freedom of speech is not for every one why?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Now they pick who they want to censor this isn't anything new but i haven't seen it more blatant than this.

www.starmagazine.com...




posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Again, filth has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, so lets stop trying to hide porn behind the constitution.

As far as Stern goes, he's a shock jock. There's nothing educational or any attempts to inform parents of the dangers faced by teens. As a matter of fact, just the opposite. Howard knows the difference between his show and Oprah's, he's just whining.

And speaking of whining, what the heck is he doing trying to point a finger at someone else, trying to get them in trouble? If they belong to a union, I certainly hope Stern gets fined for trying to get a sister in trouble!



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I have been following this "saga" with Stern and while I don't agree with everything he does and says, I still think he's getting unfair treatment.





posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Gotta say your right on this, Censorship is a bad thing in a free society. If ya don't like whats on the TV or radio - turn the dial, its your choice. Its also your choice to not buy products advertised on programs you don't like, vote with your dollars.

But my kids can see and hear this stuff you say, quit using the TV or radio as a babysitter - you have the ultimate control as a parent if you will use it.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Why is that? Because there is so much other garbage that seems to go unnoticed by the FCC?
I agree to that. It seems the FCC has sent some very mixed signals the last few years.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Lets just stop people from saying ANYTHING that offends anyone else, no wait lets stop them from THINKING anything that may offend anyone else.

We can have the government go through all our words and pick out those that offend.

Then they can go through all our pictures, art, movies, etc and remove all offensive content.

Then EVERY new movie, song, book, etc can be prescreened by our betters to keep anything that might upset us out.

Of course the news will have to be censored so as to not upset anybody, who wants wars and dead bodies during their meals?

Next we can set up camaras in everybodies home to make sure they are not hiding any offensive items in there house or creating them foir their own sick and twisted use. The camaras will also come in handy for making sure people only have sex with approved partners in the preapproved positions. It will also help weed out thought crimes by monitering everyones dreams and daily life. First you cuss when you hit your thumb with a hammer the next thing your out raping children, if you dont believe me how many child molesters have cussed a one point in therir life? I rest my case.

Only by following these rules and locking up or shooting those that deviate in the slightest can we remain the free country we are today



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   
If we say programs like Sterns are against community standards and a harmful to the purient interest, whats to stop the liberals if they became a definate majority (nightmare) from saying the same about talk radio as it exists today, this may happen soon with the so-called campaign finance reform law as passed recently, laws no matter how good they look today are a double edged sword that can be wielded in unexpected ways. This is a dangerous road to go down. Change the damn dial for christs sake.

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I hate Stern but he has a point with Oprah, how they won't censor her at all, but on his show when he aired a audio from Oprah they censored that.

Alot of this "offesive" stuff is'nt that bad. I've seen worse in movies and real life. I've seen it all, blood, gore, nudity, sex, heads exploding, every curse in the book. It does'nt offend me, and most of the more graphic tv shows are on later in the night. Most kids don't watch The Shield, they watch Comedy Central.

The older people who are "offend" should have seen something like that earlier. Whats one ass on NYPD Blue? Theres more nudity in a PG-13 movie than one episode.

The conservative FCC is fighting a war against sex and violence on tv/radio, and the left wing is fighting against little things that "offend" people. Remember OutKasta thing of "Hey Ya" (I hate that song) at the Grammy's? The lefty wackos called it offensive to Indians.

Slowly becoming 1984, thanks to oversenseitive righties and lefties.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
How can you possibly hope to "regulate" offense?

It is impossible considering plenty of things "offend" people.

Filty, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and I for one think that censuring things on an objective basis is offensive to me and a certain violation of free speech.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Actually in the notion of commercial speech there are valid "restrictions," since the problem of putting out a defective product requires consistency in advertising with the product itself.

Unfortunately corporations often assume limited liability with that concern of veracity important to many people. Aspartame for example established its own regime to protect a harmful product from science. There are examples of psuedo science all around us. That is the real obscenity, but governments like to censor sexuality because it is an area dealing with "shame, honor and loyalty," things as such in Japan for example that keep the production line moving.

Clear channel is obviously a monopoly, a product of deregulation gone wild. Howard Stern is not being bothered because "obscenity," is corrupting anything. He is being bothered most likely because he is on to the truth about something the central government does not want you to hear. Free conversations unscreened for the average brainwashed Rush Limbaugh crowd, are not acceptable to the alleged government. That is especially true in a Howard Stern ambiance, where people actually speak a few levels deeper into their entire mind, rather than their repressed rule based dogmatic so called "mind."

Are we clear about this? Howard Stern is a less defective product than Rush Limbaugh since Stern deals with the deeper truth, and Limbaugh deals with a programed less than half truth. But Limbaugh gets the gold mine, and Stern gets the shaft. Why? It is probably about money and control.

Your intelligence is insulted daily by Limbaugh, but Howard Stern insults nothing but your repressions, fixations, and phoney anxiety. You are more likely to hear something from Howard Stern that actually saves the Republic, than anything from lumpy.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I haven't seen it written in any of our founding documents that Americans have the right not to be offended.

As weird as it sounds, offensive speach is one of the cornerstones of freedom.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
maybe this is general knowledge or has been discussed here before, but one thing I don't get is,

why can we put/write/show or whatever, items of any sort on the internet ? It doesn't matter, sex, or whatever is all over the web and it is okay.

What does it matter where this stuff is seen, read or heard, if it's wrong it's wrong,

why online but not on the radio ?




posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Wasnt stern spose to be put of the air for making a lets say "comment" about president Bush i think i heard that on the news im not too sure about it might not of been him



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
maybe this is general knowledge or has been discussed here before, but one thing I don't get is,

why can we put/write/show or whatever, items of any sort on the internet ? It doesn't matter, sex, or whatever is all over the web and it is okay.

What does it matter where this stuff is seen, read or heard, if it's wrong it's wrong,

why online but not on the radio ?



Anything broadcast over the public airwaves is subject to Censorship mostly because you don't have to pay for it. The Internet is not owned by the "public". It is owned by private corperations and in most every case, you have to pay for access to it. Same with Cable TV.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I don't have a problem with the censorship, but it needs to be across the board.

Thomas

I agree with you on the 1 st admendment. but isn't it supposed to be equal for everyone?

And I'm not a stern fan just concerned with the fact that they can pick who they want to censor . the next thing is they will pick how much money a single person can make or just search that persons home because they drive the wrong car.

This is the first step down the wrong road.

comments?



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Well, what I think we are seeing now is that everyone from the Media to the FCC are trying to cover their a**. I think everyone has gone a little wacky over that Janet Jackson thing. They don't hit Oprah cause they probably won't get many complaints from the prude and the holier than thou crowd about Oprah. They will about Stern. Sure, he's an example.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   
ambient

I believe your exactly correct. not the question is , is oprah untouchable?



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Again, filth has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, so lets stop trying to hide porn behind the constitution.

As far as Stern goes, he's a shock jock. There's nothing educational or any attempts to inform parents of the dangers faced by teens. As a matter of fact, just the opposite. Howard knows the difference between his show and Oprah's, he's just whining.

And speaking of whining, what the heck is he doing trying to point a finger at someone else, trying to get them in trouble? If they belong to a union, I certainly hope Stern gets fined for trying to get a sister in trouble!


I have to agree with you, there's a fine line on what should be considered Constitutional and what shouldn't. In many ways Mankind appears to be de-volving in its mannerisms.



[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Sapphire]



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Sapphire


de-volving

This is the best word i have seen in a long time

I cannot agree with you any more NMHSMHTT
(nodding my head so much having trouble typing)





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join