I am failing to see the big deal about Cho.

[redqueen]

"We want this event to be about the unity of the gay community," said group spokesman Mark Shields. "Margaret's people made very clear that they had material that was not in that vein and we didn't want to censor her, so we just made other plans."

So... from what it sounds like... is they declined to have her on because her routine conflicted with the spirit of the event... anyone have any info that contradicts this?

[NMDemDist2]

1. maybe they thought

(like i do) that Cho isn't funny

they'd laugh harder with Paul Rodriguez

[uhhuh]

3. Oooohh Yeah!

Paul Rodriguez! He fits right in!

How about Larry, the cable Guy?

[uhhuh]

2. I see

"we didn't want to censor her, so we just made other plans."
We didn't want to censor her, so we did.

[redqueen]

4. Do you have a link

to anything that says otherwise?

I'm starting to suspect we're being played by the media.

Again.

[uhhuh]

5. Nope

I'm stealing your own material.

They said they didn't want to censor her. They censored her. Seems obvious to me.

On Edit:

Cho's material is very pro-gay and very anti-chimp, and has been for a long time. They knew that when they asked her to perform. Same with Whoopi. They are backing down because they are becoming "chickenshit activists" who are afraid of negative press. Nothing new.

[redqueen]

6. Whatever

I refuse to participate in making hay for the right any longer. If the source says they did it for the reasons they've stated, that's good enough for me.

There are too many serious issues we face to entertain this sort of nonsense.

Unless anyone has actual evidence saying otherwise, that is.

[Ducks In A Row]

7. HRC is already making GOP hay by censoring Cho

And telling people to shut up and get over it merely bales that hay. This was part of Gore's problem. It's sad to see Kerry repeat it.

The HRC, the DNC and Kerry should apologize to Cho.

[Dookus]

9. It's not censorship

nobody is stopping Cho from saying anything she wants.

[Ducks In A Row]

13. It's not censorship the same way...

it's not torture at Abu Graib.

The HRC knew Cho's work when they invited her. But all of a sudden we can't chance upsetting the Rethugs. It would be Whoopigate all over again, and Kerry would have to waste time distancing himself from the HRC. And the HRC is trying so hard to be mainstream. Why the next thing, Gordon Smith will give back HRC's endorsement.

[Dookus]

15. Wrong

it simply is not censorship.

That being said, I adore Margaret Cho, and I stopped supporting the HRC years ago when they endorsed Al d'Amato over Chuck Schumer. I think they're a bullshit organization.

But "uninviting" a performer is not censorship. Would it be censorship if they'd never invited her? The HRC simply does not have the POWER to censor Margaret Cho. She is free to say anything she wants.

[NuttyFluffers]

20. but then, who are they capitulating to by uninviting?

hair splitting to avoid the word censorship. whatever.

call a spade a spade finally.

[Dookus]

21. Sorry, it is NOT censorship

no matter how many times people scream the word.

Is it capitulation? Of course it is. Is it cowardly? Absolutely. Is it censorship? Absolutely not.

Nobody is preventing Margaret Cho from saying anything she wants.

Sorry, but it just ticks me off when people throw around important words and concepts without knowing what they really mean.

[uhhuh]

22. I disagree

She was offered a public media forum to perform her act and give her opinions. When the whoopi flap happened, they removed her from that forum.

If you were told you would be given a public forum in which to express your well known views, and then after an unrelated event happened, you were instructed that you would not be given that forum, because of this other event, would you not be censored?

If Greg Palast was invited to appear on Fox news, and he told them that he was going to talk about the election theft in 2000, then they cancelled his appearance, would you consider him to have been censored?
Or, let's say, same scenario, but he was told he could not speak about the election theft, or anything anti-chimp, but he could still appear, would he be being censored?

[Dookus]

23. No

that would not be censorship. What if Margaret Cho had NEVER been invited because she's controversial? Is that censorship?

Censorship entails scrutinizing what someone says or writes, then deleting portions of it, or forbidding them (usually governmentally) from saying it. That's not the case here.

Margaret Cho can say ANYTHING she wants, any time she wants. She is not being censored.

That said, I think it's stupid of the HRC to do this, but I lost all respect for them years ago. But a non-profit organization simply doesn't have the authority to censor anybody.

Similarly, Whoopi Goldbert was not censored by Slimfast. Slimfast did not violate her first amendment rights. They were stupid and cowardly to do what they did, but that's about the extent of it.

[uhhuh]

25. If she had not been invited I would agree

"Censorship entails scrutinizing what someone says or writes, then deleting portions of it, or forbidding them (usually governmentally) from saying it. That's not the case here."

That is exactly the case here. They scrutinized what she says and writes, and have taken away a forum in which those views could be heard.

"Margaret Cho can say ANYTHING she wants, any time she wants. She is not being censored."

Except at an event where she was to present those views.

Protesters are free to express their views about the chimp too, except they have to do it from pens far away and in a manner that is approved of.

To the question as to whether they had the right to censor her? Yes they did, but that is what they did.

[Dookus]

26. then you don't understand the definition

of "censorship".

[redqueen]

10. Who's saying that?

She's a comedian! If she wants an apology she can issue a press release.

I'm betting she sees that's counterproductive, though.

[uhhuh]

24. Why don't you say

She's "just" a comedian.

She just part of the liberal hollywood elite, right?

Why should we care what a comedian has to say?

It doesn't matter that she's been active in promoting GLBT issues for along time. She just a comedian.

[donco6]

8. It's their event . . . they can invite/uninvite whoever they want.

I'm on the board of several prof organizations, and if we find that someone can't/won't speak on the topic we want, we find someone who will. It may be censorship, but it's our GD convention. Jeez. Mountain out of a molehill, IMO.

[redqueen]

11. Thanks for chiming in

I agree that it's much ado about nothing... just wanted to find out if there was anything from Cho or anyone else making this a major issue. Seems there isn't anything out there to back that up.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

12. Here is what her site says. Judge for yourself.

If you invite someone, then you uninvite them, you are in effect censoring.

SNIP..."Gay groups, by request of the Kerry campaign and the DNC, cancel performance by Margaret durng the Democratic National Convention, citing "fear of a potential media firestorm" a la Whoopi Goldberg. Press Release."

http://www.margaretcho.com/

[uhhuh]

14. She should do another Moveon.org event

But considering the shitstorm she got from the right, and the fact that the left hasn't got her back, why should she?

It seems that the attitude here is that it would hurt GLBT issues to associate them with someone who is vocal against the chimp.

Since chimp supporters are soooo supportive of their issues, that makes a lot of sense.

Check out what those fine american freeps were laying on her after the Moveon.org event:

http://www.margaretcho.com/attacks_from_the_right.htm

[Dookus]

16. And yet the press release

doesn't make any such mention of the DNC or the Kerry campaign.

I don't know if she's just making that assumption or if she has some solid information, but if she does, she hasn't provided it.

[redqueen]

17. Hmm.

You're right it doesn't mention this had anything to do with the DNC or the Kerry campaign... so that's good at least.

[madfloridian]

18. I don't have a clue.

I have only seen her on the video at her site. I just posted what was there.

[Dookus]

19. I know

I went to the site yesterday and saw the same thing. I think it IS curious that there's a discrepancy between the press release itself and what the site says about the situation.