Chris Quinn: Free Speech Saboteur
When I was scrolling through the Facebook News Feed, I came across this story: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator Scott Adams' "Racist" Rant.
I really thought Scott Adams knew better than to put racist crap in his comic strip. Guess what? He does. Apparently Adams made the controversial comments on his YouTube Channel.
Umm, then what are we doing here? If there's no content problems with Dilbert, the Woke Mob got Scott Adams. That's the story.
As I read the New York Post article, I found a familiar name DEFENDING CENSORSHIP and that would be cleveland.com's Chris Quinn. Again, this is the quote from Chris Quinn IN THE NEW YORK POST:
“This is not a difficult decision,” Plain Dealer Editor Chris Quinn wrote Friday in his letter from the editor. “Adams said Black people are a hate group, citing a recent Rasmussen survey which, he said, shows nearly half of all Black people do not agree with the phrase ‘It’s okay to be white.'” - New York Post
Why isn't Quinn defending discourse? Because that's not what he does. Quinn moves an agenda and Adams' world view doesn't match. Listen, I am physically beating my hands on the table. Chris Quinn is CANCELLING Dilbert not based on CONTENT, but based on a content creator's PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY. That is the definition of cancel culture. And then, to top it off, Quinn takes to his own bully pulpit to defend his position.
Again, this is all a symbolic argument. When I want to read Dilbert, I read it at comics.com. I only saw the article because I was on Facebook. By the time I back-tracked to the original story, it was already a day old. I haven't had the Cleveland Plain Dealer delivered to my house in over a decade.
What I am saying is that from a free speech perspective, Chris Quinn should be embarrassed and instead he is proud.
Which is why his newspaper, and his website, are dying...
I was all set to hit the publish button, but then I slept on my decision. Why? Because in our upcoming article Beacon of Speech #1,000, I roll out with this quote "In my mind, Chris Quinn is our biggest nemesis. In Quinn's mind, we are the smeared bug on his Lexus windshield."
Lo and behold, Quinn and his brethren's decision went viral.
Newspapers Ban Dilbert!!!
CNN - Did CNN quote Quinn? Yes.
The Washington Post - Did The Washington Post quote Quinn? Unknown - Pay Wall
Reuters - Did Reuters quote Quinn? Yes.
NBC News - Did NBC News quote Quinn? Yes.
Aljazeera - Yes, Aljazeera. Did the website, based in Qatar, quote Chris Quinn. Yes they did.
Why is this such a lightning rod news story? Let me come at this from a slightly different angle.
Kyrie Irving posted some bad, bad stuff on social media. He faced repercussions, but was he banned from his primary platform? No, he served a short suspension and is playing in the NBA right now.
Kanye West said some bad, bad stuff on his social media outlets. He faced repercussions, but was he banned from his primary platform? No, you can still hear Kanye's music on Spotify, Apple Music, and Sirius XM. Can you download Kanye's music or buy it in stores? Yes. In 2018, Kanye was briefly banned from a few terrestrial radio stations for saying FAR RIGHT garbage like "slavery was a choice."
The question whether to ban art based on decisions of the artist have swirled in America since the times of Jerry Lee Lewis.
Is The Cleveland Plain Dealer/cleveland.com going to start vetting authors and content creators?
That is a dangerous erosion of free speech.