Frank Zappa on Crossfire

I don't have a platitude for why we need to defend speech. My only argument has ever been that my icky speech today is your essential speech tomorrow. By the time you think something needs to be censored is beyond the line of where you could still rationally discuss the idea. If you think the government should suppress an idea the only reason must be that you personally cannot reasonably consider the concept. Banning a subject because you cannot fathom talking about it means you must be willing to impose your internal and personal morals on others, by force if necessary. [VIDEO]

On the contrary, anything unscientific is great. I am a musician myself and I find proof based scientific discussions very claustrophobic at times. All I am trying to say is, in this case, the article is a bunch of opinion from a Jazz musician about fellow Jazz musicians and bands. How does this fit in with other HN threads? I would say that something like Frank Zappa on censorship [1] [2] is much more suited to HN discussion than this link. [1] [LINK] [2] [VIDEO]

The article has a very interesting statement: > A website is speech. It is not a bomb. There is no imminent danger it creates and no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of speech a site may contain. Replace website with song and provider with record label , and you'll have a very familiar conversation from nearly 30 years ago: Frank Zappa on Crossfire, [VIDEO] The comparison is loose, but it's eerily reminiscent.

A conference I can't hear dick jokes at is a conference I don't want to attend. I'll just leave this here: [VIDEO]