lawrocket 3 #26 May 5, 2006 QuoteHow about this for decay of rights. Katz v US. Has to do with privacy and phone/wiretaping. In the 1960's Katz was recorded via a device placed in the phonebooth, he was making sports wagers, the lower court supported the conviction, the US Sup Ct reversed - People have rights to privacy, not places. Now we have Bush advocating wiretaps......... Mapp v Ohio. (1960's) Ms. Mapp was suspected of having Communist propaganda, so the cops barged in w/o invite, gave her a piece of paper and said it was a warrant, she put it down her chest, they then grabbed it back and didn't find Communist literature, but only adult pornography. She was arrested for that and teh US Sup Ct fixed it all. It's interesting that your bring these up. These examples showed that these types of searches and seizures were allowed - actually they were standard operating procedure - until these decisions came down. I agree that what is going on with the wiretapping is abhorrent. I have posted frequently on that. I have also posted frequently my opinions on the Warren Court - I love their 4th Amendment jurisprudence, I love much of their Bill of Rights jurisprudence, and I intensely dislike their Commerce Clause jurisprudence (and, in fact, almost all Commerce Clause jurisprudence over the past 70 years). I posted a hypothetical about a possible way that a law could be passed under the Commerce Clause that would allow wiretapping as regulation of an instrumentality of interstate commerce. My logic in that hypothetical was morally outrageous, procedurally unbalanced, and legally legitimate considering the commerce clause jurispridence not just of the last 70 years, but of the last seven months! Here's that post: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2073052#2073052 My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 May 5, 2006 Quotethey are pissed about the name being used with such.... uh.. less than outstanding performance I don't know about lately, but my freshman year (LONG time ago) it was always the same at the football games. 1st down 2nd down PUNT 1st down 2nd down PUNT We'd fire off the cannon even when they'd get to reset first down. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #28 May 5, 2006 Quote1st down 2nd down PUNT 1st down 2nd down PUNT Funny, they played Canadian Football at a US university? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #29 May 5, 2006 QuoteFunny, they played Canadian Football at a US university? Are you serious? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #30 May 5, 2006 QuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #31 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI want to draw the line in front of people who purposefully create serious mental anguish for the innocent survivors of dead soldiers. Sure. I'd love it if everyone were nice to each other too. But the cost of having a government that draws lines when people's feelings get hurt is worse than the cost of people hurting your feelings. Even if it hurts your feelings a LOT. Even if it's veterans. Even if it's kids. I believe that the biggest danger to free speech is political correctness. The media and the left started the run and now in some cases have managed to get courts to create law to enforce it. Hate crimes come to mind. Thoughts? I disagree. I believe it is the rapidly decreasing probability of being anywhere or saying anything that is not recorded by the government.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #32 May 6, 2006 OK, I understand what you are saying but that is a different topic (I think). I am talking more about buzz words that might offend someone. Slang and terms that may have been used in the past but today you can't say them because you will be viified. The part that bothers me the worst (and this is along your line of thought) that they (those that say the words offend someone) claim because you say "something" they have labled, they "know" what you are thinging. The "thought police" say you can't thing that way. So, it may not have been recorded but I think this is worse!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #33 May 6, 2006 >I believe that the biggest danger to free speech is political correctness. It's not a danger to free speech. You are perfectly free to call a jewish guy a kike, or say that blacks are more likely to commit crimes or whatever. But (and here's the catch) everyone _else_ is then free to call you names as well. (And to boycott your news show, or your product, or whatever.) "Political correctness" is another term for "what X people agree is rude." X is different for everyone. For some people X is the liberals. "You can't even say that blacks commit more crime than whites in Houston without being branded a racist by the liberal PC police!" For some, X is the conservatives. "Anyone who speaks out against the war is labeled a traitor by the conservative extremists!" Political correctness can be a pain in the butt sometimes because it often substitutes specific ways of speaking, or avoidance of specific words, for common courtesy. But it's not a danger to you saying whatever you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #34 May 6, 2006 I am 90% in agreement with you. (maybe even 97%) Well stated howerver! It is a danger though in some cases. The example that come to mind ( and please don't go after me for the owner of the statement) was when Rush Limbaugh was on ESPN. He made a coment that in essanse said the media gave (ahh, who was the black quarter back? I can't think of his name...) that quarter back a break because they wanted a black pro quarter back to do well. They called him a racist and his comment had nothing to do with the player but as to the media bias. We have had others say similar things in the last year and they have not been treated the same. Maybe this is more related to the person and how he is viewed by the media but I hope I have made a small point."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #35 May 6, 2006 >He made a coment that in essanse said the media gave (ahh, who was > the black quarter back? I can't think of his name...) that quarter back a >break because they wanted a black pro quarter back to do well. Which is his right. >They called him a racist . . . Which is THEIR right. >We have had others say similar things in the last year and they have not >been treated the same. No argument there. But if you're for free speech, you pretty much have to be for free bias too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #36 May 6, 2006 Quote>He made a coment that in essanse said the media gave (ahh, who was > the black quarter back? I can't think of his name...) that quarter back a >break because they wanted a black pro quarter back to do well. Which is his right. >They called him a racist . . . Which is THEIR right. >We have had others say similar things in the last year and they have not >been treated the same. No argument there. But if you're for free speech, you pretty much have to be for free bias too. I guess it is the double standard that bothers me so much. That is what make PC speech so dangerous. A few are choosing who can say what and when they can say it based on their own beliefs. Add to that the power of the media and you got a mess....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #37 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt If they were that bad they might punt on 3rd down anyway. No rule against it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #38 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt If they were that bad they might punt on 3rd down anyway. No rule against it. if the French played they would either forfeit or punt on first down! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #39 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt If they were that bad they might punt on 3rd down anyway. No rule against it. if the French played they would either forfeit or punt on first down! Given that rugby is the forerunner of American football, and that it is altogether a more manly game, with no time-outs or wussy body armor, that is very funny. The French national rugby team is very very good. I guess you're just blowing hot air out of ignorance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #40 May 6, 2006 Quote>I believe that the biggest danger to free speech is political correctness. It's not a danger to free speech. You are perfectly free to call a jewish guy a kike, or say that blacks are more likely to commit crimes or whatever. But (and here's the catch) everyone _else_ is then free to call you names as well. (And to boycott your news show, or your product, or whatever.) This is the "political correctness" that most of us think about, bill. The "PC" that most of us mean is when a governmental or quasi-governmental body decides what it "offensive" and punishes a person for what is, in essence, speech. We've got Baylor University threatening disciplinary action against and female student who takes Playboy up on its offer for a student. We've got schools - public schools - who will punish a student who calls another student a nigger, spic, kike, wetback, etc. It's not a matter of "protest," which I think is fine. It's a matter of controlling content. I posted about a 9th Circuit decision, wherein the judge writing the majority opinion actually said that his holding only allows a school to punish a majority student (i.e., white, straight, etc.) for making negative comments about a minority student (i.e., gay, black, etc.). A "minority" student is free to offend a "majority" student. That's the PC we speak of - the banning of words, phrases, etc., for fear that it might harm someone. Any prior restraint on speech is a bad thing, in my opinion. When the government punishes content-based speech, it's an abridgment of freedoms. When the public punishes content-based speech, it's the system at work. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #41 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuote>I believe that the biggest danger to free speech is political correctness. It's not a danger to free speech. You are perfectly free to call a jewish guy a kike, or say that blacks are more likely to commit crimes or whatever. But (and here's the catch) everyone _else_ is then free to call you names as well. (And to boycott your news show, or your product, or whatever.) This is the "political correctness" that most of us think about, bill. The "PC" that most of us mean is when a governmental or quasi-governmental body decides what it "offensive" and punishes a person for what is, in essence, speech. We've got Baylor University threatening disciplinary action against and female student who takes Playboy up on its offer for a student. We've got schools - public schools - who will punish a student who calls another student a nigger, spic, kike, wetback, etc. It's not a matter of "protest," which I think is fine. It's a matter of controlling content. I posted about a 9th Circuit decision, wherein the judge writing the majority opinion actually said that his holding only allows a school to punish a majority student (i.e., white, straight, etc.) for making negative comments about a minority student (i.e., gay, black, etc.). A "minority" student is free to offend a "majority" student. That's the PC we speak of - the banning of words, phrases, etc., for fear that it might harm someone. Any prior restraint on speech is a bad thing, in my opinion. When the government punishes content-based speech, it's an abridgment of freedoms. When the public punishes content-based speech, it's the system at work. Thanks for the post. You spelled out what I was trying to say much better. Thanks again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #42 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt If they were that bad they might punt on 3rd down anyway. No rule against it. if the French played they would either forfeit or punt on first down! Given that rugby is the forerunner of American football, and that it is altogether a more manly game, with no time-outs or wussy body armor, that is very funny. The French national rugby team is very very good. I guess you're just blowing hot air out of ignorance. Well then, when will you be moving to france? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #43 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt If they were that bad they might punt on 3rd down anyway. No rule against it. if the French played they would either forfeit or punt on first down! Given that rugby is the forerunner of American football, and that it is altogether a more manly game, with no time-outs or wussy body armor, that is very funny. The French national rugby team is very very good. I guess you're just blowing hot air out of ignorance. Well then, when will you be moving to france? Have you ever been to France? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #44 May 7, 2006 I have never been out of Illinois why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #45 May 7, 2006 QuoteI have never been out of Illinois why? That's pretty obvious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #46 May 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteI have never been out of Illinois why? That's pretty obvious. hehehe oh please enlighten me!, oh great world traveler! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #47 May 8, 2006 >That is what make PC speech so dangerous. Oh, it's not dangerous, just annoying. You are still free to say whatever you want. If you say "blacks commit more crimes in Houston than whites" people might say that's not PC. If you say "we are losing in Iraq" people might call you a traitor or an america-hater. If you say "we stopped Saddam's WMD programs and freed the Middle East" people might call you brainwashed. But the important part is that you can still say all those things. (And just as importantly those other people can say the same things about you.) >A few are choosing who can say what and when they can say it >based on their own beliefs. Nope. The very fact that people are complaining that things are/aren't PC is evidence that people are still saying pretty much whatever they want. Now, if the _government_ comes out and says "you can't report on Iraq/say bad things about blacks/criticize the administration/claim you're Jesus" then I would agree - we have a serious problem. So far (fortunately) they have not done that very much. >Add to that the power of the media and you got a mess..... "The power of the media" is just the power to get a specific message out. FOX does it. CNN does it. Newsmax and Salon would like to, but they don't have much readership as compared to the other two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #48 May 8, 2006 >"The power of the media" is just the power to get a specific message out. FOX does it. CNN does it. Newsmax and Salon would like to, but they don't have much readership as compared to the other two.< The important thing to remember here is (according to the lastest survey that came out about 6 weeks ago) about 75% of Americans get thier news from the big 3 media outlets. Watching one of them gets you the news from the other 2......."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jenfly00 0 #31 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI want to draw the line in front of people who purposefully create serious mental anguish for the innocent survivors of dead soldiers. Sure. I'd love it if everyone were nice to each other too. But the cost of having a government that draws lines when people's feelings get hurt is worse than the cost of people hurting your feelings. Even if it hurts your feelings a LOT. Even if it's veterans. Even if it's kids. I believe that the biggest danger to free speech is political correctness. The media and the left started the run and now in some cases have managed to get courts to create law to enforce it. Hate crimes come to mind. Thoughts? I disagree. I believe it is the rapidly decreasing probability of being anywhere or saying anything that is not recorded by the government.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 May 6, 2006 OK, I understand what you are saying but that is a different topic (I think). I am talking more about buzz words that might offend someone. Slang and terms that may have been used in the past but today you can't say them because you will be viified. The part that bothers me the worst (and this is along your line of thought) that they (those that say the words offend someone) claim because you say "something" they have labled, they "know" what you are thinging. The "thought police" say you can't thing that way. So, it may not have been recorded but I think this is worse!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #33 May 6, 2006 >I believe that the biggest danger to free speech is political correctness. It's not a danger to free speech. You are perfectly free to call a jewish guy a kike, or say that blacks are more likely to commit crimes or whatever. But (and here's the catch) everyone _else_ is then free to call you names as well. (And to boycott your news show, or your product, or whatever.) "Political correctness" is another term for "what X people agree is rude." X is different for everyone. For some people X is the liberals. "You can't even say that blacks commit more crime than whites in Houston without being branded a racist by the liberal PC police!" For some, X is the conservatives. "Anyone who speaks out against the war is labeled a traitor by the conservative extremists!" Political correctness can be a pain in the butt sometimes because it often substitutes specific ways of speaking, or avoidance of specific words, for common courtesy. But it's not a danger to you saying whatever you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #34 May 6, 2006 I am 90% in agreement with you. (maybe even 97%) Well stated howerver! It is a danger though in some cases. The example that come to mind ( and please don't go after me for the owner of the statement) was when Rush Limbaugh was on ESPN. He made a coment that in essanse said the media gave (ahh, who was the black quarter back? I can't think of his name...) that quarter back a break because they wanted a black pro quarter back to do well. They called him a racist and his comment had nothing to do with the player but as to the media bias. We have had others say similar things in the last year and they have not been treated the same. Maybe this is more related to the person and how he is viewed by the media but I hope I have made a small point."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #35 May 6, 2006 >He made a coment that in essanse said the media gave (ahh, who was > the black quarter back? I can't think of his name...) that quarter back a >break because they wanted a black pro quarter back to do well. Which is his right. >They called him a racist . . . Which is THEIR right. >We have had others say similar things in the last year and they have not >been treated the same. No argument there. But if you're for free speech, you pretty much have to be for free bias too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 May 6, 2006 Quote>He made a coment that in essanse said the media gave (ahh, who was > the black quarter back? I can't think of his name...) that quarter back a >break because they wanted a black pro quarter back to do well. Which is his right. >They called him a racist . . . Which is THEIR right. >We have had others say similar things in the last year and they have not >been treated the same. No argument there. But if you're for free speech, you pretty much have to be for free bias too. I guess it is the double standard that bothers me so much. That is what make PC speech so dangerous. A few are choosing who can say what and when they can say it based on their own beliefs. Add to that the power of the media and you got a mess....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #37 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt If they were that bad they might punt on 3rd down anyway. No rule against it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #38 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt If they were that bad they might punt on 3rd down anyway. No rule against it. if the French played they would either forfeit or punt on first down! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #39 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt If they were that bad they might punt on 3rd down anyway. No rule against it. if the French played they would either forfeit or punt on first down! Given that rugby is the forerunner of American football, and that it is altogether a more manly game, with no time-outs or wussy body armor, that is very funny. The French national rugby team is very very good. I guess you're just blowing hot air out of ignorance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #40 May 6, 2006 Quote>I believe that the biggest danger to free speech is political correctness. It's not a danger to free speech. You are perfectly free to call a jewish guy a kike, or say that blacks are more likely to commit crimes or whatever. But (and here's the catch) everyone _else_ is then free to call you names as well. (And to boycott your news show, or your product, or whatever.) This is the "political correctness" that most of us think about, bill. The "PC" that most of us mean is when a governmental or quasi-governmental body decides what it "offensive" and punishes a person for what is, in essence, speech. We've got Baylor University threatening disciplinary action against and female student who takes Playboy up on its offer for a student. We've got schools - public schools - who will punish a student who calls another student a nigger, spic, kike, wetback, etc. It's not a matter of "protest," which I think is fine. It's a matter of controlling content. I posted about a 9th Circuit decision, wherein the judge writing the majority opinion actually said that his holding only allows a school to punish a majority student (i.e., white, straight, etc.) for making negative comments about a minority student (i.e., gay, black, etc.). A "minority" student is free to offend a "majority" student. That's the PC we speak of - the banning of words, phrases, etc., for fear that it might harm someone. Any prior restraint on speech is a bad thing, in my opinion. When the government punishes content-based speech, it's an abridgment of freedoms. When the public punishes content-based speech, it's the system at work. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #41 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuote>I believe that the biggest danger to free speech is political correctness. It's not a danger to free speech. You are perfectly free to call a jewish guy a kike, or say that blacks are more likely to commit crimes or whatever. But (and here's the catch) everyone _else_ is then free to call you names as well. (And to boycott your news show, or your product, or whatever.) This is the "political correctness" that most of us think about, bill. The "PC" that most of us mean is when a governmental or quasi-governmental body decides what it "offensive" and punishes a person for what is, in essence, speech. We've got Baylor University threatening disciplinary action against and female student who takes Playboy up on its offer for a student. We've got schools - public schools - who will punish a student who calls another student a nigger, spic, kike, wetback, etc. It's not a matter of "protest," which I think is fine. It's a matter of controlling content. I posted about a 9th Circuit decision, wherein the judge writing the majority opinion actually said that his holding only allows a school to punish a majority student (i.e., white, straight, etc.) for making negative comments about a minority student (i.e., gay, black, etc.). A "minority" student is free to offend a "majority" student. That's the PC we speak of - the banning of words, phrases, etc., for fear that it might harm someone. Any prior restraint on speech is a bad thing, in my opinion. When the government punishes content-based speech, it's an abridgment of freedoms. When the public punishes content-based speech, it's the system at work. Thanks for the post. You spelled out what I was trying to say much better. Thanks again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #42 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt If they were that bad they might punt on 3rd down anyway. No rule against it. if the French played they would either forfeit or punt on first down! Given that rugby is the forerunner of American football, and that it is altogether a more manly game, with no time-outs or wussy body armor, that is very funny. The French national rugby team is very very good. I guess you're just blowing hot air out of ignorance. Well then, when will you be moving to france? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #43 May 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you serious? yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt If they were that bad they might punt on 3rd down anyway. No rule against it. if the French played they would either forfeit or punt on first down! Given that rugby is the forerunner of American football, and that it is altogether a more manly game, with no time-outs or wussy body armor, that is very funny. The French national rugby team is very very good. I guess you're just blowing hot air out of ignorance. Well then, when will you be moving to france? Have you ever been to France? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #44 May 7, 2006 I have never been out of Illinois why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #45 May 7, 2006 QuoteI have never been out of Illinois why? That's pretty obvious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #46 May 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteI have never been out of Illinois why? That's pretty obvious. hehehe oh please enlighten me!, oh great world traveler! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #47 May 8, 2006 >That is what make PC speech so dangerous. Oh, it's not dangerous, just annoying. You are still free to say whatever you want. If you say "blacks commit more crimes in Houston than whites" people might say that's not PC. If you say "we are losing in Iraq" people might call you a traitor or an america-hater. If you say "we stopped Saddam's WMD programs and freed the Middle East" people might call you brainwashed. But the important part is that you can still say all those things. (And just as importantly those other people can say the same things about you.) >A few are choosing who can say what and when they can say it >based on their own beliefs. Nope. The very fact that people are complaining that things are/aren't PC is evidence that people are still saying pretty much whatever they want. Now, if the _government_ comes out and says "you can't report on Iraq/say bad things about blacks/criticize the administration/claim you're Jesus" then I would agree - we have a serious problem. So far (fortunately) they have not done that very much. >Add to that the power of the media and you got a mess..... "The power of the media" is just the power to get a specific message out. FOX does it. CNN does it. Newsmax and Salon would like to, but they don't have much readership as compared to the other two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #48 May 8, 2006 >"The power of the media" is just the power to get a specific message out. FOX does it. CNN does it. Newsmax and Salon would like to, but they don't have much readership as compared to the other two.< The important thing to remember here is (according to the lastest survey that came out about 6 weeks ago) about 75% of Americans get thier news from the big 3 media outlets. Watching one of them gets you the news from the other 2......."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
