Free Speech vs censorship of the air waves.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SlyHunter, May 4, 2004.

  1. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #1
    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 :(
     
  2. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #3
    >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 ******* 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. ;)
     
  4. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #4
    This is a left wing dictionary
    http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0103200.html
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Only on even-numbered pages. Turn over. :D
     
  6. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #7

    YEAH! (I'm happy your recognize that this is a problem with the right wing -- there is hope for you yet ;) )
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    Oh come on, talking about any of the Bush administration's foul-ups is a left-wing conspiracy, and unpatriotic besides. Ipso-facto!
     
  9. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #9
    Well ... the last bit is a conspiracy. I should know I'm a founding member. :p
     
  10. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #10
    Speaking of... anyone catch the Daily Show Monday night?

    Priceless piece on the facts being biased..."the whole Iraq situation is anti-Bush". :p
     
  11. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #12
    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
     
  13. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #13
    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?
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Were they not just as infallible as those who wrote our constitution way back when?
     
  15. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #15
    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.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
  17. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #17
    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.
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110005119
     
  18. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #18

    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.
     
  19. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #19
    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.
     
  20. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #20
    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?
     
  21. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #21
    ewww...

    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.

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

    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.
     
  22. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #22
    They aren't talking about rating a program but cancelling it or fining it completly.
     
  23. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #23
    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.
     
  24. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page