Frontline drops the ball big time

[ex-LT]

I put my response in to this guy hours before I posted this link here and it never got posted. I simply pointed out (with a link) how his statistics were completely erroneous and how I, as a free man, was offended that someone who bows to the crown would question my courage.

Knocking out the first amendment for the sake of knocking out the second amendment. What a novel approach!

There is much that can be said about the lack of professionalism, honesty, and integrity of Frontline, and it's practices, But a First Amendment issue, it is not:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Like any website or newspaper I might own, theirs is private property, and they, as owner, can, for the most part, publish what they wish.

I think what plink was alluding to is that PBS is engaging in censorship by deleting dissenting points of view from the Frontline discussion forum.

[xd ED]

Knocking out the first amendment for the sake of knocking out the second amendment. What a novel approach!

There is much that can be said about the lack of professionalism, honesty, and integrity of Frontline, and it's practices, But a First Amendment issue, it is not:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Like any website or newspaper I might own, theirs is private property, and they, as owner, can, for the most part, publish what they wish.

I think what plink was alluding to is that PBS is engaging in censorship by deleting dissenting points of view from the Frontline discussion forum.

I believe your use of the word 'censorship', while closer to the point than citing the 1st Amendment, is still incorrect. They(PBS) cannot truly censor plink, should he choose to express himself elsewhere. They are merely using their private property as they see fit; with all the ramifications that result. They loose the pretext of intellectual honesty.

Personally I find this one of the more fascinating behavior differences between many liberals and conservatives:
Banning/ limiting the expression of opposing views, vs, an open exchange and debate of the merits of such ideas.
It's basically tolerance of what they agree with, or else...banning the infidel...
Kind of like watching what happens to a automobile with a Bush/ Cheney bumper sticker left in uptown, vs an Obama/ Biden clad car in any of the most conservative areas of one's choosing. What's your bet on which one gets damaged first?