we just lost freedom of speech

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slayer
Christians need to stop shoving their beliefs and opinions down peoples throats.


Exactly! If I didnt know better, I would say that the Christians are attempting to take over the world.




posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I would say that the Christians are attempting to take over the world.

Dude they never attempted that lol..what are you thinking????






THEY ALREADY DID TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by McGotti
I would say that the Christians are attempting to take over the world.

Dude they never attempted that lol..what are you thinking????






THEY ALREADY DID TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!


Wha? NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! *shakes fists at sky*

That came as a rude shock. Like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Of course they took over the world, and thats the problem. They are the ones that made everyone greedy for money. Watch all of the "real" believers on TV - the televangelists, the morning church programs (and evening), etc... All they talk about is that God wants us to make money, and make a profit from everything, oh, and to send the preachers (on tv and off) our money. Why would God care about money? Why do we have all these false prophets everywhere, and people believe them? Didn't it say in the bible, beware of the false prophets? Can't people tell the fake from the real?



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
It would be the first step to cleaning up the moral decline of our society, last year the FCC received a record 2.5 millions complaints due to TV, and if people thought that beefing up the FCC's abilities to punish vulgarity would result in the loss of the first amendment I dont think there would be such a public praise for what happened to howard stern. I dont agree with puting labels on CDs and Video Games but I do think TV is far to unregulated by mega corporations, so I think in short, your wrong.


The only thing that should be regulating freedom of speech in public entertainment or anything else is the people who watch or listen to it. If something is offensive or disliked by the audience then they have the right to change the channel or turn it off. If the networks can't get viewers because of the content of their programs then they will change their programs. If they don't, then they will go out of business.

We don't need the government deciding what is or is not acceptable for us to watch/hear. That is for us to decide as free individuals. Take some personal responsibility for your world! Don't give it to the government!



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
The point is is that YOU people feel that free reigh should be given to all who would like to speak.

Not on the public air waves. But why you ask?

Some CHOOSE not to want that availible to their kids.

Sexual/violent/obsene material is a personal choice and should be made one. If people want to see/hear it, then they should be allowed to, but people who do not should not have to.

Choice is the word here.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
The point is is that YOU people feel that free reigh should be given to all who would like to speak.

Not on the public air waves. But why you ask?

Some CHOOSE not to want that availible to their kids.

Sexual/violent/obsene material is a personal choice and should be made one. If people want to see/hear it, then they should be allowed to, but people who do not should not have to.

Choice is the word here.


I think your staement.....some CHOOOSE....

Should be changed to.......SOME choose

Some is the key word...

no matter how vocal some may seem..they are always just SOME...so freedom is for ALL...not just SOME of the most vocal regardless of the topic..IMO of coarse



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
To quote fro George Carlin:

It's ok to prick your finger, but don't finger your prick.

You can say one thing on the radio, but not the other.

The words are the same, so it must be the idea behind the words that is not allowed.

Hmmmm, restriction of ideas. It makes you think, but don't think the wrong thunks.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Clear Channel canned him, not the government. Tha tis not censorship.

It has long been the FCC's job to ensure that the "Freedom of Speech" was exercised with the responsibility that goes with it, but it has not done its job for many years. Cleaning filth up is not censorship, that is decency. Way back when the meaning of rights and liberties wasn't so confusing to so many, such public vulgarity would not have been tolerated for an instant. Unfortunately, we now have a society that actually thinks the Founding Fathers risked all so they can be as filthy as they want to be.

How sad. And how unfortunate for the fate of this once strong and proud nation.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by McGotti
These Christian Rights groups annoy the hell out of me. They run the FCC and just about any thing that deals with censorship. They run the whole government!

This is true and dont dare dissagree with them lol cause you will be branded a satanist.


If you were to do any study of the nation, pal, you'd be really pissed off. You'd find that the nation was founded on Christianity. You'd be madder than a wet hen about the fact that we were told to elect Christian leaders for the good of the nation. It might surprise, and anger you, to learn that the establishment clause was to prevent the federal government from establishing a particular denomination as the official "sect", as they knew that would incite civil war, and that it was only for the federal government. You might recall from your early and watered down history classes that the early states did have established religions.
This nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian ethic, morals and principles and it has been stolen from the builders of the nation only a few short decades ago. But if you aren't willing to keep a nation, is it really yours?
I just wanted to make sure you and your sidekick, there, understand that the Christians aren't trying to steal the nation; we created it. I wouldn't worry too much about us actually taking it back from those who want to destroy its culture and worth, I believe apathy has set in too bad. Success is often times the worst enemy of a people.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Clear Channel canned him, not the government. Tha tis not censorship.

It has long been the FCC's job to ensure that the "Freedom of Speech" was exercised with the responsibility that goes with it, but it has not done its job for many years. Cleaning filth up is not censorship, that is decency.


SO TRUE! The cleaning up of FILTH is called DOING the people's WORK. The MAJORITY of this country do NOT want their pre-teen children exposed to SMUT via the free airwaves.

'Nuff said...

PEACE...
m...



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
But concepts of "decency" and whatever else are fine. I hold nothing against a person or group of people for believing that one thing or the other is "decent" or "moral" or whatever. But those concepts are very different from person to person.

Censorship is just wrong, and the 'cleaning up' of the airwaves is just another way of saying that some people are so uptight with their own views on the world that they cant stand to think that anybody else feels different.

Its like me saying that since I hate Cheeseburgers, then nobody should be able to sell cheeseburgers. I wouldnt want my children wandering into one of those cheeseburger selling establishments, with all their talk of cheeseburgers, and burgers with cheese.

By the way, I love cheeseburgers, but hopefully you get my point.
..and Im nobodys Sidekick. If anything I'm Batman and He's Robin



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DjNothing
But concepts of "decency" and whatever else are fine. I hold nothing against a person or group of people for believing that one thing or the other is "decent" or "moral" or whatever. But those concepts are very different from person to person.

Censorship is just wrong, and the 'cleaning up' of the airwaves is just another way of saying that some people are so uptight with their own views on the world that they cant stand to think that anybody else feels different.

Wrong, these are public airwaves, which means that no choice comes into play, all can access it. In public standards, the highest moral value must be applied

Its like me saying that since I hate Cheeseburgers, then nobody should be able to sell cheeseburgers. I wouldnt want my children wandering into one of those cheeseburger selling establishments, with all their talk of cheeseburgers, and burgers with cheese.

This arguement is fallacious, because the purchasing implies consent. There is no problem with purchasing porn, for instance, but as we see it is covered in plastic for those who do not wish it to be visible to all people. Does this hamper one's right to the porn should they want it? Not at all.

By the way, I love cheeseburgers, but hopefully you get my point.
..and Im nobodys Sidekick. If anything I'm Batman and He's Robin



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   
It is NOT the govenrnments job!!! its you!! the parnnts to tell your children what is right and wrong!

how can you even begin o hold t.v. resposible for what your children learn????



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
It's not the government's job to regulate for the welfare of the general public?

Seems to me that the Constitution says that it does.

The Christian population of this country is about 189,983,000 out of 290,809,777 which is roughly 65% of America. I guess they don't matter.

There is no problem with freedoms here. People can say what they like, but there is a difference between what is said by a person, and what is broadcast into people's homes.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
It's not the government's job to regulate for the welfare of the general public?

Seems to me that the Constitution says that it does.

The Christian population of this country is about 189,983,000 out of 290,809,777 which is roughly 65% of America. I guess they don't matter.

There is no problem with freedoms here. People can say what they like, but there is a difference between what is said by a person, and what is broadcast into people's homes.

If the majority of the population doesn't watch a program(s) that they disapprove of, then there will be no profit in broadcasting it, and it would be replaced with something the population will watch. The networks are looking to make money. They can only do that if they have an audience. The consumer has control of what is consumed, not the producer. Everyone seems to have forgotten that principle.

When I was a kid, my dad decided that there wasn't anything on t.v. that was worth watching, so he got rid of our t.v. From the time I was about 5 years old until I was 15, we did not have a t.v. in our house. I grew up listening to talk radio and old time radio shows. I'm not saying that is how all parents should approach the problem, but it is one solution.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Personally, i despise the very idea of anyone or any group telling me what I should or shouldn't hear. Aren't these the same kind of groups that want to ban guns, smoking, drinking, and fast food?

Now, I will agree that tv and radio do need to be regulated in a way. But be practical. Why not seperate the channels and stations according to content?

We have channels that are nothing but sex or violence and so on, why not do the same for radio? (personally, I think Howard should be able to stay on the air) Why not put all so-called "offensive" radio on their own staions?

Imagine this...you tune into "WFUK, All offensive, all the time"

And I don't buy that garbage about tv violence causes kids to be violent, thats caused by bad parenting. Japan has more sex and violence on tv than we do and they have a lower crime rate.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hillbilly
Personally, i despise the very idea of anyone or any group telling me what I should or shouldn't hear. Aren't these the same kind of groups that want to ban guns, smoking, drinking, and fast food?

Now, I will agree that tv and radio do need to be regulated in a way. But be practical. Why not seperate the channels and stations according to content?

We have channels that are nothing but sex or violence and so on, why not do the same for radio? (personally, I think Howard should be able to stay on the air) Why not put all so-called "offensive" radio on their own staions?

Imagine this...you tune into "WFUK, All offensive, all the time"

And I don't buy that garbage about tv violence causes kids to be violent, thats caused by bad parenting. Japan has more sex and violence on tv than we do and they have a lower crime rate.


I agree with you. I don't want to be cut off from my offensive listening source either, but there needs to be a way (like the V-chip) where people can tune out things they don't want.

That or maybe they can get it put in so they can listen to whatever.

I don't want it gone, but I want people that want it to have to say yes, rather than people who don't having to say no.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 04:55 AM
link   
It wasn't censorship. The government didn't tell them to pull Stern it was a corporate decision.

Obscene speech is judged according to the local community's standard. That's according to the Supreme Court, so you can send them an email. On this basis what is considered obscene speech can vary greatly from state to state.

The Bill of Rights was concieved to keep the will of the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority. It's doing a damn fine job and this isn't a case that can go to the supreme court because there is no government body enforcing any laws here.

It was a corporate decision!!!



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
If you were to do any study of the nation, pal, you'd be really pissed off. You'd find that the nation was founded on Christianity.


Just because the nation was founded by Christians doesn't mean everyone has to live by Christian standards. This nation was also built with the help of thousands of enslaved africans, but people today believe that slavery is wrong and it shames us to think that people acually thought it was ok. Times have changed since the late 1700s, and this country isn't just made up of christians anymore.






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join