P&C Crap-All

Like I said, I think we're putting way too much thought into this comic at this point.

Yeah, I think you're probably right ; D

The comic clearly says "the people listening think you're an ahole."

Some of the people listening to NGT (in this case, creationists) think he's an ahole and would like to show him the door. In this case they are outnumbered by the people who would like NGT to continue his show, so he stays around.

If NGT got up on the stage at a young earth creationist gathering it would go differently, and they'd be within their rights to kick him out.

I'll just say that I agree with you about all that, it's just that the disagreement about meaning wasn't about any of that. Here's where we moved over to here from a derail in another thread to this thread: LINK. All the links back to the original thread are in that post.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

Demyx perfectly summed up my point... which is why I don't understand how you think the comic isn't about "social free speech" or that the author is taking sides.

Because I don't think Demyx is talking about Socially Free Speech, and while I'm not sure exactly what your point is at this...point, I don't think it sums up what you've been saying at all. I understand it such that Demyx is just talking about Legally Free Speech and the television marketplace. Creationists can't show him the door because Creationists don't own the network. The network could show him the door, but won't, because the Creationists are outnumbered by people who want to watch him. It stays on the air because it is profitable. Just like Rush Limbaugh, the Platonic form of the A-hole.

If NGT got up on the stage of those people, it wouldn't matter if he was an a-hole or not. Doesn't matter if they could make more money from hosting him than from kicking him out. They could kick him out either way. The First Amendment only protects you legally from censorship by the government, not from a property owner exercising their legal right to get you the hell off their lawn, no matter what their opinion of you is.

Well, to some degree, I can certainly see the argument that speech, as much as possible, shouldn't have consequences attached. We are, after all, the government of, by, and for the people, which means that extending First Amendment protections is a job for all of us, not just the people being officially paid to govern.

I think that's particularly important when the strong are using their power to harass or injure the weak for disagreeing.... I think it's much less important when it's the weak disagreeing with the strong.