2004 Jefferson Muzzle Awards 440
un1xl0ser writes "The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has released the muzzle awards for people who forgot that "free speech can not be limited without being lost". Check out the 2004 "winners". Famous winners include The U.S. Department of Defense and CBS."
I would just like to say.. (Score:5, Funny)
Clear Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not on the list yet, but after the Janet-boob incident and yanking Howard Stern off their stations, I'm guessing they should be in the running for the 2004s. I half expected them to be there, then remember this was last year.
If he hasn't already, John Ashcroft deserves an honorary trophy all for himself.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:2, Insightful)
The timing of the move was orchestrated to come as a "look! we care about our listeners and decency!", but it was really just business as usual.
They pitched a fit when he was dropped in Montreal too, made a big free speech deal out of it, but the fact was, noone there was listening.
Frankly, his show has gotten tired. I've gone from someone who listened every day on the drive to work, to listenin
Re:Clear Channel (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if it was due to ratings that's one thing, I didn't know that though. I don't listen to his show but I thought it was kind of crappy that he was the victim of a knee-jerk response that had nothing to do with him, really.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:3, Insightful)
He was removed because he is being made an example of by the FCC. The lesson to all broadcasters is apparently "Say anything remotely controversial, and you'll be fined and have your career destroyed."
Hmm.. That doesn't sound right to me, but that's just business as usual. Hate the Stern show if you want, but he is being singled
Re:Clear Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clear Channel (Score:2, Informative)
Howard's audience is not dropping, and that has nothing to do with why he is being taken off the air. You should go read some of the articles linked at his site [howardstern.com]
Re:Clear Channel (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you haven't been following the story very closely, but Stern has now been punted from EVERY Clear Channel station -- of which there are seven hundred and change. Now granted, Stern's show was only carried by a small fraction of those, but for those that did which is more likely: that his ratings were doing poorly in EVERY market simultaneously, or that the FCC's latest flurry of arbitrar
Clear Channel does not belong on list (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Clear Channel does not belong on list (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clear Channel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clear Channel (Score:5, Informative)
It's all conjecture, I suppose, and I haven't read a whole lot about it other than what's on the news wires, so I'm hardly an expert.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:4, Informative)
Certainly not an air tight case, I'll grant you. But it does have a bad smell to it.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno, ask the stations facing a half million dollar fine for airing him. If they don't pay, men with guns come to lock them in an iron cage. Or perhaps just take all their stuff.
First they came for Howard Stern (Score:4, Funny)
.
Then they came for Rush Limbaugh. I did not speak up, as I was not a dittohead.
Then they came for Sean Hannity. I did not speak up, because I was not hannitized.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was nothing on the radio but polka shows.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:3, Informative)
If he hasn't already, John Ashcroft deserves an honorary trophy all for himself.
He has one [tjcenter.org]
Re:Clear Channel (Score:2)
oooooh... I missed that. I have been working while I'm reading, good to know!
Re:Clear Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish there was another line for the 1st amendment that stated my freedom to not have to listen. I've never understood why people think "freedom of speech" means "you have to listen me, no matter how silly I am!" My alcoholic neighbor that yell-sings Led Zepplin at 3:00am outside isn't excercising his free speach right, he's just annoying me until the police show up.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:4, Insightful)
True, they don't *have* to air him. But considering they're probably the biggest media company around and control the vast majority of the radio stations, I would hope that they'd at least try to find a compromise rather than cut him off the air. They still air a lot of stuff I find vulgar, Rush Limbaugh for one, but I wouldn't ask them to take him off the air because I don't have to listen to the stations he plays on. Just like CC's listeners could easily change the station.
Of course I have issues with one company having that much control to begin with, but that's just me.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a principle I firmly believe in as a follower of the spam wars that the owner of a mail server may choose to deliver, or not deliver an email for any reason whatever - the sender is on a spam blacklist, the sender has a beard, it's a Friday, the stars aren't right, anything - so I fear I must apply the same standards to those who own radio stations also.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clear Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have petitioned the government to allow you to be the nearly the only provider of 'x', then you must serve the public interest in a responsible manner. That includes protecting free-speech for someone who is in all other respects a welcome addition to your network. That especially includes not dumping a show because you disagree with something that's been said on it, even more so if you know that many members of the public (who you are expected to be serving) agree with it. If the FCC wasn't so busy being puritanical itself, they should really be enforcing the service of the public interest and free-speech ideals instead.
If ClearChannel is really that unhappy about the arrangement, perhaps they should get out of the completely saturated, FCC-limited market they're in, so they can do something with a little less responsibility required, like satellite radio.
Besides, regardless of whether it's a free-speech issue or not, we're allowed to bash them for it. You know, free-speech and all that.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO LISTEN! No one has taken that away from you, if you don't like the Stern show, change the channel!!! Why do we need the government to force thier approved content down our throats?
Clear Channel's got its M.O., I've got mine (Score:3, Interesting)
C.C. sponsored pro-invasion demonstrations before we went into Iraq. The decision to knuckle under to FCC pressure at the very moment when Stern started ranting about George W. just reeks of those politics.
So yeah, they've got a right, just like CBS can pull a lame miniseries -- but to pull him on the pretext of indecency when you're actually more th
Re:Clear Channel (Score:2, Interesting)
What, exactely, are those boobs saying that is being censored? Is there anything they can communicate in a printed sentence or a speech given from a podium wearing clothes w/o using terminology of excrement and reproduction that's of any importance? Or are they just cheap publicity stunts and shocking behavior for it's own sake to em'bare ass' people? And why focus on these marginal incremental pushing public limits of decency - why not just claim that prevent
Re:Clear Channel (Score:4, Insightful)
The boobs didn't say anything. It's the OMG we must censor everything for the chiiiiiiiiildren backlash caused by it that says (or rather, doesn't say) something.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if they're being censored (which they are) then (by definition) they're not saying anything, are they?
Is there anything they can communicate in a printed sentence or a speech
Perhaps you need to re-read your constitution. The First Amendment mentions expression, not just speech.
that's of any importance?
Whether something is "of importance" or not is irrelevant. The First Amendment doesn't mention that something must be "of importance" to garner protection. All expression is protected.
Take it to extreams to see how rediculous this crying about 'censorship' is.
It's not 'rediculous' (it's also not ridiculous, either.)
WHAT EXACTLY are they saying that is being 'censored'?
They are saying that the moral tone of the United States is too conservative, and that there's nothing wrong with showing a nipple on television.
They're saying that the US needs to shed it's puritanical views that a 1-inch piece of skin is 'bad'.
Say Janet wants to lay down and rub her labia while Justin masterbates into a paper bag on national prime time Sunday night TV that anybody can tune in - isn't that 'censorship' as well?
If they believe it has artistic merit, and it's banned by the government, then yes - it is indeed censorship (pretty much by definition.)
It's been said that the First Amendment exists not to protect what's popular, but to protect what's unpopular. This is a perfect example.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:5, Funny)
So, uh, why were they hidden for a few years anyways?
That's it, I'm moving to Brazil.
Re:Clear Channel (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Clear Channel (Score:2)
Oh wow... thanks for that info. I try to follow these things but that must've gotten by me somehow. I had no idea he was the chairmain of the FCC. I'll have to keep a lookout for more information about that, thanks!
What, no Slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
Here's a Nomination... (Score:5, Funny)
To this end, I nominate the Slashdot Editors. Congratulations guys!
(just a joke folks...now watch this thread disappear due to the whims of mgmt)
:P
-JT
Sadly there is truth to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, what is particularly interesting is that /. editors (possibly including Sims himself) routinely use their unlimited moderation points to moderate any discussion of this as offtopic.
It will be interesting to see whether they will do this on this thread since it is pretty relevant to its parent which was moderated quite highly. Hell, I am even happy to risk getting bitchslapped [idge.net] to find out.
Runner up award goes to.... (Score:2, Funny)
google cashe (Score:4, Informative)
Re:google cashe (Score:5, Informative)
Limited? (Score:3, Funny)
-1, Flamebait
Where's Slashdot on the list? (Score:4, Funny)
Not the same (Score:3, Informative)
A new prize: The Slashdot Award... (Score:2, Funny)
Whilst, over here in Blighty... (Score:2, Interesting)
Whether you believe that the person in question was justified or not, the fact remains that they signed a legally binding contract to keep their mouth shut - and the government doesn't have the will to enforce it.
Maybe Blair just feels a little less secure.
Certainly not fox - The Sheild gets away with all (Score:3)
Die Hard fans know what I mean
Re:Certainly not fox - The Sheild gets away with a (Score:2)
Re:Certainly not fox - The Sheild gets away with a (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall watching Godfather on US tv last year. When Michael Corleone's Italian wife takes her top off, revealing her breasts they were all pixelated, to prevent us from becoming disturbed.
About three minutes later, Sonny Corleone gave his brother-in-law Carlo a severe beating with, amongst other things a trashcan.
We got to see that unedited...
Moral : Violence good, boobies bad.
I like America, but is a weird country.
This award is very _______!! (Score:5, Funny)
However, I'm a bit concerned that our current ad_______ might be going slightly overboard with this Home_____ _______y thing. In particular, John A_____ is really a bit worrying.
But no matter, nothing can take our __ghts away from us, thanks to our Const______ that I'm sure everybody would defend with their lives should it ever be under threat.
Anyway, this is just my __ cents.
Regards, ______ _______
(hold on a sec, someone's at the door, probably to inquire about the 3 black vans parked under my window...)
Re:This award is very _______!! (Score:3, Funny)
NONONONO ... like this: (Score:3)
Re:This award is very ____(adj)!!
I myself live in ____(place), WA and I'm so glad I live in a free country. I mean, I really feel for those poor people who don't have the ____(adj) amendment to protect their speech in ____(noun)land.
However, I'm a bit concerned that our current ____(group) might be going slightly overboard with this ____(election year issue) thing. In particular, ____(famous pe
I'd nominate Justice Scalia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd nominate Justice Scalia (Score:3, Informative)
The US Marshal, on the other hand, may be up for the award...
Why are companies on this list? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Congress shall make no law..."
The requisite IANAL applies, but doesn't the first amendment only apply to the government? Yes, corporations are filled with greedy scumbags, but can't they technically do all the "muzzling" they want under applicable law? Doesn't mean it's right, but it is what it is.
Please don't flame - I'd like to be corrected if I am mistaken.
Re:Why are companies on this list? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why are companies on this list? (Score:3, Informative)
Slashdotted, but here are the nominees (Score:2, Informative)
(individual accounts of the winners follows)
Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
The U.S. Department of Defense
The United States Secret Service
The Albemarle County (VA) School Board
Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey
CBS Television
The University of New Orleans Administration
The Administration of Dearborn High School (Michigan)
The South Carolina House of Representatives
The Parks and Recreation Division of Broward County (Florida)
Jeff Webster of Soldotna, Alas
School Mascott (Score:5, Informative)
Re:School Mascott (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what is it? Are you kidding, stupid, or did you just not read the article?
In this particular case, the tshirt was relevant to the shooting sports. It bore the same type of silhouettes used at the Olympics to denote shooting events. (You are aware, aren't you, that shooting is an Olympic sport, with a number of events?)
In what idiotic alternate universe does wearing a tshirt that promotes
Re:Please. (Score:3, Interesting)
At the Summer Games, things are a tad better if we win a medal or two or if one of our shooters is particularly telegenic. Luckily, one or two of our shooters are usually very lovely young ladies.
You want an illustration? I sat next to Ralf Schumann's wife when he won the gold for Rapid Fire Pistol
Re:Please. (Score:4, Insightful)
A musket is a historical weapon that has no relevence to today. What about all of the school mascots with Roman spears or Tomahawks?
Tell that to the high-school kids in metal shop making primitive weapons that work just fine in gang warfare.
These things are symbols for us because at one time they were part of our values. Perhaps the politically correct find a Roman with a spear less violent. I do not..
Here is what I am trying to say, the school has a policy about glorifying violence. Intimidating clothing is part of it.
There are far more intimidating things done and worn by kids in school, and more-likely to happen than bringing an assault weapon to school. There are also certainly more single-shot hard-to-load weapons carried to school than assault weapons.
No one is going to put on a tricorn hat and go on a school rampage with a muzzle loader. So your argument is baloney.
So as long as they have a tricorn hat with their weaponry it is ok, because no one would wear a tricorn hat when killing people? Your argument makes so much more sense now :-)
However, people wearing shirts with the silhouette of a modern firearm might just be considered a intimidating. Our children go to school to learn, not be intimidated by classmates that act as though they might shoot people, or glorify violence with their fourteen year old understanding of the world. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you have some children before your reply, it might change your attitude.
I have children in school, and they have been repeatedly harassed by bullys, but never with an assault weapon. Taking the symbols off of their shirts seems like just removing the warning label, if it indeed was indicative of violent tendencies at all. It sounds like this school's approach is very superficial.
Should the school also allow shirts that say "I will strangle your mother if you look at me again"? After all, in this country you can say and express what you want!
No. That would seem to be a clear threat.
But they should be required to provide evidence that a musket-carrying soldier is an order of magnitude less intimidating than an assault weapon. Perhaps they should eliminate the problem and get rid of violent sports like football altogether, and other things that contribute to the jock mentality that seems to cause actual bullying and be rid of the violent mascots at the same time.
See?
I see that the problem and hypocracy remains.
In any society, even a free one, there is a responsibility, and a line to be drawn. Even in America there is a line. The line is a lot deeper than most countries, but there is still a line. That is to let other people live with freedom from tyranny, oppression, religion, and fear. Remember those?
Yes. But drawing the line will always be arbitrary, and obvious hypocricy such as this does not make the system credible.
I would give a different message in school. I am not sure what eliminating the symbols of modern weapons in schools does.
Anti-war speech is as likely to refer to symbols of violence as the pro-war neo-conservatives, as well as the traditional conservatives, who don't shoot anyone but believe that popular sovereinty includes the right to self defense.
Many are taught that the cross is a symbol of hatred, and most other symbols, too have roots in issues that are violent in nature. This is why crosses, muslim scarves, and other symbols were banned in schools in France. How did you arrive at the conclusion that your line is responsible, and that of others, who consider it unjustified abridgement of free speech, are not?
Significance (Score:2)
Does the Secret Service care that they got one for stifling demonstrators?
Does CBS care that they got a third?
Re:Significance (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Significance (Score:2)
Their influence is proportional to how many people are aware of them. While it might not make a huge impact certainly emailing the link to friends will spread awareness and let them see why this group has put these organizations on the list. Information is the key to changing things and an effective delivery is often through humor and mocking.
CBS did not curtail free speech!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Free Speech can only be curtailed by the government.
Some people should actually try to READ the constitution before they try to apply it.
Re:CBS did not curtail free speech!!! (Score:3, Informative)
a privately owned broadcast network is of course free to accept or reject submitted material as it wishes. Indeed, any governmental attempt to commandeer airtime for a particular message would almost certainly abridge a broadcaster's First Amendment freedoms. Yet the very power and authority that the major television networks possess impose a certain responsibility to exercise such power conscientiously and in the public interest. It is ju
Re:CBS did not curtail free speech!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
In the Howard Stern case, Clear Channel is probably in the right. However, what if Clear Channel were removing a DJ who criticized the war in Iraq? What if a popular music group were removed from the air for criticizing the President? What if Clear Channel removed a talk show host because he was Islamic or had HIV or was physically impaired?
Clearly there is a line somewhere, and the line is crossed legally wh
Re:CBS did not curtail free speech!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, if a radio show is dissappointing to the company that produces it, or against the values of the people in charge, it does not matter what the reason is, they are not obligated to carry it.
By your reasoning, some Islamic fundamentalist could get a radio show with Clear Channel. Let's say it was supposed to be reasonable discourse that had nothing to do wi
Re:CBS did not curtail free speech!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . which has a monopoly on a portion of the TV spectrum, granted by our government. They should be held to a different standard than a cable channel or newspaper.
Re:CBS did not curtail free speech!!! (Score:2)
Yes, exactly. Although CBS is not required to give the soapbox to just anyone who wants it. CBS had two issues: the Reagan miniseries (eventually shown on cable, and probably available for rent: freedom of speech was not denied) and MoveOn.org (their commercial had already been shown on other networks and was available to download: freedom of speech was not denied).
"Free Speech" is expensive, but worth it (Score:5, Insightful)
I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.
Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.
Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.
Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power. The very existance of Slashdot, and of the web article that spawned this topic is an example of the balance that true Free Speech maintains.
Re:"Free Speech" is expensive, but worth it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Free Speech" is expensive, but worth it (Score:3, Insightful)
A comparison with people doing poorly is hardly justification for claiming that you are doing well. Lets compare with where we *could* be, not with where other repressive governments are.
Re:"Free Speech" is expensive, but worth it (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an interesting thing to say, I find, especially coming from American citizens. I am of the opinion that there are quite a few places, and people, in the world who can say whatever they damn well please.
ObQuoteSimpsons:
"Where else but in America - or perhaps Canada - could one do such a thing?"
There are certainly a large number of countries that are repressive, and limiting to free speech, but the US is hardly a beacon of shining light in this particular area these days. I can say a lot of things in Canada. Or Britain, or Australia, or Demnark, or Spain, or.. you get the point. In fact one could make the argument that I have more freedom in what I say in Canada, just due to the fact that many of the limitations on free speech are imposed by private citizens who control some form of media or forum, and have an axe to grind. Those Muzzle Awards about the kids who wore the NRA/GWB-terrorist shirts to school for instance.. if a kid wore a shirt calling Paul Martin a terrorist, he would likely get invited to join the debate club, in Ontario.
I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.
I completely agree, but why are you annoyed? You don't have to listen to them.
Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.
The Dixie Chicks learned the 'hard way' that if they voice an unpopular political opinion, their fans will punish them economically, in the only way they can. That is a limit on free speech, albeit a self-imposed one, like I mentioned above. I think you should buy Dixie Chicks albums if you like the music. If you totally hate the thought of listening to music you like, sung by someone critical of a President you like, you should think about why you cannot separate those two ideas in your head.
Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.
What an odd thing to say.. we (collectively, Western Civilization 'we') already lost something... a bunch of people who died during the World Wars. They paid. We shouldn't have to lose anything more to exercise our hard-fought rights.
Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power.
Absolutely - in a Free Society. If you don't get a chance, or worse, if the citizenry just decides that your particular speech is Bad... that's when it starts to crumble.
Re:"Free Speech" is expensive, but worth it (Score:3, Funny)
Dixie Chicks (Score:5, Interesting)
Just one week after Maines' statement, South Carolina State Representative Catherine Ceips introduced a House Resolution calling upon the Dixie Chicks to publicly apologize for the statement and perform a free concert for American troops stationed in South Carolina when the group began a tour in Greenville, South Carolina on May 1st. The Resolution called the comments "unpatriotic," "unnecessary," and "anti-American." The measure passed the House on a 50-35 vote.
They deserved all the criticism and praise they got for the speech against Bush. They did not deserve a law enacted to specifically force them to apologize and give a free concert. I'll cut them some slack for feeling persecuted when this type of crap happens.
Re:Dixie Chicks (Score:3, Interesting)
It's just the legislators expressing their own opinions, which presumably the Thomas Jefferson Center would (grudgingly) allow that they are permitted to do.
Actually, the Thomas Jefferson Center commented on this too...
People have a right to be heard... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironically... (Score:4, Funny)
CBS, Clear Channel etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
e.g. if I work at McDonalds and get fired for saying Ray Kroc was a male slut, is that an imposition on "free speech"... or just my speech, in proper context?
When a government commission like the FCC starts making moral pronouncements it motivates me to political action. When a private company does it, whether their motivation is political or not, I don't care. I cannot concieve of how CBS limiting its employees' speech in the context of work affects my ability to speak freely.
Re:CBS, Clear Channel etc. (Score:2, Insightful)
Press in a courtroom (Score:2)
Too many cases are fought in the media. Spoiling a jury pool, trying to win a case through the press or by influencing public opinion, etc. It's the trademark of a crappy lawyer that can't win it in the courtroom. See the Kobe Bryant case? Ridiculous.
No FBI? (Score:2, Informative)
Most loans, deposits, and
Supreme Court Justice Scalia (Score:3, Informative)
I don't agree with some of the complaints... (Score:3, Interesting)
The other ones are pretty bad and well deserving of the "award", especially the last few, IMO.
Re:I don't agree with some of the complaints... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other two complaints aside, the SC HoR most definitely deserved the reward. They committed one of the most blatantly offensive acts by not only censuring the Dixie Chicks for expressing a constitutionally protected political viewpoint, but actually caused financial harm to the Dixie Chicks by forcing them to perform a concert for the US armed forces at no charge.
From the
Concerning CBS... and the FCC (Score:3, Insightful)
MOVEON.ORG. Nothing more than a dodge of campaign finance laws. This group received so much bad press for what they "didn't allow - but had anyway" that I doubt anyone would touch their ads. CBS exercised its freedom of speech by keeping the superbowl ads as people expected them. CBS is consumer driven, not ideaology driven (unless you count Dan Rather and his "news" program - but its ratings aren't so great)
The real censorship going on now is the over zealous FCC. Government censorship is what needs to be addressed. What CBS did is not the result of anything the government was doing - it was reacting to market forces.
What the FCC is doing is entirely something else. Nothing prevents people from changing the channel. However a few zealots, on both sides of the aisle, in both the FCC and Congress are using Janet's exposure to score points and settle grudges.
If this organization (TJC) was serious they would realize the major difference here.
As for Howard, he is trying to save a sinking ship so it is to be expected he would claim persecution. He only has to look into the mirror to see who really is the source of his problems. The FCC is just piling on.
In Atlanta we lost the "The Regular Guys" because CC is now afraid of the FCC. Considering the size of the fines the FCC is throwing around I consider that to be the same as violating the 1st Amendment. Regulating something to the point of unaffordability is the same as stifling it.
Write your Congressman, NO E-MAIL - WRITE A REAL LETTER, and tell them your distaste for the current FCC actions.
Who is your Representative? Go here http://www.vote-smart.org/
If you just have to use e-mail
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Not exactly (Score:2)
The right to lie - Fox, Monsanto, Florida (Score:4, Informative)
Some reporters discovered that drugs that Monsanto sold to dairy farmers were getting into milk. There was evidence that this was a public health hazard. Fox killed the story at Monsanto's request (threat actually). A Florida appeals court agreed that telling lies is not illegal and threw out the reporters' case.
"Although the Florida jurors concluded she was pressured by FOX lawyers and managers to broadcast what the jury agreed was "a false, distorted or slanted story" and was fired for threatening to blow the whistle, that decision was reversed on a legal technicality when the higher court agreed with FOX that it is technically not against any law, rule or regulation"
http://www.populist.com/03.09.krebs.html
They forgot McCain-Feingold (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First Post!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Post!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:More Leftist Propaganda (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, like their story about the kid who got harassed by a school administrator [tjcenter.org] for wearing an NRA shirt to school.
I'm sick to death of hearing about that mewling little Communist, Charleton Heston, and all his pinko pals.
Re:More Leftist Propaganda (Score:2)
I agree, though, the list was fairly non-partisan, there are examples on boths "sides" of supression of free speech. You forgot to mention the religious views (generally associated with the "right" or conservatives) that were suppressed. I don't which suppression of religious displays bothers me the most; at Christmas (duh, it is a religious holiday, after all), or the painting on the antiques store.
It really bugs me, even though I firmly believe in the separation of church a
Re:More Leftist Propaganda (Score:2, Insightful)
What religious views are you talking about that have been supressed? If the example is things like the Ten Commandments monuments you are wrong. Government display of such things constitutes an endorsment of religion which is prohibited. Where has a private citizen ever had their right to religious expression violated?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I'd like examples. If so, yes the people censori
Re:More Leftist Propaganda (Score:2)
It's like politically correct terms. That's a form of the violation of the first amendment when I use the 'N' word, but if I use African American, it's OK. But what we've learned from leftists is hypocracy, and this is what we have here.
I only glanced over the page, but what about the case where the a high school christian club was denied the right to post a p
Agreed! A lot of left/lib censorship not on list (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Rush Limbaugh, ESPN;
2) Trent Lott, US Senate/US mainstream media;
3) Dr. Laura Schlessinger, gay-right groups;
4) Conservative faulty & speakers, every college campus [studentsfo...reedom.org];
5) Bernard Goldberg, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller [amazon.com].
6) Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller [amazon.com].
7) Sean Hannity, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller [amazon.com].
8) Al Franken, oh wait, nevermind.
I look forward to seeing how the /. mods view censorhip here.
Re:CBS and Baseball do not belong on list (Score:3, Informative)
In so doing, Petroskey politicized the Baseball HOF much more strongly than Robbins or Sarandon could have.
He made no attempts to control the content, like by asking Robbins and Sarandon to keep their speech non-political and centered on baseball a
Re:Free Speech Is Alive And Well (Score:2)
And sure, the awards don't surpress my free speech.
Instead, that is left to John Ashcroft and Antonin Scalia (who did at least apologize).
You are so close-minded in your support for the administration that you are ignoring the fact that it is infringing on our rights more and more.
Indeed, where is the link between your goverment infringing on rights and you exerting parental control over porn and your kids? That
Re:Gee - lean to the left much (Score:3, Insightful)
Pro-life, prayer in schools and handgun ownership. Well known opinions of the left.
Your, sir, are a cretin.
Re:Gee - lean to the left much (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, perhaps you missed the fact that our government is now headed by conservatives, so the power of the government will be flexed in that general direction (not a complaint - thats just the way it works).
Also, this certainly reflects the unhappiness of many Americans with our military and foreign policy. Did the fact that most protesters in the '60's protested for civil rights or against vietnam - stories that would l
Re:Self-censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true for an individual, but don't you think journalists have a responsibility to report the whole truth, rather than the subset of the truth that's palatable, convenient and politically neutral?
Of course you can't report everything - somebody has to decide what's worth reading about, and the choice of agenda is arguably a more powe