National Archives exhibit blurs images critical of President Trump

[Dead Moose Fandango]

I fail to see why anyone would really need to take a fall (but that depends on what kind of fall you mean), but of course this is just another case of "we did not mean it like that". The usual after fuckups...

Depends if orders came from White House or someone who worked there did it. I mainly meant "Oh, will someone resign over this or will it just be called an error in judgement"

[muto]

Pretty sad that liberals have to make offensive signs with swearing and everything else, and then try to blame Trump for their signs getting censored. Maybe one day they’ll get their sense of decency back.

[I Push Buttons]

I am TOTALLY and COMPLETELY surprised that the people who cry about free speech and censorship in threads where people get banned from twitter for inciting violence, aren't in here complaining about free speech and censorship. TOTALLY surprised they're not here. I am just floored that they have not stormed this thread with outrage!

/s

How do you figure this controversy has anything whatsoever to do with free speech?

[Cthulhu 2020]

are perfectly agreeing with it so long it's actual incitement to violence and not just opinions you dislike or disagree with.

Incorrect, there are always flipping their shit over twitter bans on these forums when someone is a shitbag inciting violence. There was one not too long ago where a poster had a post where they legitimately called for harm to come to people who didn't support Trump and everyone in that thread was like "FREEDOM OF SPEECH VIOLATION! He was only banned because he disagrees with liberals!" They always try to make it about simply disagreeing with their opinion, and they're always wrong.

[eschatological]

How do you figure this controversy has anything whatsoever to do with free speech?

Because this is an actual governmental entity censoring history? When their sole purpose is to preserve American history unadulterated?

[I Push Buttons]

Because this is an actual governmental entity censoring history? When their sole purpose is to preserve American history unadulterated?

1. Again, what does that have to do with free speech? Who's free speech was violated exactly?

2. The image in question isn't a part of the archive, nor was it even part of an exhibit. It was a licensed image used for a promotional poster comparing suffragettes to 'Women's March' participants. Censoring it was absolutely in poor taste, but that has legitimately nothing to do with free speech...

[Orbitus]

Pretty sad that liberals have to make offensive signs with swearing and everything else, and then try to blame Trump for their signs getting censored. Maybe one day they’ll get their sense of decency back.

Yeah, let's be like Republicans and have bad grammar and misspellings, and nooses around effigies of people like Trump, amirite? Get off your high horse. Republicans are OBJECTIVELY worse with their signs because they have shown that they have wanted to kill Obama since he was selected as the nominee.

[s_bushido]

Just FYI, now that they’ve been caught, they’re going to fix it:

https://twitter.com/usnatarchives/st...927906305?s=21

Well, at least that's something.

Basically telling women "hey, we'll respect the historical significance of your struggles so long as you're nice and inoffensive about it"...not really a good look.

[Machismo]

Pretty sad that liberals have to make offensive signs with swearing and everything else, and then try to blame Trump for their signs getting censored. Maybe one day they’ll get their sense of decency back.

I agree, why do Trump and his supporters hate freedom of speech so damn much?

[muto]

I agree, why do Trump and his supporters hate freedom of speech so damn much?

I don’t have a problem with free speech I have a problem with swear words on posters that little kids could see. It’s the same reason people with a sense of decency don’t walk around with shirts that have the f or c word on them.

[Machismo]

I don’t have a problem with free speech I have a problem with swear words on posters that little kids could see. It’s the same reason people with a sense of decency don’t walk around with shirts that have the f or c word on them.

So, a problem with free speech...

I find it that the National Archives actively sought to re-write history.

[Malaky]

Incorrect, there are always flipping their shit over twitter bans on these forums when someone is a shitbag inciting violence.

Not if the person in question was making direct calls for violence.
The main problem is that many on the left conflate disagreement and criticism with violence and abuse, demanding banning for that.

There was one not too long ago where a poster had a post where they legitimately called for harm to come to people who didn't support Trump and everyone in that thread was like "FREEDOM OF SPEECH VIOLATION! He was only banned because he disagrees with liberals!" They always try to make it about simply disagreeing with their opinion, and they're always wrong.

Press [x] for doubt here.
Either you're lying about what that poster actually said, or are intentionally missing mentioning critical information.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Not if the person in question was making direct calls for violence.
The main problem is that many on the left conflate disagreement and criticism with violence and abuse, demanding banning for that.



Press [x] for doubt here.
Either you're lying about what that poster actually said, or are intentionally missing mentioning critical information.

Not really, they either break some kind of fundamental common sense rule when they get banned from twitter, or they break platform specific rules. The left isn't conflating anything. Prominent fringe left wingers have gotten banned from social media platforms too for breaking the rules. You know what happens? Nobody mentions it. When some prominent right winger gets banned, it's on every single right wing click bait outrage video blog that the alt-right thinks is "news" these days. They always call it "The story the main stream media won't tell you!" That's one of the biggest clickbaits pieces of trash that the alt-right is utilizing these days. Just mention how the main stream media is lying or being biased and get millions of clicks.

And that's the entire thing. Someone breaks the rules, they get banned. When it's some right winger, the usual sites pump out outrage stories, and everyone on the alt-right is suddenly convinced they're victims, that social media is coming to get them simply for their beliefs. It makes them fearful and paranoid and distrustful of what is effectively polite society. Just convince every gullible schmuck out there who guzzles Trump goop that the left and society is out to get you. It's ironic, after all these years of the alt-right making fun of the left for being snowflakes with a victim complex, it turns out they were projecting.

But as you can see, none of those people, absolutely none of them, after crying about freedom of speech and censorship, are in here complaining an ounce about the national archives censoring stuff. I've seen a couple of "Huh, I can understand why they'd blur out naughty bits, but I dunno why they blurred out trump's name..." But deep down, we all know why, Trump is the biggest snowflake with the biggest victim complex.

[s_bushido]

It's ironic, after all these years of the alt-right making fun of the left for being snowflakes with a victim complex, it turns out they were projecting.

Well, to be fair, it's not just the alt-right. The religious right in the US loves playing the part of the persecuted victim. It was happening long before there was anything "alt" about it.



And to be fair to them...everyone kinda feels that way. The main difference is the lengths a person/group will go to make sure everyone else knows about it.

[Breccia]

I agree, why do Trump and his supporters hate freedom of speech so damn much?

Also, there are parts of US society which are flat-out offensive. We murdered Native Americans and owned slaves. Are those blurred out, too?

No?

Then why blur out the "Trump" in "God Hates Trump"? It seems like "the signs were offensive" is a lame-ass limp-dick IMPOTUS defense, an attempt to deflect from intentional government censorship.

[Powerogue]

Pretty sad that liberals have to make offensive signs with swearing and everything else, and then try to blame Trump for their signs getting censored. Maybe one day they’ll get their sense of decency back.

The word being censored was TRUMP.

When you've become such a horrendous human being that it's decided your name has to be blotted from the history books, you've done something wrong.

[Drutt]

*snip* “As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the President’s name on some posters, so as not to engage in current political controversy...” *snip*

This is absolute nonsense. By censoring it, they're inherently taking sides because they're altering the message from what was said in reality. That amounts to a changing of the facts, which is absolutely injecting bias.

You don't get to do that and then claim to be non-partisan or non-political. That's the very essence of a partisan political move.

[Masark]

The word being censored was TRUMP.

When you've become such a horrendous human being that it's decided your name has to be blotted from the history books, you've done something wrong.

Are we gonna have to call the cards "major arcana"?

[AeneasBK]

I can see why they would blur out certain female body parts and mentions on signs. No need to have your six year old ask you about those types of things. There shouldn't be any point to blurring out mentions of Trump though.

Yep, but really though, wtf lol.

[Martymark]

Conflating the suffragettes with the "women's march against nothing" was their first mistake.
It would be like putting an image of the founding fathers that turns into a MAGA rally in the national archive.
It would be dumb and political.