Patterico's Pontifications

6/29/2015

PennLive Editor Is Rebuked For Censorship, But Continues To Deny That Is What He Meant When He Said “As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage. These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic”

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:13 am

[guest post by Dana]

Tucker Carlson called out PennLive editor, John Micek, who announced his decision to censor commentators from speaking out against gay marriage in the news outlet’s op-ed pages. The pages where people typically, opine.

In spite of Micek doubling down on his claims that he was just attempting to promote “civil” discourse, Carlson was relentless:

“You made it pretty clear. You have contempt for people who disagree with your views,” Carlson said. “You consider them bigots and you don’t think that they ought to be able to express those views because they’re illegitimate. That was clear.”

“No, not at all,” Micek said. “What we were trying to do — and perhaps we missed a little in the execution — was to try to create a space for civil discussion in the pages of Pennlive, while allowing reasonable and intelligent debate on the issue. I fully recognize that people of good will and deeply held conviction are going to differ with the high court on this decision, but our intent, I think, and we might have missed this initially, was to create a space for civil discussion.”

“Civil discussion, really?” Carlson snapped. “What’s civil about describing people who disagree with you as bigots, comparing them to anti-Semites and racists? That’s the opposite of civil.”

“I think there actually might be a context problem there,” Micek said. “I was trying to create a space between people of good will and, again, intelligence who want to debate the issue, and those who may come at it with invective.”

Carlson had the last word in the matter:

“With all respect, I thought your first statement was crystal clear. I thought it was the opposite of what you’re saying now. I think it’s really clear you have contempt for people who disagree and that you don’t want to hear their voices, and so if you sincerely changed your view in that, I congratulate that, but I thought it was very revealing.”

“We’ll have to agree to disagree with my views,” Micek said.

“Yeah, I find them abhorrent,” Carlson concluded.

Video at the link.

–Dana

76 Responses to “PennLive Editor Is Rebuked For Censorship, But Continues To Deny That Is What He Meant When He Said “As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage. These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic””

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Glad he was not around for the Dred Scott ruling!!! Moreover, I guess that means no questioning Citizens United nor Heller v DC. But I suspect he has a different filter for these comments.

    Anyway, sheesh, what a totalitarian douche bag. As I said, until the powerful really fear for their lives, this types of shit happens more and more everyday!!! Brazen, Hypocritical, Dishonest. So long as they can, they will.

    I will say a prayer for my country.

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  3. A: why is that editors can’t stop digging?
    B: the equating of antisemitism to racism and sexism is puzzling.
    C: what is the PennLive definition of ‘sexist’?

    The original letter to the public is quite revealing , the followup has shown the man is lacking in integrity and is in over his head as a newspaper editor.

    seeRpea (0cf003)

  4. Greetings:

    Yoda twittered, “Protecting the precious snowflakes, he was.”

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  5. ProTIP for Mr. Micek:

    No amount of claiming that you didn’t say what you said will make anyone fail to notice how very meticulously you’ve polished your jackboots.

    Just sayin’.

    PCachu (5376c0)

  6. Micek is a flat out liar.

    JD (4fe211)

  7. We need to create a space for those who wish to creat a space for creating spaces.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  8. I’d like to create a space for my size 14 Wolverine up Micek’s keister…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  9. if progs continue
    to mince up to the high ground
    what then must we do?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  10. OT, for people who know more about such internet things:
    http://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-search-practices-come-under-scrutiny-from-leading-academic-wu/?tag=nl.e539&s_cid=e539&ttag=e539&ftag=TRE17cfd61

    I don’t understand the algorithms, and I’ve never taken a course in searching the internet, but it seems when I ask for “XYZ corp homepage”, I don’t get what I want as quickly as I think I should.

    There does need to be a major non-google search engine. I would pay for one to know it did not list results on basis of preferences.

    MD (Really!!) not in Philly (522abd)

  11. I mean, Google could make it look like there are no opponents to SSM except raving lunatics.

    MD (Really!!) not in Philly (522abd)

  12. Yeah, Google is gayer than Anthony Kennedy at a biker bar.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. You spent the weekend complaining that the Left likes to ignore the plain meaning of a text, and now you are surprised a Leftie ignores the plain meaning of a text

    NB Dana….I think understand the point you want to make using that quote in the headline but may I respectfully suggest it’s a little too cumbersome?

    kishnevi (870883)

  14. Micek needs to learn the first rule of holes: Stop digging.

    Micek’s boss needs to put him on a leash, and then issue a clear, unequivocal statement of the paper’s position on the issue.

    Will either actually happen? Doubt it…

    Rusty Bill (ad1f26)

  15. seeRpea

    Read Mencken’s accounts of newspaper work, both those published while he live and the later ones. It’s clear that the typical Liberal Intellectual Twit would be in over his head editing anything weightier than a Garden Club Newsletter.

    C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd)

  16. It’s pretty consistent; the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive Left has a longstanding pattern of standing forth with proud banners, and then backpedaling furiously when they discover that their position isn’t universally loved. Look at all the whining they did about being called Commies during the ’50’s and ’60’s. They couldn’t actually deny that they WERE Communists, either actual party members or active cheerleaders, but if it was a label of opprobrium, don’t you DAST call them that.

    Piffle.

    Listen, you LIRP idiots; your arrogance and stupidity ensure that any cause you espouse is tainted with our well earned contempt for YOU.

    C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd)

  17. Creating a safe space for civil discussion by banning opposition.

    JD (3b5483)

  18. 16.Creating a safe space for civil discussion by banning opposition.

    They learn from the best:

    VIENNA—Officials with the Department of State threatened to call security Monday on a Washington Free Beacon reporter who was attempting to report on a briefing held by senior Obama administration figures in Vienna on the eve of an expected nuclear agreement with Iran.

    Two State Department officials booted the Free Beacon from a room where Wendy Sherman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, was talking to reporters, despite the Free Beacon’s being credentialed by the Austrian government for the ongoing Iranian nuclear talks.

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/state-department-ejects-free-beacon-reporter-from-briefing/

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  19. It has been my experience that people of the “progressive” persuasion have an almost pathological inability to recognize their own hypocrisy, much less admit when they are wrong. Thus the cognitive dissonance of witnessing them constantly demonizing and attempting to ban or censor those they disagree with under the pretense of diversity and tolerance.

    Damselfly (257fde)

  20. Kishnevi,

    I don’t disagree. I went back and forth but felt it encapsulates what we lovers of free speech are up against in case the post isn’t read. I just really want word to get out. Aesthetically, it’s a stinker.

    Dana (d85ff0)

  21. It stinks because they are lying fascists. Not because of you.

    JD (0eecb0)

  22. well yes, but he’s not really that smart, or he wouldn’t have pulled the curtains away,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  23. Its over homophobes. The supreme court did to you what you did to mathew sheppard and countless others. Move to turkey biggots!

    homophobes lose again (c0c184)

  24. I see Perry did not take his meds again.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  25. The argument is closed. The Supreme Court has spoken ex cathedra.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  26. I think he’s one of the few that subscribes to Penn Live,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  27. #22 I don’t get it. So in your world, I am a gay man who is murdered by the Supreme Court, who is a strung-out meth addict ex-lover who robbed me after luring me with the promise of sex for meth? Or am I the strung-out meth addict ex-lover who killed Matthew Sheppard? Please explain it once you get your meds worked out.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  28. Are biggots sort of like nuggets, only bigger? But why would you want to make turkey nuggets bigger? I think they’re the perfect size now.

    Oh, and you think we all shocked Matthew Sheppard by deliberately reading words into a text that didn’t contain them? What text was that? Drug Dealing for Dummies?

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  29. Truly a deranged mind.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  30. “Sure, Micek called people who disagreed with him bigots and racists, but he says he intended otherwise, so it’s okay.”
    –Chief Justice Roberts

    tops116 (d094f8)

  31. As my newsfeed turned into an explosion of rainbows over the weekend, it became really clear to me why people think that believers in traditional marriage are bigots: they are silent, or they fear too much retribution to speak out. They speak out at the ballot box, often in great numbers (state constitutional bans against SSM trumped state-enacted SSM by about a 6-1 margin – a complete shellacking), but are silent in everyday life.

    I suspect that our new overlords know this and want to set up “safe spaces” wherein all “discussion” of the issue can be the type of socially-acceptable discussion, not the type that might lead people to think of their opponents as reasonable, loving people who care about their gay friends but simply do not think that union ought to be called “marriage.” Now that the deafening, echoing boom at the ballot box has been silenced by the Supreme Court’s declaration that this issue may not be voted on, the Left wants normal speech silenced, too.

    bridget (248d93)

  32. Well said, bridget. Do you blog or comment at other places? I appreciate what you have to say but I don’t see it as much here as I would like.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  33. Dana – I am going to do a follow up post on this tomorrow. I don’t want to let this lying fascist off the hook.

    JD (3b5483)

  34. Narcisco / the email the author link doesn’t work. They have a broken or non-existent email address in their link.

    JD (3b5483)

  35. maybe they are doing that on purpose, nudge, nudge,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  36. Is this the contact info you used, JD?

    Opinion Editor John L. Micek can be reached by e-mail at jmicek@pennlive.com. You can also follow him on Twitter at @ByJohnLMicek.

    Or this one:

    How it works: Email submissions to letters@pennlive.com or complete the form below. No more than 250 words. You must include your real name, address and day time phone number. If we decide to run your letter, we’ll call you first to verify. If you don’t hear from us, we aren’t using your letter. We get more letters than we know what to do with some days. If you don’t have access to a computer, mail your piece to PennLive, 2020 Technology Parkway, Mechanicsburg, Pa., 17050.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  37. By the way, I have a guess what they do with all those letters they don’t know what to do with.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  38. DRJ -‘I hit the email the author link at the top.

    JD (3b5483)

  39. Speech will be controlled one way or another, because it must be. The more that hot button issues like gay marriage are in front of American voters, and there will be more during this transforming of our country, hence there will be more efforts made to control opposition. It’s good to bear in mind it is fear that drives the oppression. That knowledge is what should be giving the right strength and the power to overcome. Of course, with the sad group of Republicans in office, it’s hard to gain traction or support. However, throughout history the “every man” has had to push back against rulers and tyrants. We are here because of them. So I guess, no excuses.

    Dana (d85ff0)

  40. JD @ 21 and 32,

    Thanks for both. I’m at the ocean and unable to follow up on his response to this schooling…

    Dana (d85ff0)

  41. Its over homophobes. The supreme court did to you what you did to mathew sheppard and countless others. Move to turkey big gots!

    homophobes lose again (c0c184) — 6/29/2015 @ 1:25 pm

    lol… on set of dementia…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  42. It’s really quite an accomplishment to be able to spell “homophobe” but completely fail when it’s time to type “bigot”.

    PCachu (5376c0)

  43. Dear Sir, You Cur; cancel my subscription,refund my money, and darken my door no more.

    Sam L. (302d88)

  44. cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
    Send my credentials to teh House of Detention

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  45. Well words don’t mean things anymore, so no problemo

    Mike S. (f5d617)

  46. == I’m at the ocean and unable to follow up==

    Ocean dropper. You Calis take every opportunity to rub it in, don’t you? :)

    elissa (dcd9c2)

  47. We have Michigan Ocean and we can drink ours, elissa. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  48. “I’m at the ocean and unable to follow up.”

    What’s all this then?!?! I say, who talks like that?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  49. Out here we say, “I’m hangin’ ten and ain’t got the time, ‘bra…”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  50. It has been my experience that people of the “progressive” persuasion have an almost pathological inability to recognize their own hypocrisy, much less admit when they are wrong.

    I have a hunch that John Micek is the type who professes to being so tolerant, open-minded, fair-minded, generous, compassionate and sophisticated about racial and sexual matters, yet — when no one is looking — will avoid being a resident of truly “diverse” neighborhoods (say, where aroulnd 70% of the people around him will be black), would never allow his precious children to attend schools where only around, say, 5% of the other students were white (and the rest were sort of like Obama’s sons if he had a son), and most certainly would never tell his son, “hey, Johnny, if you think that guy in your high school history class is hot-looking, why don’t you ask him out on a date?!”

    When push comes to shove, most folks on the left –probably including Micek too — fit nicely in the category of “limousine liberal.”

    Mark (a11af2)

  51. R.I.P. comedian Jack Carter (remember him?)

    Icy (9d419e)

  52. Elissa,

    Look, when you’ve got the psycho government we do , all we can do is look west to the Pacific to remind ourselves, yes, this is why California. Sis lives at the beach. I try not to be the eternal houseguest…. I didn’t have access to computer to post was my point. Not ocean dropping!

    Dana (d85ff0)

  53. So when SLAVERY and NON-SUFFRAGE for WYMYN were both this “LAW OF THE LAND”. Was DISSENT allowed?? How about CITIZENS UNITED?? Didn’t His Trajesty Oblahblah PONTIFICATE against it, directly and didn’t he direct his IRE at the SCOTUS during the STATE of the UNION.
    Ladies and Gentlemen, how many of you are still completely IGNORANT and CLUELESS as to what we are up against. We need not play NICE any longer. THEY DON’T.

    Gus (7cc192)

  54. bridget (248d93) — 6/29/2015 @ 2:18 pm

    They do the Alinsky on people like they did on Eich*.

    It is a battle and war for them. When a target appears, amass an overwhelming force and obliterate it.
    I think the comment, via the EPA, was “do like the Romans, enter a town, crucify a few to make the others fear”.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/26/epa-official-not-only-touted-crucifying-oil-companies-he-tried-it/

    *When I put “Eich” into my google search, it does not offer up said person as a likely search topic.
    Imagine that.
    I may not need a foil hat, but maybe I need a foil interface with my Internet.

    has anyone yet written a book where a “Google-like” entity deliberately helps manipulate people and take over the world? Would it get ignored or SLAPPED silly?

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  55. Too bad Pinky and the Brain was pre-Google.
    maybe a remake of the Monkees episode with the eye staring out of the telly…

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  56. Well said, bridget. Do you blog or comment at other places? I appreciate what you have to say but I don’t see it as much here as I would like.

    Thank you, DRJ. One of my friends dragged me over to Ricochet, where I comment occasionally. I’ve published a few things in the spring – one even made it into the NRO – but my own blog has fallen into disuse over the last (rather busy) year.

    Hopefully, a calmer summer will leave me some more time to read, process, and write – and comment at Patterico’s!

    bridget (248d93)

  57. We shouldn’t be surprised by people like this Micek idiot. If you listened carefully to Obama in 2008, and the people who supported him, when their Messiah talked about bringing the country together (no red states, no blue states) everyone understood what he was talking about.

    He was talking about the unity of a one party state.

    And for the totalitarian left, that’s nirvana.

    Also, it’s quite clear from the tone they’ve adopted that there is no higher moral authority than government. They’ve been talking about stripping churches of their tax exempt status for years. Which of course means destroying churches. They rely on donations. A lot of them, especially in pricey urban areas, couldn’t afford to pay their property taxes now. It would be worse if people couldn’t deduct their donations.

    But that’s the point. I’ve actually read some of the recent articles advocating stripping churches of their tax exempt status, and one author actually came out and called government the most important church there is. Others were not far from declaring that. For them the state is the ultimate source of moral authority. This is why Kennedy’s opinion talked about how important it was for the SCOTUS to confer “dignity” on same sex unions. The totalitarian progressive left cultural Marxists think government has that power.

    Which is why they’re hysterically demanding everyone else shut up or be attacked by they thought police. To them, anyone who isn’t swayed by this insane ruling isn’t just dissenting. They’re committing heresy.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/30/was-i-wrong-to-support-gay-marriage/

    Was I Wrong To Support Gay Marriage?

    The answer to that question, David Harsanyi, is yes. This was never about freedom or rights. The left tipped their hand in 2012 with their slogan at their convention (actually they tipped their hand long ago, but by 2012 it was beyond obvious). In fact, Harsany quotes one of the authors I was referring to:

    Do a majority of Americans support gay marriage because they have a desire to see civil society overtaken by the administrative state? Because it only took a few hours after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision for Time to publish a piece by New York Times columnist Mark Oppenheimer suggesting government shouldn’t be “subsidizing” religion or non-profits at all. The point, of course, is to punish churches for being a bunch of intolerant nits who are holding up progress. The word “subsidize” suggests that parishioners are receiving checks from taxpayers when, of course, what Oppenheimer really means to say is that these silly people are handing money to reactionary institutions rather than the most progressive church of all:

    The money would be better used for the collective needs most important church of all. We’d have fewer church soup kitchens — but countries that truly care about poverty don’t rely on churches to run soup kitchens.

    That statement about “Government is just another word for what we all do together” was meant to be prescriptive. This is part of their plan to make that statement true.

    The state religion is mandatory.

    Steve57 (4c9797)

  58. They’ve been talking about stripping churches of their tax exempt status for years. Which of course means destroying churches. They rely on donations. A lot of them, especially in pricey urban areas, couldn’t afford to pay their property taxes now. It would be worse if people couldn’t deduct their donations.

    Um, tax exemption and tax deductibility of donations are two mostly-unrelated matters.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  59. MD? https://www.google.com/#q=eich It’s first on my Google search.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. unpersons are so problematic sometimes,

    http://minx.cc:1080/?post=357604

    narciso (ee1f88)

  61. What I meant, nk, is Google likes to help you complete your query, so as soon as you put in ei you get possibilities,
    when you have eich in the box, it doesn’t offer any help at all.
    Yes, it is not so obvious as to not let you search for him, it is quite happy to send you straight to the wikipedia account of his life when you make it clear you really want it.

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  62. Milhouse @59, if you read what I read in context you’ll see I was talking about tax exempt status for churches and people being able to take charity deductions for donations as two separate things.

    Otherwise losing the latter wouldn’t compound the problems of losing the former.

    The next logical step, after stripping churches of their tax exempt status, would be to declare that religious institutions that don’t toe the line on SSM no longer qualify as charities.

    Not like the the left wouldn’t want to get rid of the charitable deduction entirely.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/18/opinion/la-oe-shakely-deduction-20111218

    It’s time to write off the charitable-giving tax deduction

    Steve57 (4c9797)

  63. narciso, but editors

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  64. Google is obviously female. It jumps in to correct you and complete your sentence for you.

    nk (dbc370)

  65. it’s always interesting what they left in the memory hole, and what they put in”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brendan_Eich

    narciso (ee1f88)

  66. Good news. The war against marriage continues apace.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-ethics-council-calls-for-incest-between-siblings-to-be-legalised-by-government-9753506.html

    …Sexual relations between siblings or between parents and their children are forbidden under section 173 of the German criminal code and offenders can face years in prison.

    But on Wednesday, the German Ethics Council recommended the section be repealed, arguing that the risk of disability in children is not enough to warrant the law and de-criminalising incest would not remove the huge social taboo around it.

    The chairman of the council, Christiane Woopen, was among the 14 members voting in favour of repealing section 173, while nine people voted for the ban to continue and two abstained.

    A statement released on Wednesday said: “Incest between siblings appears to be very rare in Western societies according to the available data but those affected describe how difficult their situation is in light of the threat of punishment.

    “They feel their fundamental freedoms have been violated and are forced into secrecy or to deny their love…

    I enjoyed the part about how decriminalizing incest wouldn’t remove the social taboo against it. Anybody who would say that hasn’t been paying attention to the process of the legalization of SSM.

    Especially when it’s followed by the exact same appeal to sentiment that worked so well for the SSM advocates, i.e. having to “live a lie” BS.

    So I think in the near future you can chalk up another victory for the #LoveWins crowd. And a defeat for the family, marriage, and self-government.

    Steve57 (4c9797)

  67. Do they think we are fools, or are they just doing it for spite, knowing that there is little we can do about it?

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  68. This is insanity Steve57. Thee leftists perverts are making Sodom and Gomorrah look like Six Flags.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  69. well class room management techniques, snorfle, most arose in Germany, and other European enclaves,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  70. Steve @66, if it was good enough for the Pharoahs, it is good enough for Ms.Woopen.
    Did you ever read Hotel New Hampshire?

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  71. but you know, there was nothing to the emails, micek would say:

    https://twitter.com/irishspy

    narciso (ee1f88)

  72. Read it? No, I saw the movie.

    Now I’m living it.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/30/polyamory-is-next-and-im-one-reason-why/

    Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why

    Here’s how libertarianism has led me and my partner into polyamory, and why America will have to grapple with this issue next.

    Now that marriage is no longer defined as between a man and a woman, there is no longer any reason why the definition of marriage should involve the number two, and no longer any reason any of the rest of the old definition should survive. Such as the word monogamous having anything to do with it.

    In fact, I’ve got a ton of quotes from SSM advocates (straight and gay) saying that was one of their goals. Gay marriages, by and large, simply aren’t monogamous.

    In other words, the institution Kennedy described in his ruling:

    “No union is more profound than marriage,” Kennedy wrote, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.

    “From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations,” Kennedy wrote.

    By redefining marriage, he just destroyed everything he claimed made it important.

    Steve57 (4c9797)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6941 secs.