What is censorship? It’s hard to nail down when censorship is appropriate and when censorship is merely a political tool to wield with glee. What I find hilarious is those that say they believe in such freedom and then lambaste a person for partaking of it.
Now that’s not to say a person shouldn’t use natural caution when speaking in public. I do believe that it is necessary to watch what you say and to whom, within reason.
Do we all have to agree on any given subject? No, I don’t believe that is necessary at all. I do however believe that when opinions differ it is healthy to have open forum discussion about such and then move onto other subject matter.
What brings on this discussion you ask? I had been summarily banned from the VNN network for having the gall to call the chocolates Wallys for the gossip article about Lucius. That lasted a couple days. And it seems I am yet again summarily banned from the VNN network for having the gall to, well I don’t know what I had the gall to say this time but I did get the following message from the Chocolates.
Enough is enough, Damari. I realize this is your schtick but I know for a fact that you don’t pull this kind of crap with any other news source. We did not open this place for you to come in and take it over with your pretentious and condescending attitude. Get a new hobby, please.
I’m only guessing at the reason I was banned the first time. If one thing has been made clear to me about the network it is that it’s alright to have an opinion but only if you agree with them. It’s alright to have a say as long as it’s not something negative about the network themselves. Is having an opinion a good enough reason to ban a person?
They’re not even real are they? They’re vampires pretending to be chocolate and hiding behind a veneer to report the news. It’s a catchy gimmick to be sure. I thought it rather endearing that they donned their chocolate suits to give the news. It adds a hint of comedic flair to the whole process I thought appropriate. But when the vampires, masquerading as chocolate, masquerading as news hounds take the stance that a person can’t watch their network if they don’t say what the chocolate likes then they are just a shade side of hypocrite. It’s not like they’re going to take the suits off and take the real consequences for what they say about other vampires.
For a network that takes delight in poking fun at others they sure don’t like it when it’s pointed right back at them. They were called Wally’s for printing something. Imagine what they’d do if they were called something worse? Imagine what sort of press they’d be given if they reported the news without the chocolate suits on?
I like the VNN Network. I wouldn’t have my decoder tuned to the station if I didn’t. I rather like the way they report the news. I think the Chocolates are funny and I think the idea has merit. When I owned this particular rag I used to cop some serious shit for the articles so I understand why they have the suits on and why they report the news under the cover of their fake persona.
But I don’t believe they have a left leg to stand on to ban a person because their opinion doesn’t gel with theirs.
If watching a network means that a vampire must change who they inherently are then what the hell kind of network is that? Is that Nazi propaganda R Us or what? I don’t dislike the VNN. I dislike the fact they are attempting to control how I act by banning me for nothing other than an opinion that differed from theirs.
That’s too bad because the network is quite entertaining and I even like the chocolates, crabby little blighters though they have been. I might actually have to go find myself a new hobby and all because of said opinion. That’s a sad and reasonably pathetic testament to this city and the integrity of its journalism.
This brought to you by Damari. She of the ban-able opinion.
As a once private member-rather writer under an assumed name working for the Nitty Gritty, this isn’t the first time you’ve been banned from a news source. I seem to recall reading after I joined the newspaper that you wished to join the NG but were hesitant about doing so because you were worried about unfair treatment, but contiunally broke the rules that were there for a reason. And we won’t even talk about the spamming of the forum. Eventually those that are trying to work with another will reach their breaking point and say enough is enough. Sounds to me that, for whatever reason, this point has been reached with the Chocolates.
There comes a point in time I think, when one stops being the target of a particular action, and is instead doing things to cause it; whether or not they realise it.
While this is an interesting editorial, perhaps you should look a bit deeper at the cause of said action rather than latching on to the ‘look what they’re doing to me its so unfair’ schtick.
ophelia Lokason NiF’s Eternally
It’s their paper. They own it; it is not a public service. They are not paid, and they do not owe any of us anything. They can ban whomever they want on whatever whim they fancy. It’s not a Hall, where a strict set of rules of conduct must be adhered to, and within those rules, you may act as you please.
In short, yes: having an opinion is good enough reason to ban a person. It’s their playground. Not ours.
Is there a certain unseemly atmosphere that it creates? Perhaps. But one person’s “differing opinion” is another person’s “asshole for asshole’s sake” (Not my words). Who has the right to determine which is which? The chocolatiers. After all, they own it.
~Smilner The Dog of War
PS - I’ve always liked you, Damari. Please note that historically, media outlets jump the shark when they start running stories about other media outlets. The Trib, Stefan’s rag, etc… please don’t go down that road.
I always wondered why people do that. Start off with: “I’ve always liked you” then finale with a “Please note that historically it doesn’t really cushion the barb by saying you first like a person”.
Opinion is exactly as you put it. I have to agree with you but I don’t believe that writing about an action I find unfair to be the beginning of my journalistic end. smile
I didn’t contradict that they can be as despotish as they wish. What I wrote is that I was in opposition to the fact they did it at all. What exactly did I say that was so bad? What was said that warranted such an action? Did I swear at anyone? Did I kill anyone? Did I harm anyone? Did I hurt their fucking feelings? laughs Okay, so I’m a pain in the ass. I guess that’s a good enough reason. But I’d have to say if that’s their reasoning. Then they aren’t worth much and if what debate I did encourage instilled in them such an unbelievable righteous rage then I can only feel sorry that’s the case.
I am only one person and the city will move on quite nicely without my input on the VNN. I just think it very funny that one person put their noses so far out of joint with mere opinion.
It wasn’t me that couldn’t handle their censure. But them that couldn’t handle mine. grin Funnily, I find that quite satisfying regardless whether they allow me another digital decoder or not.
stretches And I like you too Smilner, Dog of War, with no need for a qualifying afterword. _____
Damari ~Silence Raaawrs
We’re not talking about the Nitty Gritty, this is light years away from the Nitty Gritty, the Nitty Gritty is dead. It’s not the same place, the same situation or I dare say the same people is it?
arches eyebrow inquiringly
What I’m talking about is this situation at this moment. I didn’t have such reservations in this network nor have I intimated such on any level. What this editorial highlights is in direct response to an action.
I’ve looked at the cause of such action and as far as I can see they took offense at my opinion about their gossip column, my opinion about their polls and my opinion in general. I can further assume by this action that it is more acceptable to conform than to be an individual because god forbid you have an unpopular opinion.
I know what caused it ophelia. I did.
But my question is. Was what I am so horrible as to warrant such a staggering action? And if individual opinion is to be treated in such a form, then what of the next person or the next who chooses not to act as they term acceptable?
It seems all very shoddy to me. Then again, I am the injured party so it’s unlikely I’m in any way neutral in the matter.
Damari ~Silence Raaawrs