Illicit, eh. How quickly the word is used by people who have no understanding of it.
It seems in the article she quickly bowed to pressure from other people before understanding what the issue was to begin with. Her decision, which at best was reckless, speaks volumes of the influence of people who probably threatened her with some sort monolithic condemnation if she did nothing about it.
Did anyone who helped black-out the photo realize what they were doing was censorship at best, but just plain wrong morally?
And her comment that she now wants to meet the guy because he was “was personally hurt,” by this and that “bothers” her seems only to placate what should be a coming storm. I hear the sound of backpedaling.
Beep, beep.
(And they should reprint the books with the unaltered photo her expense).
It seems in the article she quickly bowed to pressure from other people before understanding what the issue was to begin with. Her decision, which at best was reckless, speaks volumes of the influence of people who probably threatened her with some sort monolithic condemnation if she did nothing about it.
Did anyone who helped black-out the photo realize what they were doing was censorship at best, but just plain wrong morally?
And her comment that she now wants to meet the guy because he was “was personally hurt,” by this and that “bothers” her seems only to placate what should be a coming storm. I hear the sound of backpedaling.
Beep, beep.
(And they should reprint the books with the unaltered photo her expense).
No comments:
Post a Comment