Point/Counter Point: Censorship

Hello, I'm Ted Chopel. In this installment of Point/Counter Point we'll be bringing in a guest debater (dare I call him a master?), Colonel Dutch Mustard to address the Counter Point, why censorship is not acceptable in an America founded on freedom of speech and a strong desire to flip-off the royals. Dutchy, as his friends call him, has recently had a blog comment removed for inappropriate and offensive content.

Opposing him is our own Uncle Jimbo with his views on why censorship is sometimes a necessary evil in modern America where pornography, violence, and the inane ramblings of Hollywood personalities and make-believe personae are so readily accessible
to small children and the below-average American. Uncle Jimbo was the blog admin responsible for removing said comment.

Uncle Jimbo, it's your blog, you have the floor.

Thank you Ted. Let me start by saying that the decision to remove Colonel Mustard's post was not made easily. This is after all a free country and I strongly support the idea of freedom of speech. However I do have two general rules with which I will censor the comments and posting on this blog, and should these rules be broken I will undoubtedly be forced to remove the offensive content.

Rule 1.
Potentially offensive material will not be censored assuming it A) makes a point, B) is somewhat amusing, and C) doesn't suck (and there's the rub).

I'm not opposed to risque content, but it's got to have some redeeming value. Even this last sentence borders on inappropriate content since I had to resort to using a French word to make my point.

Rule 2.
I decide whether something makes a point, is amusing, and doesn't suck.

This rule is similar to my controversial view on improving the quality of life through mandatory sterilization of stupid people. In my thesis paper on the subject, I state simply:

"Stupid is defined as anyone not passing the Am I Worthy of Procreating
test. This test is designed, delivered, and graded by me. Period, no exceptions. Everyone lineup, single file."

Applying these rules to the recent post by Colonel Mustard I can only say, in terms even Dutch can understand, that the post stalled at the starting line. Yee-haw.

You're Counter Point Colonel?

Uncle Jimbo you ignorant slut. Firstly, I was told there would be some of them Crispee Creme Donuts here and there ain't. I was asked here under false pretenses. So I am a little #$%!@# angry. Secondly, my friends never call me "Dutchy". I don't know where you got that from. They call me "Colonel" or "Turdy"...but you ain't my friend so you and Uncle Jimbo can call me "Mister Mustard" or "Colonel".

Fourthly, why are we debating free speach here? Uncle Jimbo has made it clear by his "rules" that this forum is monitored and governed by standards he has created and not the standards of our Great Land (that we will call "This Land"). However, even if one considers Roth vs. United States (1957), the Supreme Court of This Land ruled that obcene language was not, in fact, covered by the 1st Amendment. So, even if we pretend the Supreme Court has been consistent since then (see Free Speech Coalition vs. Reno, 1999) you can understand that Uncle Jimbo would still be within his rights to remove my post from his blog.

My question is, in this instance was he right to do so or did he exercise poor judgment. The answer is clearly the ladder. Uncle Jimbo posted no guidelines or rules ahead of time and only started applying rules when I started uncovering his childhood traumas. So instead of enjoying the free therapy he censored me.

[Editors Note: The remaining comments from Mr. Mustard have been censored for no good reason.]