited and/or censored. A personal weblog has every right to keep that person from being involved in the discussions or editing out the content delivered. This is common courtesy to respect the beliefs and rights of another human being. Although I strongly disagree with your attitude about propriety in information and commentary on a blog owned and operated by another. The plug could be pulled tomorrow and neither you nor I could stop it as we have no say in the creation or sustainability of the blog as an entity other than constructive discussion. It truly is a sad day however when the ability to have sovereignty over content published to your medium is called into question by the constitution that in itself allows for free speech. Free speech will be my final point, you complain about not having free speech on the BrownBrigade blog yet it is the very same freedom of speech that you espouse is not being granted that allows for the operators of the BrownBrigade the ability to monitor, censor, and regulate what IS said through the information medium they created. Lastly, and of paramount importance, there is no provision to state that free speech extends to an intellectual property of another person or entity. The freedom of speech, as it was written into the Constitution, is to protect citizens from Punishment and Retribution for criticizing government or people in the position of power. Today Americans have no idea what it was like to live in a truly oppressive government, we have been blessed and fortunate to live in a place where criticism of government does not end in mass murders, imprisonment, execution, intimidation, torture, or abuse of a people. Yet as much as we have we complain that the freedom of speech is being denied because content is deemed inappropriate by the owners of an intellectual property. Although the scope of the Freedom of Speech has expanded and adapted still our freedom of speech is what allows for us to talk and criticize what the government is doing or how they are handling the country as it affects our lives. Calling an individual a Teabagger is your right however, when you do so to a private citizen as a private citizen you will have to be prepared to accept the consequences. Claiming freedom of speech will not protect you if you were to enrage another person. Goading a person into a rage will likely end up with that individual making a retaliatory move against you and believe me, claiming your right to Freedom of Speech will not cause a court to find the person you goaded guilty of a crime based on a normal reaction to antagonism.

My main point is Don't hide behind the lies you tell yourself and then try to criticize others when what you are talking about really has no bearing and holds no legal or social sway on the outlet of information being used. There are many regulations on What types of content can be published to a domestic website. Yet the content delivered within the scope of the regulatory precedence is up to the discretion of the operator of the site (provided the content is legal to be published). In other words, back off of the antagonism and if you wish to add to discussions or start your own please don't come with the weak tripe and drivel that is pouring off of the latest MSNBC Broadcast, I will likewise strive to not bring you Fox News rehashed and will attempt to prove the validity of my points and opinions through my own research, knowledge, intuition, and integrity.

[Relentless_Righteous_and_Right]

Guys, the Blog is Scott's newspaper. He and his managers are free to edit it.

FREEDOM!

[Aaron J. Knox]

I agree completely and this is my point, the Freedom of Speech does not apply to a medium such as this.

Relentless_Righteous_and_Right said:

Guys, the Blog is Scott's newspaper. He and his managers are free to edit it.

FREEDOM!

[Aaron J. Knox]

Mr Hudson, I would like to state I was not attacking you nor did I feel you were attacking others (the reason Teabaggers was used was merely as quotation it does however look antagonistic to use a term meant to be derogatory). All I wish is to challenge statements thrown out flippantly and when there is a gross misinterpretation of laws, precedence, and the Constitution I will put forward my thoughts (Mine not someone else's). Btw, time on my hands is a very relative thing. I work 70 hours a week and also am taking classes. I rarely watch TV and I don't listen to Rush or Hannity as I don't Have the time. I wasn't attacking you sir, I was merely challenging you to take a harder look at what it was that was being addressed.

Peter L. Hudson said:

Mr. Knox - don't have the kind of time you obviously have on your hands to read your reply or to write a polemical response. My comments did not attack "teabaggers" in any way similar to some of the disgusting comments posted on the BrownBrigade Blog(s). In truth, I find those, like yourself, who seek the easy "truths" that morons like Hannity and Limbaugh spout (to use your term), to not truly be interested in making the situation better. Unfortunately, Darwin's evolutionationary process takes a LONG time and so, teabaggers and the reflexive Browns and Palins will be around a while (maybe measured in months - LET'S HOPE!!!) before going the same way as the Dodo. The Dodo had genetic value, ie. diversity - can't say that for the others...

[Peter L. Hudson]

Disagree. The website is not his private newspaper since it is likely funded by money donated to his campaign. It may be gray but many on both sides of the divide are attacked for using election campaign funds for personal/private needs/wants. If the website is considered an election campaign-associated cost, then individuals donating the funds should know up front that the BrownBrigade will use censorship in crafting what people read - what the BrownBrigade deems worthy for the population's knowledge. Mr. Knox, for you to assume the arrogant perspective you have, i.e., "... statements thrown out flippantly and when there is a gross misinterpretation of laws, precedence, and the Constitution I will put forward my thoughts (Mine not someone else's)" it necessitates that you have an amazing ability for making assumptions - your own personal assumptions (if you are a Constitutional law professor, please say so - that is, have you really studied the Constitution??? and not some right wing interpretation of the Constitution?; as well as assumptions of others, i.e., that I watch networks and regurgitate their talking points. I do have a professional degree and I know how to form a fact-based opinion. My assumption that you had nothing more to do with your time was based on the length of your blog, i.e., a fact. Unfortunately for you, the teabaggers, et al., are too easily shown to have inabilities in forming their own opinions - in fact your assumption regarding MSNBC, etc., is page 1 out of the Hannity/Limbaugh/Beck manifesto regarding how to confuse the real issues.

Aaron J. Knox said:

Mr Hudson, I would like to state I was not attacking you nor did I feel you were attacking others (the reason Teabaggers was used was merely as quotation it does however look antagonistic to use a term meant to be derogatory). All I wish is to challenge statements thrown out flippantly and when there is a gross misinterpretation of laws, precedence, and the Constitution I will put forward my thoughts (Mine not someone else's). Btw, time on my hands is a very relative thing. I work 70 hours a week and also am taking classes. I rarely watch TV and I don't listen to Rush or Hannity as I don't Have the time. I wasn't attacking you sir, I was merely challenging you to take a harder look at what it was that was being addressed.

Peter L. Hudson said:

Mr. Knox - don't have the kind of time you obviously have on your hands to read your reply or to write a polemical response. My comments did not attack "teabaggers" in any way similar to some of the disgusting comments posted on the BrownBrigade Blog(s). In truth, I find those, like yourself, who seek the easy "truths" that morons like Hannity and Limbaugh spout (to use your term), to not truly be interested in making the situation better. Unfortunately, Darwin's evolutionationary process takes a LONG time and so, teabaggers and the reflexive Browns and Palins will be around a while (maybe measured in months - LET'S HOPE!!!) before going the same way as the Dodo. The Dodo had genetic value, ie. diversity - can't say that for the others...

[Sheryl Felton]

Mr. Nutson is there a reason you are referring to "TeaBaggers"? I'm sure there is. This is a political website and you will probably find many Tea Party Goers or Tea Party Patriots. Your reference to "TeaBaggers" was insulting and I'm sure you intended it to be. Lucky for you this is still a free country and you are entitled to make a jackass out of yourself any time you want. Just like Olberman and Matthews. Imagine that. I'm sure you are pitied for being a fool by many.

[Colin Murphy]

You are very correct Sheryl, "teabaggers" is a vulgar term, and I dont know why it hasnt been cut out of the main stream media as well. I will not post it here, but it shows you the degradation of the opposition...

Sheryl Felton said:

Mr. Nutson is there a reason you are referring to "TeaBaggers"? I'm sure there is. This is a political website and you will probably find many Tea Party Goers or Tea Party Patriots. Your reference to "TeaBaggers" was insulting and I'm sure you intended it to be. Lucky for you this is still a free country and you are entitled to make a jackass out of yourself any time you want. Just like Olberman and Matthews. Imagine that. I'm sure you are pitied for being a fool by many.

[J]

Teabaggers and other terms of hatred will always be used, because that is a typical Leftist Tactic. When they can't mount a credible debate, they just insult and nit-pick things like spelling mistakes and they try to chip away at the credibility of our Ideals.

This will always happen, so do not waste your time replying to such non-sense! Just press on with the plan in a steadfast manner! And always remember: The truth is not defined by how many people believe it!

[J]

Hey Knox: It may have no "bearing and hold no legal or social sway on the outlet of information being used" as you say, but we did have enough "Social Sway" to sway the election back to the Conservative side of the fence!

You sound like you're just a sore loser to me. By the way, at least Brown doesn't need a tele-prompter everywhere he goes!

Cheers!

[Frans Farrugia]

Please do not feed the trolls. Mr Hudson should go back to his fellow moonbats at the Huffandpuff and Koskids. I'm sure they have a lot of "freedom of speech" there or venom as it is more commonly known. Doesn't Coakley have a blog where you can go and whine?

[Jane-Calvert Winkler-Kimble]

Who ever said teabagger is insulting is correct. Multiple meanings including: 1) one who carries large bags of packaged tea for shipment. 2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" 3) one who has a job or talent that is low in social status 4) a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient. 5) also see "fagbag", "lamer", "noob"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Even at 60, I guess I can learn new insults. LOL

Frans, excellent idea. I've done it before this newspaper. Before I broke the connection and withdrew, I deleted all my I-got-suckered-in-to repond-posts..

Please do not feed the trolls. They did to fade away when they cannot "feed" on the distress of others.