Free Speech vs censorship of the air waves.

[SlyHunter]

Remember Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl? Remember Howard Stern? Those in power which to limit your speech over the air waves. Protect the masses from nasty bad words, but blood and guts is just fine. So everyone including ESPN is putting in their 7 second delays. Ok a College basketball game had students wearing shirts with the F word on it. Shooting birds at the camera and using loud "bad language" so it could be heard over the television channel. Now they are wondering what to do about unruly fans who practice their right of free speech. Now that college is thinking about restricting a students right of free speech on their grounds. This is most deffinitely becoming much bigger than it should be. And this can't be blamed on the left wing :(

[numediaman]

Sly, everything you don't like is called "left wing". Do you even know the term?

Exposing torture in Iraq is not a left wing conspiracy.

Saying the war in Iraq is wrong is not a left wing conspiracy.

Being in favor of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility is not a left wing conspiracy.

Being against a flat tax is not a left wing conspiracy.

The media is not a left wing conspiracy.

Winning medals for bravery and for injuries sustained in Vietnam is not a left wing conspiracy.

Asking for accountability for 9/11 is not a left wing conspiracy.

Being in favor of sound environmental policies is not a left wing conspiracy.

Saying that Sly is a right wing extremist is not a left wing conspiracy.

[Sun Baked]

>SlyHunter

If you support this type of free speech you might as well join the smokers to fight all the anti-smoking laws popping up all over the place.

You are in public and your speech and attitude does infringe on people's ability to enjoy the same events as you.

You might think it is your constitional right to be a rather big asshole in public, but there are generally disturbing the peace laws that say otherwise.

Hopefully the colleges will do the right thing and have these people arrested or ticketed. ;)

[SlyHunter]

Sly, everything you don't like is called "left wing". Do you even know the term?

Exposing torture in Iraq is not a left wing conspiracy.

Saying the war in Iraq is wrong is not a left wing conspiracy.

Being in favor of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility is not a left wing conspiracy.

Being against a flat tax is not a left wing conspiracy.

The media is not a left wing conspiracy.

Winning medals for bravery and for injuries sustained in Vietnam is not a left wing conspiracy.

Asking for accountability for 9/11 is not a left wing conspiracy.

Being in favor of sound environmental policies is not a left wing conspiracy.

Saying that Sly is a right wing extremist is not a left wing conspiracy.
This is a left wing dictionary

Conservative
Strongly favoring retention of the existing order:
orthodox, right, rightist, right-wing, Tory, traditionalist, traditionalistic.
See keep.
Kept within sensible limits:
discreet, moderate, reasonable, restrained, temperate.
See plain, restraint.
Clinging to obsolete ideas:
backward, reactionary, unprogressive.
See politics.
Able to preserve:
preservative, protective.


liberal
Not narrow or conservative in thought, expression, or conduct:
broad, broad-minded, open-minded, progressive, tolerant.
See attitude, wide.
Favoring civil liberties and social progress:
liberalistic, progressive.
See politics.
Characterized by bounteous giving:
free, freehanded, generous, handsome, lavish, munificent, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting.
See give.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0103200.html

[skunk]

This is a left wing dictionary
Only on even-numbered pages. Turn over. :D

[Krizoitz]

Remember Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl? Remember Howard Stern? Those in power which to limit your speech over the air waves. Protect the masses from nasty bad words, but blood and guts is just fine. So everyone including ESPN is putting in their 7 second delays. Ok a College basketball game had students wearing shirts with the F word on it. Shooting birds at the camera and using loud "bad language" so it could be heard over the television channel. Now they are wondering what to do about unruly fans who practice their right of free speech. Now that college is thinking about restricting a students right of free speech on their grounds. This is most deffinitely becoming much bigger than it should be. And this can't be blamed on the left wing :(

Free speech and the ability to say anything you want anywhere you want in any way you want aren't the same thing. The idea of protecting free speech is to protect the exchange of ideas. The last time I checked Janet Jacksons breast wasn't exactly contributing to the intellectual debate of salient issues in this country.

Whatever happened to respecting other people? Shouldn't I have the right to be able to watch TV with my family or listen to the radio without worrying about them being exposed to Janet Jacksons boob (which btw had no artistic value whatsoever).

Personally I think there is a big difference between limiting certain types of broadcasting during certain hours on network tv and radio, given that cable, sattelite radio, the internet, magazines and late night/early morning TV and radio don't have them. We aren't talking about taking it away completely, if so I would be right there with you. Instead what we have is a compromise. During the day you have some rules so that one group can have access to these media, the other times you can listen to Howard Stern or watch naked women all you want.

Unfortunately like extremists on both sides you want it your way or no way.

[Neserk]

Remember Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl? Remember Howard Stern? Those in power which to limit your speech over the air waves. Protect the masses from nasty bad words, but blood and guts is just fine. So everyone including ESPN is putting in their 7 second delays. Ok a College basketball game had students wearing shirts with the F word on it. Shooting birds at the camera and using loud "bad language" so it could be heard over the television channel. Now they are wondering what to do about unruly fans who practice their right of free speech. Now that college is thinking about restricting a students right of free speech on their grounds. This is most deffinitely becoming much bigger than it should be. And this can't be blamed on the left wing :(


YEAH! (I'm happy your recognize that this is a problem with the right wing -- there is hope for you yet ;) )

[IJ Reilly]

Exposing torture in Iraq is not a left wing conspiracy.

Oh come on, talking about any of the Bush administration's foul-ups is a left-wing conspiracy, and unpatriotic besides. Ipso-facto!

[Sayhey]

Saying that Sly is a right wing extremist is not a left wing conspiracy.

Well ... the last bit is a conspiracy. I should know I'm a founding member. :p

[Rower_CPU]

Oh come on, talking about any of the Bush administration's foul-ups is a left-wing conspiracy, and unpatriotic besides. Ipso-facto!

Speaking of... anyone catch the Daily Show Monday night?

Priceless piece on the facts being biased..."the whole Iraq situation is anti-Bush". :p

[Dippo]

Whatever happened to respecting other people? Shouldn't I have the right to be able to watch TV with my family or listen to the radio without worrying about them being exposed to Janet Jacksons boob (which btw had no artistic value whatsoever).

Personally I think there is a big difference between limiting certain types of broadcasting during certain hours on network tv and radio, given that cable, sattelite radio, the internet, magazines and late night/early morning TV and radio don't have them. We aren't talking about taking it away completely, if so I would be right there with you. Instead what we have is a compromise. During the day you have some rules so that one group can have access to these media, the other times you can listen to Howard Stern or watch naked women all you want.

I tend to agree, but I really don't think this is a "free speech" issue. This is more of an issue of expectations...

It's no different than going to see a movie. If you have kids and go see a G rated movie, then you don't expect to see nudity or hear profanity. So the same goes with TV. If the everyone knew that the halftime show at the super bowl was going to be real "racy", then we probably wouldn't have had a problem, because those that didn't want to see it, wouldn't have watched.

[Desertrat]

I guess what bothers me about what passes for humor these days is the incredible amount of enjoyment some people find in the variations of the "F-word". I fail to understand why people above the age of puberty behave as though they've discovered something new and different and never before known by anybody--and it's somehow screamingly funny. There are of course other words not used in polite company to which this also applies.

Or the behavior as regards partial or complete nudity: "Look what I have! Nobody before me ever had this (or these)!" Duh? 'Scuse me?

The people who partake of these endeavors come across as nasty little children with no redeeming social value, whose only mission in life is to shock others with unexpected bad taste. An appreciative audience is no higher on the scale of quality.

'Rat

[SlyHunter]

I guess what bothers me about what passes for humor these days is the incredible amount of enjoyment some people find in the variations of the "F-word". I fail to understand why people above the age of puberty behave as though they've discovered something new and different and never before known by anybody--and it's somehow screamingly funny. There are of course other words not used in polite company to which this also applies.

Or the behavior as regards partial or complete nudity: "Look what I have! Nobody before me ever had this (or these)!" Duh? 'Scuse me?

The people who partake of these endeavors come across as nasty little children with no redeeming social value, whose only mission in life is to shock others with unexpected bad taste. An appreciative audience is no higher on the scale of quality.

'Rat
But why is the F word a "bad word"?
Why is Penis not a bad word but D word is?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
I mean if I say I don't give a Hoot N' holler do you not know what I mean and therefore why can't I simply use the word I meant to use in the first place?

don't tell me manners for who was it that first established which words are bad and which ones aint and why do we rely on his judgement for all of these millenium?

[mactastic]

don't tell me manners for who was it that first established which words are bad and which ones aint and why do we rely on his judgement for all of these millenium?

Were they not just as infallible as those who wrote our constitution way back when?

[SlyHunter]

Were they not just as infallible as those who wrote our constitution way back when?
If you have a problem with the constitution then you can change it all you need is 2/3rds majority. If you have a problem with a law you don't disobey it, you don't ignore it, you change it.

[mactastic]

WTF does that have to do with cusswords?

[Voltron]

Ok Stern blamed Bush. I figured it was the right trying to clamp down on free speech too. However according to this article those who are doing this are actually left wing liberals, actually 1 left wing Democrat.

Don't Touch That Dial?
Radio hosts worry about the FCC's indecency regulations. What about political speech?

Monday, May 24, 2004 12:01 a.m.

NEW YORK--Singer Janet Jackson's "accidental" baring of her breast at the Super Bowl resulted in 200,000 complaints from outraged viewers and roused a somnolent Federal Communications Commission to start enforcing its 70-year-old standards against indecency. A battle has been joined between people who want to stem the tide of toilet humor and sex on the public airwaves and those who see the FCC's actions as the opening salvo against free expression.
Over 300 talk radio hosts gathered here over the weekend for the annual New Media Seminar, sponsored by Talkers magazine, to debate how much the FCC's new vigilance threatens their First Amendment rights. Michael Harrison, the conference organizer, argued that there is no clear line between the sexual innuendo of a Howard Stern and the political speech of a Rush Limbaugh. "The legally reckless FCC crackdown poses a deadly threat to the entire radio broadcasting industry," he said. Michael Medved, a nationally syndicated host based in Seattle, responded that his fellow conference goers were "crying wolf" and pointed out that "there isn't a person in this room who doesn't favor some standard for broadcasting, whether it be against kiddy porn or animal snuff films."

Others propounded political conspiracy theories about the FCC crackdown, endorsing Mr. Stern's view that Bush-appointed chairman Michael Powell began leaning on him only after he endorsed John Kerry for president. That's unconvincing. The real push for tougher enforcement has come from Democratic commissioner Michael Copps, who was outraged by Mr. Stern's kidding about hookers and rescue workers at ground zero. Mr. Copps also wanted to yank a station's license because it aired a vulgar shock jock called Bubba the Love Sponge. The FCC settled for $755,000 in fines, after which Clear Channel Radio fired Bubba. Clear Channel has also dropped Mr. Stern from its stations (he aired on only six of them), prompting the shock jock to compare his agony to "Jesus on the cross, having his skin pulled."

Chairman Powell himself believes that Mr. Stern's desire for "unbounded on-air expression is a fair argument" but notes that "it just doesn't happen to be the law." He told reporters at the National Association of Broadcasters convention last month that "indecency isn't anything that offends you, it's a legal term of art," and that despite his own disdain for content regulation, he has to enforce the law against broadcasts that depict or describe "sexual or excretory activities or organs in terms [that are] patently offensive." Congress doesn't appear to be in a mood to expunge those restrictions from the law books. Indeed, the House has voted to increase the top FCC fine for incidents of indecency to $500,000, up from $27,500.
Given that the FCC's standards are here to stay, how are we to balance the rights of people who demand the government investigate their complaints of indecency with the rights of free expression? Doug Stephan, a broadcaster for 39 years, prides himself on producing a show that's "family friendly." Nonetheless, he claims the prospect of FCC fines "hurts the quality of what I do." Mr. Harrison says the few companies that now own most talk radio stations are forcing hosts to pay any FCC fines levied against them out of their own pockets. They're also adhering to a zero-tolerance policy against indecency. "People who don't want to live with that will go to cable TV and satellite radio, which are unregulated," he notes.

There may ultimately be better ways for FCC-shy broadcast corporations to react to public anger against swill on the airwaves. Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana, a former farm broadcaster, says that airing ads for Viagra and similar products during baseball games is a recipe for misunderstanding. "Match up what you're advertising with who your audience is, we'll hear fewer complaints," he said.

Sean Hannity, the talk-show host who is second only to Rush Limbaugh in popularity, warns that conservatives who applaud crackdowns on indecency should beware that liberals will also try to use a revitalized FCC to bring back restrictions on political speech. "I predict a backlash by liberals against free speech that will lead to calls for a new Fairness Doctrine mandating equal time, all in an effort to silence their critics," he told the New Media Seminar. "The solution to indecency," Mr. Hannity says, "is technology and choice."

"We are on the verge of a revolution in content screening," agrees radio consultant Holland Cooke. "The radio V-chip is coming and with other AM-FM parental controls we'll look back on this debate and wonder what all the fuss was about."

At the same time, stations must exercise some self-restraint. The parishioners of New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral, whose church was used as a staging ground for a live sex act broadcast on radio, shouldn't have been subjected to that frontal assault on their values.

Regardless of what direction the indecency debate takes, many people believe there will be a growing fuss over the political speech that everyone used to agree was at the core of the First Amendment. "We have a Supreme Court that's upheld the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political ads 30 or 60 days before an election, so other political speech may be up for grabs," says Mr. Medved. "The struggle talk radio hosts should be warning people about is the effort to stifle political speech."
Indeed, Canada has just extended its ban on "hate propaganda" to cover antigay speech, a move opponents warn could muzzle free speech by stifling religious and other criticism of gay rights groups. During his presidential run, Howard Dean promised a far more activist FCC, going so far as to tell MSNBC's Chris Matthews that he would support a breakup of News Corp., the owner of Fox News Channel, on "ideological grounds." He quickly backpedaled: "You can't ask me right now and get an answer [on] would I break up 'X' Corp."

As much as indecency is a legitimate public concern, there are ways to limit the impact of the FCC standards that will remain a fact of life through more industry self-restraint and public shaming of the worst shock programming. But we must also guard against another indecency: the danger that the FCC could pose to free and unfettered political speech. Let's not let the controversy over Janet Jackson's breast or Bono's use of the F-word completely distract us from that debate.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110005119

[Neserk]

I tend to agree, but I really don't think this is a "free speech" issue. This is more of an issue of expectations...

It's no different than going to see a movie. If you have kids and go see a G rated movie, then you don't expect to see nudity or hear profanity. So the same goes with TV. If the everyone knew that the halftime show at the super bowl was going to be real "racy", then we probably wouldn't have had a problem, because those that didn't want to see it, wouldn't have watched.


Exactly. I was personally offended by the whole dance routine. I thought it was overtly sexual and had no place on TV at that time of day.

[Neserk]

If you have a problem with the constitution then you can change it all you need is 2/3rds majority. If you have a problem with a law you don't disobey it, you don't ignore it, you change it.

Sometimes you do. It is called Civil Disobedience. What some people don't realize is that when you practice Civil Disobedience you have to be prepared to go to jail. That is what happened pre-Civil War with the underground railroad and during *the* Civil Rights movement.

[Voltron]

Exactly. I was personally offended by the whole dance routine. I thought it was overtly sexual and had no place on TV at that time of day.
Not just talking about the dance routine.

Talking also about (for example) Howard Stern talking about oral pleasure vs Oprah Winfrey talking about how to give oral pleasure.

Or, how about the freedom to have written on your t-shirt what you want even if you are in an audience at a ESPN televised event.

Or how about two gay guys holding hands. "its all about expectations." I don't expect to have to tell my kid about the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals until he at least reaches puberty. The fact that straight guys might do so in other countries doesn't change the fact that they want to do so here for different reasons. A perfectly innocent thing some people think.

Or better yet two gay guys on a sitcom kissing but nothing in the TV guide stating that they are going to have that in it. Do I have the same right to ban that as you have to ban the F word? In my mind they are equal.

You have your expectations and I have mine. The question is where do we draw the line? What is considered censorship vs protecting the "expectations" of the audience? And should the "expectations" of the audience be protected at all?

[Neserk]

Not just talking about the dance routine.

Talking also about (for example) Howard Stern talking about oral pleasure vs Oprah Winfrey talking about how to give oral pleasure.


ewww...



Or how about two gay guys holding hands. "its all about expectations." I don't expect to have to tell my kid about the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals until he at least reaches puberty. The fact that straight guys might do so in other countries doesn't change the fact that they want to do so here for different reasons. A perfectly innocent thing some people think.


I should hope you would tell your child about it long before puberty. Sex education begins at birth! Granted it starts with naming body parts and then moves into safe touch/unsafe touch. By the type your (hypothetical?)child is in Kindergarten s/he should know that some people are attracted to people of the same sex and some people are attracted to people of the opposite sex. S/He will most likely have classmates who have parents who are gay and needs to know that while you may have one opinion about that other people have different opinions.



Or better yet two gay guys on a sitcom kissing but nothing in the TV guide stating that they are going to have that in it. Do I have the same right to ban that as you have to ban the F word? In my mind they are equal.


The F word is equal to two males or two females kissing :rolleyes: NO! It is equal to a male and a female kissing.


You have your expectations and I have mine. The question is where do we draw the line? What is considered censorship vs protecting the "expectations" of the audience? And should the "expectations" of the audience be protected at all?

When a sexual gesture is made the audience should be alerted of such. That is what ratings are for. Football games are generally rated G. This one should have been rated R.

[Voltron]

ewww...


When a sexual gesture is made the audience should be alerted of such. That is what ratings are for. Football games are generally rated G. This one should have been rated R.
They aren't talking about rating a program but cancelling it or fining it completly.

[Neserk]

They aren't talking about rating a program but cancelling it or fining it completly.

The Howard Stern Show? He just needs to go to the subscription Radio and Cable. Problem solved.

I was speaking in general about what is shown on TV at certain times of the day versus expectation.

[Voltron]

The Howard Stern Show? He just needs to go to the subscription Radio and Cable. Problem solved.

I was speaking in general about what is shown on TV at certain times of the day versus expectation.
Fine then what about Oprah Winfrey.
This is also about equality.
Oprah Winfrey did a show on how to give oral sex and it was on tv during the day not over a radio like Howard Sterns show was. She wasn't fined.

[Neserk]

Fine then what about Oprah Winfrey.
This is also about equality.
Oprah Winfrey did a show on how to give oral sex and it was on tv during the day not over a radio like Howard Sterns show was. She wasn't fined.

I don't think Howard should be fined, either. People know when they are tuning into his show what he is going to be talking about. His show is R rated just like the one you mention above with Oprah. It isn't appropriate for children. That is certainly not information they need.

[Voltron]

I don't think Howard should be fined, either. People know when they are tuning into his show what he is going to be talking about. His show is R rated just like the one you mention above with Oprah. It isn't appropriate for children. That is certainly not information they need.
See thats the problem were drawing curvey lines.
Howard Stern was fined.

The Howard Stern Show? He just needs to go to the subscription Radio and Cable. Problem solved.

I was speaking in general about what is shown on TV at certain times of the day versus expectation.
I don't understand the line you just moved the line you yourself drew.
Oprah had a dildo on TV and had guests perform oral sex on it. During the middle of the day when grade school kids were home.

[Neserk]

See thats the problem were drawing curvey lines.
Howard Stern was fined.


And I personally think it was ridiculous. He has been doing this for years now so why is he suddenly being fined for it? :rolleyes: This is the problem with inconsistency.


I don't understand the line you just moved the line you yourself drew.
Oprah had a dildo on TV and had guests perform oral sex on it. During the middle of the day when grade school kids were home.

I confused myself :p

A show such as Oprah or Howard Stern having ratings. With Oprah it depends on the specific show. With Howard it is is always R (at least when I listened it was).

A football game is traditionally a G rated show.

A parent would know before turning on Oprah if there children should be exposed to it or not. A parent turning on a football game should be able to know if their child should be able to watch it or not. This was obviously not the case at the Superbowl.

If Howard wants to continue with his R rated shows and not get fined he needs to move to Cable/Subscription modes.

The FCC needs to practice consistency.

I think that is more clear. Yes?

[Voltron]

The FCC needs to practice consistency.

I think that is more clear. Yes?

yes.

[Neserk]

yes.


Good. I think and write at the same time. So my ideas can be clear as mud :D Thanks for calling me out on it. I knew something wasn't right but I hadn't quite put my finger on it until I had to go back and explain it all.