In covering the crazed Westboro Baptist Church bullies, they blurred one of their signs.
Is this a "moment in unnecessary censorship?"
First of all, we all know what the word is. It's FAG. It's been used by some gays the same way NIGGER has been used by some blacks — to mock its importance or power.
The article's point is that even racists have rights, and a man was wrong for throwing coffee at these obnoxious idiots. He admitted he was wrong, but that he'd do it again, and most understand his frustration. There's also a question of how much of an "assault" is involved in throwing a pie or warm coffee. In small claims court, you'd pay for the dry cleaning, and that's about it.
If the Westboro Baptist Church can use the word FAG without being arrested, and certainly without fear that an assault would be justified, why is the Daily News literally distorting the photo? When does "Freedom of Speech" become an editorial choice?
The full impact of what the church members do is blunted when a sign is blurred. Isn't that protecting them? Some might not notice the word when it's blurred, and not realize just how vile and stupid these people are.
Another editorial point: what if the marine was gay, and was angry not just at the abuse of the American flag, or the disrespect to the Biden family, but to the gay slur? Would the News have not blurred the sign, to show how shocking it was to this man?
Is it ever a good idea to blur, shade or distort the truth?
No comments:
Post a Comment