We read:
"A controversial blog written by a member of the Hoboken Zoning Board has ignited a debate over hate speech and free speech.
Monday evening’s City Council meeting featured an emotional moment for some City Council members when Lane Bajardi, a frequent critic of the administration of Mayor Dawn Zimmer, displayed an image put forth on the personal blog of Zoning Board member Nancy Pincus, a Zimmer ally. Pincus, whose controversial blog often takes aim at Zimmer foes, posted an image of Councilwoman Beth Mason superimposed on an altered poster of the 1935 Nazi propaganda film Triumph des Willens, or Triumph of the Will. Mason is Jewish, and so is Pincus. The picture was altered to read: Triumph des Shillens, or "Triumph of the Shill." The post was related to a recent heated council election in the 4th Ward.
While the Hoboken blog scene during election season can be less than civil at times, some feel the image crossed a line.
“There are certain topics which should never be used for ammunition,” Bajardi said on Monday. “Nazi Germany and the Holocaust should be among them.”
Source
But calling George Bush a Nazi was fine, of course.
5 comments:
Here we go again. They are drawing attention away from the real issue: Personal activities outside of work, be it private, public, or government work. The content of a personal blog has absolutely no place or relevance in the work environment.
-sig
No one loses their 1st Amendment rights when they become a public servant - with the possible exception of members of the Armed Forces who must out of respect for the Chain of Command curtail some of their speech.
If someone believes there is a "right not to be offended" then maybe they should move to a country that protects such rights.
I have no problems with Jews being upset at mention of the Holocaust, just like I have no problem with the Cavalry being upset at the mention of Little Big Horn, Christians the Coloseum, Australian Aborigines Tasmania, or Texans the Alamo.
What no-one has the right to do is declare any topic off-limits and stifle speech simply because they find something upsetting.
Anon 6:21, of all the examples you listed, which ones whine as much as jews about the past simply to get sympathy and preferential treatmant? In fact, which ones whine at all?
It's rather dishonest to claim vicarious sympathy for what others may have suffered (or assuming pride for what others may have achieved) just because of claiming some link to them on the grounds of having the same nationality, race or religion, etc.
Post a Comment