Just to let everyone know self-described "free speech" advocate Matt Jerzyk is now blocking my IP from posting. The wonders of the "humanists"!

I don't particulary agree with RI Future, but how is it that Ann Coulter can call for the assasination of Lincoln Chaffee, what's-his-name Savage can say that all gays should get AIDS and die, and Rush can repeatedly call Hillary Clinton a murderer--

And the are the ones engaged in public assasination?

Can you please explain that one?

It's important to remember that 'free speech', while designed to protect unpopular speech, is a grand thing, it really has little or nothing to do with this conversation, just like it didn't in Imus' situation.

These men were/are employees of profit-generating companies with shareholders to answer to. They are entitled to no blanket protection under the First Amendment. Unless it is specifically spelled out in their contracts that they can say virtually anything (as it seems that Imus' may have been) they are subject to the whims of the company heads. If Citadel Broadcasting decides to take action against Dan for violating his contract then they are within their rights to do so.

While I am a regular Yorke listener, and I know that everybody KNOWS that Scott is gay, his actions are just tacky. I don't think they ride to the level of firing. But they are tacky.

I'm a conservative who opposes gay marriage, thus making me a "bigot" in the eyes of many liberals. I'm also a Warwick resident who was well aware that the Mayor
was gay long before I cast a vote for him in the last election.

Hey Mike,

I have definitely NOT blocked your IP address from posting. If you are getting a "spam block" message it should also provide you directions about how to fix it so that my spam blocker doesn't exlude you.

Please, blog away as much as you want. Don't let me stop you!

Oh, and Justin, it's not about the political poison of being gay or not being gay.

Clearly Mayor Cicilline - as the Democratic official with the highest statewide job approval rating - proves that wrong.

It's about having the privacy to make those decisions for yourself and not have someone using the public airwaves to postulate theories on your sexuality.

If I ran a series of posts about my thoughts on your sexuality, how would you react?

I suppose I'd think it peculiar that you cared so much, and I'd publicly speculate about your motives. I'd likely correct, deny, or confirm your assertions. If they were patently libelous and unsubstantiated, I might persue legal action.

Is that it? Do you believe open homosexuality to be so horrible that matter-of-fact statements about it are libel/slander?

Hey Mike,

I have definitely NOT blocked your IP address from posting. If you are getting a "spam block" message it should also provide you directions about how to fix it so that my spam blocker doesn't exlude you.

Please, blog away as much as you want. Don't let me stop you!

Posted by Matt Jerzyk at May 11, 2007 2:02 PM
XX
Ok. I will try to solve that tommorow.

After the saber rattling and machismo he threw up at Thursday's marriage bills hearing, let's ask Leo Blais whether he would support an Avedesian run for higher office next year, just for S's and G's.

Interesting assumption, Rhody. So either you're taking for given that opposition to same-sex marriage is proof positive of irrational bias against homosexuals or you're implying that homosexual candidates can't do otherwise than support SSM. The former would suggest a lack of empathy and imagination on your part — mixed with an unwillingness to believe anything that such people state in their arguments.

The latter raises a curious point when turned around: if homosexuality is a reliable predictor of politicians' positions on issues of importance, then it would seem to be a valid matter of interest for the electorate. Are you saying that it is beyond the pale to out politicians because they ought to be free to assume office without their likely votes being known?

Justin,

You have correctly pinned the hypocrisy tail on the Matt Jerzyk donkey.
What's so obvious to all is how hyperventilating Jerzyk and his fellow whiners of tolerance for lefties only want Yorke silenced because of his politics. They could care less about Scott Avedisian. Scott's just a pawn in their attempt to 'Imus' Dan Yorke. Everyone sees the motives here. So weak and hypocritical.

I just wonder is this is all a backlash related to the ousting of Imus. Look at the run Romney is getting this week for his pugnacious response to Sharpton's remarks about the Mormon faith.
I have no love for any of that trio. But when you force someone off the air because of their views, you're opening a huge can of worms - maybe we're better off having both Imus and Sharpton available to ridicule.
Although Yorke deserves all the criticism he's getting, I think Matt goes too far in demanding he get booted off their air. Hosts to the left of Yorke (are there any left in Rhode Island?) will suffer as a result of the backlash a Yorke firing will create - I don't want to see Yorke praised as a free speech martyr like Imus is right now.

Hey Mike,

I have definitely NOT blocked your IP address from posting. If you are getting a "spam block" message it should also provide you directions about how to fix it so that my spam blocker doesn't exlude you.

Please, blog away as much as you want. Don't let me stop you!

Posted by Matt Jerzyk at May 11, 2007 2:02 PM
XXX
I have sent you 2 emails and I am still being blocked by the following language wnen I hit "Post"-"Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.
You may want to contact the blog admin via e-mail to notify him."

Mike,

Are you the one who spooked Jerzyk? He removed the entire Yorke thread from him blog. lol If so good job!

Mike,

Are you the one who spooked Jerzyk? He removed the entire Yorke thread from him blog. lol If so good job
XX
Yes, I am the one who had the comment deleted and am now banned from posting. I have received some return communication from Matt and his webmaster that the blocking was accidental and they would remove it. To date this has NOT happened but I will post further updates here.
As an anti-war, anti-police state libertarian I think my posts show more of a "pox on both houses" mentality than many of the "Bush is great, the war is great, the Patriot Act is great, torture and Guantanamo are great, searches without warrants are great" Republican posters who have NOT been banned from RI Future. While my posts are resolutely anti illegal aliens and mercilessly critical of the vampire-like public-employee unions who are driving the state towards default, my posts have been more reasond than many others not banned. For instance, a poster called IDIOT CONSERVATIVE has called for the forced sterilization of all Republicans and Christians. Another poster, called WOW has expressed great joy at the burning alive of Christian children in Waco and stated that Reno should have commited this holocaust sooner than she did.