Citing Obama opposition, McDowell Warns against Fairness Doctrine
-
@danamal said:
Stern? is a gross, xxx-rated shock jock.You are comparing him to Hannity or Rush?
The comparison begins and ends with FREE speech.
If you find it ok that Stern was forced off the air by the religous right because you found him offensive and their was nothing wrong with that ,how could you be surprised that a liberal group would be offended by Hannity and Limbaugh and not want them off the air?
You cant have it both ways,where does it end?
I dont condone any of it because I can change the station whenever I want, people should be able to listen to whatever they find entertaining or informative.
Sorry Dan you are misinformed.
Stern allowed a caller to rant on and on using the word N***** about a half a dozen times.
That was what the fine was for.
He jumped to XM Sirius for the money, not forced anywhere.
Do the F bombs make his show funnier than baba booey?
I don't enjoy him but that's that.
WSS
-
Dan - having freedom means also having responsibilities to not interfere with others' freedoms.
with no responisilities/restrictions, means everybody is free to have their
freedom trampled on.
It isn't a matter of let Stern do anything he wants. People and children
should have a right to not be seriously offended by grotesque and repulsive intent
to shock audiences as a matter of feeble "entertainment".
There is no intent, nor grotesque offense in what Hannity and Rush do in exercizing
their *responsible" freedom of speech.
In that, disagreeing is not legally offensive. Putrid, obscene, grotesque verbage and actions are illegal
on the airwaves to protect the rights of those who have the right to be free from that offense.
Saying that "they can turn the channel" is like saying "they can un-shoot themselves". Once the damage
is done, it's done.
Society has a right to -legimately- protect itself from serious violations of the responsibilities
we have.
Failure to restrict others from abridging your freedom is not censorship - it's protecting your freedom.
Otherwise, others are "free" to violate your freedom.
-
Dan - having freedom means also having responsibilities to not interfere with others' freedoms.
with no responisilities/restrictions, means everybody is free to have their
freedom trampled on.
It isn't a matter of let Stern do anything he wants. People and children
should have a right to not be seriously offended by grotesque and repulsive intent
to shock audiences as a matter of feeble "entertainment".
There is no intent, nor grotesque offense in what Hannity and Rush do in exercizing
their *responsible" freedom of speech.
In that, disagreeing is not legally offensive. Putrid, obscene, grotesque verbage and actions are illegal
on the airwaves to protect the rights of those who have the right to be free from that offense.
Saying that "they can turn the channel" is like saying "they can un-shoot themselves". Once the damage
is done, it's done.
Society has a right to -legimately- protect itself from serious violations of the responsibilities
we have.
Failure to restrict others from abridging your freedom is not censorship - it's protecting your freedom.
Otherwise, others are "free" to violate your freedom.
It isn't a matter of let Stern do anything he wants. People and children
should have a right to not be seriously offended by grotesque and repulsive intent
to shock audiences as a matter of feeble "entertainment".
There is no intent, nor grotesque offense in what Hannity and Rush do in exercizing
their *responsible" freedom of speech.
It's so incredibly sad that you can't see Stern and Hannity/Rush as the same thing. Just because you like one much better than the other doesn't mean they're all not mere entertainers. Give it a rest already.
-
@danamal said:
It's a little more complicated than that Steve,but the fact of the matter is the pressure was on him and infinity broadcasting due to the religious right and they were making it impossible for his show to continue on regular radio.Hey if it makes you feel better to blame the Christians than the hypersensitive left goodie.
You're wrong but goodie anyway.
Stern knows you can't say fuk on the radio.
Sirius made a lot more millions than they paid him to afford him that right.
Big whoop.
WSS
-
Figures that Howard Stern is Danamal's hero butt buddy. The guy is a total fooking loser. Sure he makes big money, off of losers like Danamal. People with no intelligence level that like to here cuss words and "show me your tit's" five thousand times a day. What a fooking idiot you are Danamal.
-
@danamal said:
Stern knows you can't say fuk on the radio.He never said anything like that.
Try reading above your post Steve and show me how ANY radio personality is ammune from persecution by the government.
Hey mental midget, what is "ammune", you mean "immune" retaaad????
-
Dan, your last post proved MY point.
You don't like those who aren't liberal, I take it. But that is not offensive, by the very
information from the FCC you posted.
There, hate to break it to ya, is NOTHING obscene or morally offensive by disagreeing with
your heartthrob and cult leader, Obumbly.
There is no moral equivalent to bring up Hannity and Rush, when the obscene and intentionally
repulsive to most folks' sensibilities regarding Howard Stern.
At least TRY to be serious when you want to be taken seriously.
-
Free speech should be free. I don't think there should be broadcast regulations for content. Nobody has the right to not be offended, if you are offended then change the channel or turn it off. You have the right to speak out in criticism of something you find to be offensive, but not the right to deny someone else free speech.
If you don't want your kids to watch something because it is too offensive by your standards, fine. You make sure they don't watch it. There are v-chips, channel blocking abilities and things like that. There is no excuse to censor everything for everybody else.
Plus, as long as people are offended by something there will be a market for "acceptable" content. Competition is a good thing.
-
"There's a market for it" is hardly a validation of the idea that child pornographic material on the web should be
legal.
The victims are the children.
Society has a right, and an obligation to set limits on freedom, or anyone's freedom is
null and void.
You don't have v-chips on radios. You don't have v-chips on rented movies that children may see
playing on a monitor in a movie rental dept/company or seeing material at a library.
Parents have the freedom to protect their children from this garbage.
Unlimited repulsive media brazenly finds it's way into the denial of that freedom of others.
A lot of liberals, if not most, lament the harsh treatment of terrorists at gitmo, but those same
liberals lament any attempt to restrict the ability of pervs to treat the psyches/and persons of children harshly.
Some liberals, even to the point of insisting on supporting the federal subsidizing of partial birth abortions, and
the leaving of children who are unwanted and still born alive and well, to be left in closets to die of neglect.
What a twisted liberal world it is, that they fawn to create, to emotionally solve problems, but those very
solutions cause far more damaging problems.
-
I never said that child pornography should be legal. It most certainly should not be legal. It infringes on the rights of the child.
You don't have v-chips on radios, but the technology is there for tv and would be easy to implement for radio.
You don't have v-chips for movie rentals, but you do have things called ratings. You may have heard of them (G, PG, PG-13, R) And it already is illegal for people who are underage to watch things that are rated too strictly without parental consent.
If you are afraid of something on a monitor at a store or library, complain to the manager of the place or take your business elsewhere. You do have the right to protect your children. Don't take them there. Tell them not to go there, that is a parent's responsibility. Don't censor my life because you don't want your kids to see or hear something. I wont infringe on your rights if you don't infringe on mine.
There is no "kind of free speech" or "mostly free speech", it is either free or is not.
-
So, if I have total freedom, I can do anything I want, so you have to suffer for it?
I can spray paint "Bush rocks, Obama needs children to wear suicide vests" on the front sidewalk outside your home?
If you didn't like it, you don't have to look, right? Freedom of speech, totally unlimited?
I can put up a giant "Obama SUCKS off Liberals" sign in the devil strip in front of your house?
It isn't your sidewalk, etc, right?
So, nude cavorting neo-nazi skinheads can parade around children's school buses, and that's fine,
because the paraders have unlimited freedom?
After all, parents can just teach their kids to not open their eyes until they get to school?
There are decency limits for society to legimatimately have freedom.
One's pursuit of happiness and freedom cannot infringe on the security, happiness and freedom of another.
My freedom to deny you your freedom, should be unabridged, and vice versa ?
Being victimized by anarchy is total freedom for some maybe?
Doesn't make any freakin sense. It just doesn't pass extended critical evaluation.
And the refs helped pittspuke win again and I've had a long day...
-
I never said that child pornography should be legal. It most certainly should not be legal. It infringes on the rights of the child.
You don't have v-chips on radios, but the technology is there for tv and would be easy to implement for radio.
You don't have v-chips for movie rentals, but you do have things called ratings. You may have heard of them (G, PG, PG-13, R) And it already is illegal for people who are underage to watch things that are rated too strictly without parental consent.
If you are afraid of something on a monitor at a store or library, complain to the manager of the place or take your business elsewhere. You do have the right to protect your children. Don't take them there. Tell them not to go there, that is a parent's responsibility. Don't censor my life because you don't want your kids to see or hear something. I wont infringe on your rights if you don't infringe on mine.
There is no "kind of free speech" or "mostly free speech", it is either free or is not.
I never said that child pornography should be legal. It most certainly should not be legal. It infringes on the rights of the child.
There is no "kind of free speech" or "mostly free speech", it is either free or is not.
Really?
How does kiddie porn infringe on the rights of the child?
Just to play devil's advocate.
If any imagineble perversion is OK for adults and homosexuals are born as such why shouldnt XXXX be able to get a blowjob for fifty bucks.
That's a lot of money for a 12 year old.
Is it legal to sell his picture to sell soap? Fruit juice?
And why shouldn't XXXX be able to buy a film him blowing XXXX?
How about animation?
Should XXXX be allowed to sell kiddie cartoon sex?
Hey not even a real kid involved...
Plus if any of you lefties do have kids just how much filth are you comfortable with?
WSS
-
Cal , You just cant seem to grasp the how vague the FCC guidlines really are,
If enough people are offended by what limbaugh says,like "halfrican american" for example and they write to the FCC he will be fined.
It is that simple. "I hope Obama fails" he can be fined.
This has all started because of the whacko right not the left and speech is being challenged on the airwaves and I have said it many times in this thread ,its wrong and something needs to be done,but because you cant grasp how stern and limbaugh are linked you fail to get it.
*********************************************************************
Dan, how do you specifically designate what is allowed or not allowed? Do you not get it?
Principles are vague. Freedom of speech is vague. You want to quibble that we should not have freedom of speech
because every single word and phrase and intent is not specifically outlined ? It's "vague" ?
Wait, perhaps you want to say there is absolutely nothing that is said that is illegal...
Politically motivated "offense" is fraudulent. Seriously, referring to the ladies of the basketball team as "black hos" was
slanderous, repulsive, and racist... and very offensive.
You are inferring that slander and liable should be legal, because the law doesn't stipulate the exact words not allowed to be used in the law?
The law designates principles that are considered by the courts in deciding whether or not they are legititmately broken or not.
As to Rush saying "halfrican", I've never heard that, that's a play on words about Obama being half black... how is that morally offensive? Smart ass, yes... to me, sounds like he invented a word to describe a legitmate situation.
but abortion isn't offensive at all? The murder of innocent children, unborn AND born? But you want to complain that Rush says
"halfrican" ?
If "halfrican" is, and determined to be legitimately crossing the line of true offense, he could be in trouble.
"I hope Obama fails" ... Rush should be fined because YOU don't like it? you don't agree, and it makes you upset,
but it's hardly offensive. And, Rush was saying he hoped Obama's SOCIALIST AGENDA FAILS because that would
be good for the country.
But Franken, Pelosi, Reid, Jackson, Baloney Fwank, etc... can call Bush every vile thing possible, and slander him forever and
a thousand Sundays, and that's fine because of the freedom of speech?
But for Rush to say he hopes Obama's socialist agenda fails.... is a serious offense?
Yeah. I get it now...
-
Theoretically, if nude neo-nazis (seriously, who would think that up?) wanted to dance around a school bus they should be able to. In reality, no.
If you go back you see that I am talking about broadcasting. Airwaves differ from a sidewalk or a street because it is so very easily avoidable. To put up something supremely offensive on a billboard or a sidewalk is very hard to avoid and can be easily construed as violating someone else's rights. With TV, radio and movies you have to tune in. You have to own the equipment and consciously tune in. You can change a channel if you don't want to watch something. You can't change a sidewalk. To add to that, sidwalks and streets are publicly owned, while the airwaves spectrum is leased out to broadcasting companies. Shouldn't you be allowed to do what you want with what you are paying for?
And about the child pornography thing: First off, I have no idea why you included anything about gay people or being born gay. It has nothing to do with child pornography. Second, there has to be an age where a child reaches the point where they can be considered an adult. The fact is that children do not have the capacity to reason like an adult or understand the consequences of what they are doing. Child pornography is exploitation.
-
I just tweaked what I remember seeing on the net news - a nude parade down a city street of
a bunch of extreme warped crazy people.
I didn't invent much...
and, I never said anything about gay anything, other than to tweak Ben Roethlicksbooger's nose on the football forum.
Your attempted justification of obscene material and media is confusing. Billboards, sidewalks are easily avoidable, because
they are physical things...
but little children going to the library, and seeing some teenagers watching xxx-rated videos on a physical monitor
is fine by you, because... why?
The pervasiveness of grotesque and repulsive obscenity in society cannot be ignored, nor tolerated, nor acceptable,
because eventually, given no limits, it becomes worse and more pervasive and more damaging all the time.
any media is a physical media... and obscenity in the media must be illegal.
Now, there are nudist camps, but I figure in nudist camps there are surely restrictions on behavior....
that isn't an abridgement of freedom, it's a sub-society/sub-culture protecting itself with limits...
Why do liberals say "that should be allowed" and then they have to admit "In reality, no" ?
Deal with reality, and you get more of a sense of where some of get annoyed with liberal verbage on matters such as these...
-
Theoretically, if nude neo-nazis (seriously, who would think that up?) wanted to dance around a school bus they should be able to. In reality, no.
If you go back you see that I am talking about broadcasting. Airwaves differ from a sidewalk or a street because it is so very easily avoidable. To put up something supremely offensive on a billboard or a sidewalk is very hard to avoid and can be easily construed as violating someone else's rights. With TV, radio and movies you have to tune in. You have to own the equipment and consciously tune in. You can change a channel if you don't want to watch something. You can't change a sidewalk. To add to that, sidwalks and streets are publicly owned, while the airwaves spectrum is leased out to broadcasting companies. Shouldn't you be allowed to do what you want with what you are paying for?
And about the child pornography thing: First off, I have no idea why you included anything about gay people or being born gay. It has nothing to do with child pornography. Second, there has to be an age where a child reaches the point where they can be considered an adult. The fact is that children do not have the capacity to reason like an adult or understand the consequences of what they are doing. Child pornography is exploitation.
And about the child pornography thing: First off, I have no idea why you included anything about gay people or being born gay. It has nothing to do with child pornography. Second, there has to be an age where a child reaches the point where they can be considered an adult. The fact is that children do not have the capacity to reason like an adult or understand the consequences of what they are doing. Child pornography is exploitation.
And as I pointed out to you using the kid's picture to sell soap is exploitation.
Paying the neighbor kid to shovel my walk is exploitation.
So what?
As for gays being born gay what about pedophiles?
Aren't they "born" pedophiles?
Kiddie porn pisses us off so it's illegal.
That's it.
Exploitation is a silly excuse.
WSS
-
Fairness Doctrine fundamentally infringes on the 1st. Amendment and also against the free enterprise system.
Free Speech is good enough for me. Fairness Doctrine should be ruled illegal by SC if it ever comes to that. Where is the ACLU on this?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login