More censorship

[PhillyKev 0]

FCC has posted some new rules on their website. In addition to the vaguely defined "indecent" language, "profane" language is also prohibited.

Here's their definition of profane:

Profane material is defined as including language that denotes certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

So, I guess if a broadcaster wanted to voice their opinions about Bush, if anyone is offended, as they clearly would be judging by people's reactions to posts here, they will be censored by the federal gov't.

Hooray for freedom!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

FCC has posted some new rules on their website. In addition to the vaguely defined "indecent" language, "profane" language is also prohibited.

Here's their definition of profane:

Profane material is defined as including language that denotes certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

So, I guess if a broadcaster wanted to voice their opinions about Bush, if anyone is offended, as they clearly would be judging by people's reactions to posts here, they will be censored by the federal gov't.

Hooray for freedom!

You know......I agree with you about the FCC rules but your example is pathetic

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I agree with you about the FCC rules but your example is pathetic

Yes, it's an exterme example. But allowing these kinds of rules can lead directly to that. Worst case scenarios are possible. We shouldn't allow that kind of thing to be an option.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I agree with you about the FCC rules but your example is pathetic

Yes, it's an exterme example. But allowing these kinds of rules can lead directly to that. Worst case scenarios are possible. We shouldn't allow that kind of thing to be an option.

Alright, this hurts, but I will give you that one

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I agree with you about the FCC rules but your example is pathetic

Yes, it's an exterme example. But allowing these kinds of rules can lead directly to that. Worst case scenarios are possible. We shouldn't allow that kind of thing to be an option.

It sounded like you were describing Howard Stern.

[billvon 3,131]

>You know......I agree with you about the FCC rules but your example is pathetic

?? People have been ARRESTED for wearing anti-Bush shirts.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You know......I agree with you about the FCC rules but your example is pathetic

?? People have been ARRESTED for wearing anti-Bush shirts.

Psssssstttttt......I have also heard Clinton had people killed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,131]

>I have also heard Clinton had people killed . . .

So? Innocent deaths in Iraq are well over 10,000 now. Many presidents make decisions that result in innocent people dying. Good thing it's not a crime or Bush would be looking at life in prison (at best.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I have also heard Clinton had people killed . . .

So? Innocent deaths in Iraq are well over 10,000 now. Many presidents make decisions that result in innocent people dying. Good thing it's not a crime or Bush would be looking at life in prison (at best.)

Hmmm....where did this come from?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,131]

>where did this come from?


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html
http://www.swans.com/library/art10/iraq/sloboda.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/08/iraq/main548307.shtml

All above are estimates of course. We will likely never know the true number because, per a CBS article:

"The number of casualties in the Iraqi capital is so high that hospitals there have stopped keeping count, the International Committee of the Red Cross says."

[CanuckInUSA 0]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't GWB say in a speach yesterday that he wants to be remembered as a "Peace President"?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,131]

>didn't GWB say in a speach yesterday that he wants to be remembered
>as a "Peace President"?

Yep. He also compared himself to Winston Churchill as I recall.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

>didn't GWB say in a speach yesterday that he wants to be remembered
>as a "Peace President"?

Yep. He also compared himself to Winston Churchill as I recall.

Must be his oratorical skills!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>where did this come from?


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html
http://www.swans.com/library/art10/iraq/sloboda.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/08/iraq/main548307.shtml

All above are estimates of course. We will likely never know the true number because, per a CBS article:

"The number of casualties in the Iraqi capital is so high that hospitals there have stopped keeping count, the International Committee of the Red Cross says."

My comment had nothing to do with the links you posted. You totally went in another direction.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,131]

>My comment had nothing to do with the links you posted.

You asked where the numbers had come from. Presidents throughout history have done things that have killed people. Unless you believe that Clinton went around DC shooting people in the back of the head.

[newsstand 0]

I think he meant where did the reaction come from. Somehow he didn't get the link between his statement about Clinton having people killed (Vince Foster rumors remember) and thousands of Iraqis truly killed by actions of the US president.

edited for clarity

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[billvon 3,131]

> I think he meant where did the reaction come from.

Ah, OK. For those that missed it - people are being arrested for simply wearing anti-Bush T-shirts. So it's not much of a stretch at all to think that a radio personality could be told to stop making anti-Bush remarks.

[Guest]

Quote

>You know......I agree with you about the FCC rules but your example is pathetic

?? People have been ARRESTED for wearing anti-Bush shirts.

Clinton had people arrested for heckling on at least two occasions that I recall.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

>You know......I agree with you about the FCC rules but your example is pathetic

?? People have been ARRESTED for wearing anti-Bush shirts.

Clinton had people arrested for heckling on at least two occasions that I recall.

mh

.

If he did, that's pretty despicable. Good thing he's not running for president again.

GWB, who is, has done the same thing.

Quote

On Friday, pResident Bush was the commencement speaker at Ohio State University. There was a movement afoot called Turn Your Back On Bush, in which the participants planned to do an about face during Bush's address. Apparently, this made OSU president William E. Kerwan piss his pants, so administrators got the word out to the graduating students that anyone "demonstrating or heckling" the pResident would be expelled and/or arrested. Furthermore, they were admonished to give "thunderous cheers" to Mr. Bush when he appeared.

One person I know of, who goes by the moniker AngryWhiteDemocrat on Democratic Underground, turned around, and was promptly escorted out the door. The choice given was either leave quietly or be arrested. The charge? Disturbing the Peace.

[sundevil777 102]

Kerry fits into Neville Chamberlain's shoes pretty well.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

The pres of the univ decided to stifle protest, not pres Bush.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>My comment had nothing to do with the links you posted.

You asked where the numbers had come from. Presidents throughout history have done things that have killed people. Unless you believe that Clinton went around DC shooting people in the back of the head.

OK, now I see the confusion. The Clinton comment was tunge in cheek. Trying to say I thought the comment made earlier was just as ridiculous. The "People have been ARRESTED for wearing anti-Bush shirts."
You don't really believe that was the only reason for an arrest do you?

I did not understand that you took my comment literaly so I did not understand the change in the direction of the tread.......which you thought I changed.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Just like the BATFE, the IRS, and the FDA, the unelected bureaucrats of the FCC are an unchecked power running amok in this country.

They need to be cut off at the knees, their power GREATLY rescinded.

You won't get any argument out of ME that they're right to engage in the censorship they've been doing.

But at the same time, there are people out there who broadcast quite irresponsibly, as far as subject matter and content being obscene. If they didn't run rampant with their in-your-face exercise of their first amendment rights, people wouldn't spring out of the woodwork to clamor for censoring them. I'm talking about the Howard Sterns of the broadcast world who think that just because they CAN say some asinine thing, they MUST, or they're "not free." Self-restraint is DEAD. It needs to be REVIVED, and there will be less call for censorship. What, Howard Stern can't entertain his moron fans without resorting to disgusting shit disguised as "entertainment"?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 3,131]

> You don't really believe that was the only reason for an arrest do you?

Yes. There were people at a public event; they had tickets to the event and were wearing anti-Bush T-shirts. They were arrested for trespassing. Link:

http://www.news8austin.com/content/election_2004/election_stories/default.asp?ArID=111986

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

> You don't really believe that was the only reason for an arrest do you?

Yes. There were people at a public event; they had tickets to the event and were wearing anti-Bush T-shirts. They were arrested for trespassing. Link:

http://www.news8austin.com/content/election_2004/election_stories/default.asp?ArID=111986

Quote

He said the two were asked to go out to the designated protest area, but refused.

They were protesters, just as if they held a sign. Should the organizers not be allowed to restrict the location of protesters, or should protesters be allowed to take over an event if they have the numbers.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am