Cheers AU. Thanks for letting me know. 🙂

I thought I better try to work my way through the van Leuwen/Boudry/Coyne thing as well, which is taking a while. (I fell asleep the first two times I tried!) Of course, when I do respond, I make no pretense that I have any specialized academic knowledge in any of the areas concerned. It’ll just be my opinion.

I found the Vridar article AU linked to very interesting, and at the time I formulated a long enough response in my head to write a post. Then I wrote the latest Brickbats and Bouquets, and most of the wording has gone from my head. It’ll come back though and I will write something. I see his point, but there’s a big hole in the argument imo, which I’ll elaborate on. Sorry to muck you around by not writing it now, but you’re all subscribed, so you’ll see it when I get around to it – I’m not up to writing much more today.

Heather, I will await with interest your article on Coyne when you get the chance.

Just FYI, the debate is still happening at Vridar, and Dan Jones has posted another comment showing Coyne’s hypocrisy.

http://vridar.org/2015/08/12/on-how-to-be-completely-wrong-about-radicalisation-the-curious-case-of-jerry-coyne/#comment-72707

You might want to read that too before you write your article.

They can’t censor it – that’s not how it works. People say what they want. If someone complains, the BSA decides if it’s a valid complaint, and if it is, then there has to be an apology. The type of things you’re mentioning would be considered vexatious complaints and wouldn’t be upheld. There’s no limiting of free speech, and it doesn’t apply to opinions, editorials, blogs, or anything like that. It’s only news and documentaries and they only have to be fair in the way they present the issues. They don’t have to make an a-hole sound good – they can show him/her putting his foot in his mouth as much as they like, they just can’t make up the words themselves. In a documentary, NZers get the point of view of both the Israelis and the Palestinians, and they decide who makes the best case.

I think there is too much money in play for that to work in the U.S. I’d rather put up with the Faux news, than have political appointees be able to censor what could be said. You can be sure that if news stories threatened someone’s profits, that would complain and complain loudly. Christians would complain about anything that represented abortion or same sex marriage in a favorable light. Neocons and Aipsc would complain about any stories that questioned Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. It’s already hard to find any criticism of Israrl in the American press.

I can see why it would look that way, but no. Also, the agency isn’t looking over your shoulder – it’s completely reactive, there for the public to use to adjudicate complaints. If, for example, there was thirty seconds of a full-on sex romp from a swingers night on the six o’clock news, but nobody complained about it, they’d do nothing, not even comment. They’re funded by the government, but completely independent. I can see why that’s a concept that might be difficult to believe, but it’s true. As a society, we consider corruption seriously bad – we’re usually no 1 in the world for lack of corruption, and if we slip to no 2, it’s big news, and everyone wants to know why, and who let us down.

Just to be a devils advocate Heather, doesn’t it discourage free speech to have a government agency looking over your shoulder all the time, determining the acceptability of what you say?

I know you were just asking a question, but I’m just saying that’s not how it came across. I’m not accusing you of anything, just explaining her reaction.

How can there be any insuniation when I don’e even know her.

I was curious to know because people like to say they are equally sickened by killings etc no matter who the victim, but the truth is, many seldom are. Instead, they tend to be more sickened when people who they can relate to, either religiously, nationally, ideologically, or have you what are killed. So I wanted to know whether she is from the ones who are genuinely equally sickened by people dying no matter who they are.

The way you expressed it AU, it sounded like an insinuation rather than just a question. I would’ve reacted the same way Diane did.