Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

2004 Jefferson Muzzle Awards 440

Posted by CmdrTaco from the censorship-is-not-so-swell dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2004 Jefferson Muzzle Awards More

2004 Jefferson Muzzle Awards

Comments Filter:

  • I would just like to say.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by hplasm ( 576983 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:15AM (#8847616) Journal
    OW! mmmm! mmmffmm! mmfmfmf! m! m!

  • Clear Channel (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jin Wicked ( 317953 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:16AM (#8847629) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 )
      Howard Stern was dropped from a handful of stations (he's on hundreds) in markets that he was doing poorly in.

      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)

        by Jin Wicked ( 317953 )

        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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Clear channel certainly has the right to remove what they find to be offensive, but Stern was not removed because he was indecent, and he was not removed because he was unpopular.

        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)

        by sulli ( 195030 ) * on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @11:01AM (#8848173) Journal
        And, don't forget, Howard is on Infinity. Clear Channel was happy to have an excuse to drop a program they were paying syndication fees for.

      • Re:Clear Channel (Score:2, Informative)

        by Jackazz ( 572024 )
        This is incorrect, 2 of the markets (florida and one of the others) were his best markets, and he was number 1 in most of them if not all.

        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]

      • Howard Stern was dropped from a handful of stations (he's on hundreds) in markets that he was doing poorly in.

        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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Clear Channel does not belong on the list for exercising its free speech rights. The New York Times chooses what to print or not to print in its own paper (that is freedom of the press). The same applies to Clear Channel.

      • Re:Clear Channel does not belong on list (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        This my friend does not make sense. Newspapers are not and should not be regulated in the same way as radio and television broadcast. The reason is the radio and television frequency spectrum is regulated by the FCC because it is a limited resource. You see you cannot just broadcast a radio show because you don't have a frequency to broadcast on (try it and you'll end up being arrested). However you are free to create a new Newspaper and distribute as you see fit.

    • How has Howard Stern's right to free speech been violated? He can grab a soapbox and say whatever he likes. Clear Channel is not required to carry anything they don't want to.

      • Re:Clear Channel (Score:5, Informative)

        by Dixie_Flatline ( 5077 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <hog.naj.tnecniv>> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:49AM (#8847980) Homepage
        His issue is that he never heard anything about being yanked off the air for indecency until he started criticizing Dubya. Clear Channel is (apparently) the largest broadcasting donator to Dubya's campaign, and he feels that pressure was probably put on them to yank him off the air.

        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)

        by laigle ( 614390 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @11:32AM (#8848585)
        Clear Channel dropped him in response to government fines. Said fines came in response to behavior by Stern that the FCC had on previous occasions deemed non-obscene. The new decisions followed Stern's criticisms of government policy in an election year.

        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)

        by scrytch ( 9198 )
        > How has Howard Stern's right to free speech been violated?

        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.

    • Re:Clear Channel (Score:3, Informative)

      by spellraiser ( 764337 )

      If he hasn't already, John Ashcroft deserves an honorary trophy all for himself.

      He has one [tjcenter.org]

    • Re:Clear Channel (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JargonScott ( 258797 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:32AM (#8847799)
      But it's Clear Channel's freedom to not play Stern. They haven't done anything to physically stop him from speaking, he just doesn't have the same avenue available.

      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)

        by Jin Wicked ( 317953 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:47AM (#8847947) Homepage Journal

        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)

        by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:59AM (#8848145)
        I must concur here. Freedom of the press does not mean that the owner of the press has to let every loony print on it who wants to. Freedom of speech does not mean that we should issue street preachers with PA systems.

        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:5, Insightful)

        by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:59AM (#8848146) Homepage
        Ah, but there's a twist in this case: ClearChannel has an exclusive, government-granted monopoly over a large swath of the FM broadcast spectrum through their numerous, sweeping FCC licenses. With increased power, comes increased responsibility. Someone who can't get their work published in the NYT can simply print their own newspaper and distribute it. Not so with radio.

        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)

        by Jackazz ( 572024 )
        Clear Channel has the right not to broadcast Stern, that is not under contest. What is under contest is that the reason they cannot broadcast him is because the FCC is handing down arbitrary fines for indecency. Using the fines they can make it financially impossible to broadcast the show.

        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 didn't pull Howard Stern because he's an ass. (And we'd agree, he's an ass. Revulsion is the only reaction I've ever really had to that show.)

        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)

      by ch-chuck ( 9622 )
      Janet-boob incident and yanking Howard Stern

      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)

        by Jin Wicked ( 317953 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:51AM (#8848019) Homepage Journal

        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)

        by schon ( 31600 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @11:08AM (#8848264)
        What, exactely, are those boobs saying that is being censored?

        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)

        by Docrates ( 148350 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @11:43AM (#8848742) Homepage
        Children are born and spend a a long while sucking on tits, then their parents hide those tits from them for another 15 years, all the while they go from "not know what the big deal is" to being obsessed with them. Once they turn 18 they can now start seeing breasts again.

        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)

      by medication ( 91890 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:56AM (#8848099) Journal
      Actually it's not Clear Channel that you should be nominating it's Michael K. Powell (yes as in Colin's son). Michael K. Powell is the chairman of the FCC, and is behind handing out the arbitrary fines to Howard Stern. What I think makes him a shoe-in for next years list is his announcement that he is now looking at handing out similar 'indecency' fines to daytime soap operas.

      • 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)

    by jdcook ( 96434 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:19AM (#8847643)
    What with the Slashdot Effect and all . . .

  • Here's a Nomination... (Score:5, Funny)

    by johnthorensen ( 539527 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:19AM (#8847649)
    The front page says, "If you know of an act of censorship you believe is deserving of a Jefferson Muzzle, the Center encourages and invites your nomination."

    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)

      by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @11:31AM (#8848574) Homepage Journal
      Since you have raised the issue, and thus few can argue that it is offtopic, perhaps this is a good time to remind people that /. editor Michael Sims has been squatting on censorware.org, a domain previously used by successful anti-censorship group Censorware, who were forced to move to censorware.net. You can find the full story here [sethf.com], but basically he was their webmaster but took the site down after a nasty argument with one of the other participants. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of that argument, it hardly justifies denying the public such a valuable anti-censorship resource.

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Slashdot, for bringing the site down with its traffic and not allowing other people to read it. :)

  • google cashe (Score:4, Informative)

    by PrinceAshitaka ( 562972 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:20AM (#8847656) Homepage
    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:V6FSfxtunyYJ: www.tjcenter.org/muzzles.html+&hl=en&ie=UT F-8

  • Limited? (Score:3, Funny)

    by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:21AM (#8847667)
    people who forgot that "free speech can not be limited without being lost".

    -1, Flamebait

  • Where's Slashdot on the list? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:21AM (#8847680)
    Why didn't Slashdot get an award for its inhumaine suppression of Anonymous Coward postings?

    • Not the same (Score:3, Informative)

      by No Such Agency ( 136681 )
      You can still freely read AC postings, nobody's exercising "censorship" just because you can't read them at +2. One of the prices of free speech is that a large quantity of "low-quality" speech may sometimes have to be waded through. I.e. The Internet :-)
  • ..Awarded to any web-site which can survive a slashdotting.
  • The MOD have backed out of attempting to prosecute someone who breached the Official Secrets act.
    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.
  • And I'm glad, nothing worse than a tough guy scene where you know someone wants to say "Mother Fucker" and it's instead "Melon Farmer". hehe

    Die Hard fans know what I mean :P

  • This award is very _______!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:28AM (#8847760)
    I myself live in ________, 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 __________ amendment to protect their speech in _____land.

    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...)
    • If you were really afraid, you'd have posted as Anonymous Coward.

    • To do a proper MAD-LIB you need to include the word type the average slashdotter is supposed to enter. As such:

      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)

    by browse ( 557685 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:29AM (#8847767)
    This little event probably occured too late to make the nominations. Oh well, there's always next year. Story at CNN opens in a new window [cnn.com].

  • Why are companies on this list? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ksdd ( 634242 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:30AM (#8847782)

    "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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Read the citations in The Fine Article. From CBS's award this year:

      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

    • Well, the two corporations are the Baseball Hall of Fame and CBS. In the former case, they were punishing Tim Robbins for an act of political speech totally unrelated to anything having to do with baseball or Robbins' acting career. This doesn't violate the 1st Amendment, it just goes totally against the spirit of it. (Yes, I know that people should be held accountable for their words, and most of the time I wish Robbins would shut the hell up.) The HOF president said that Robbins' criticisms of Bush "h
  • THE 2004 JEFFERSON MUZZLES GO TO ...
    (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)

    by un1xl0ser ( 575642 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:31AM (#8847796)
    I think that the main reason this was funny is the school board banning the NRA shirt because of the gun silloutes it has... but failing to recognize that this would ban their school mascott... a patriot weilding a musket. I'm just glad that someone pointed it out to them. - un1xl0ser

    • Re:School Mascott (Score:5, Funny)

      by SmackCrackandPot ( 641205 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:36AM (#8847831)
      Reminds me of the time a school board of governors decided to try and ban sandals along with the usual types of clothing (baggy jeans, short T-shirts). As one governor pointed out that only trouble-makers with no respect for authority would want to wear such clothing, another governor nods her head solemnly and comments "Yes, Jesus wore sandals - look at what he managed to do".
  • How influential are these "awards"?

    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)

      by un1xl0ser ( 575642 )
      I don't think that these are influential awards... but I think that it is good for someone to do a rundown of things that they feel may be wrong... morally or otherwise. I think that CBS/Clear Channel/Every Media Corporation has the right to censor their own media... and I think everyone knows that. I think that it is important to bring it to light, and let people decide if they want to do something about it. - un1xl0ser
    • How influential are these "awards"?

      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)

    by quietlysubversive ( 132179 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:36AM (#8847834)
    They are a private entity! IT IS THEIR CHOICE TO RUN OR NOT RUN PROGRAMMING/ADVERTISEMENTS.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Read the citations in The Fine Article. From CBS's award this year:

      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

    • Wait a minute, Rush. While you are legally correct, you are not socially or pragmatically correct.

      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
      • I disagree... CBS, by itself, does not control enough media to effectively censor anybody. Neither does clear channel, as large as they might be.

        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)

      by the gnat ( 153162 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @12:07PM (#8849084)
      They are a private entity!

      . . . 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.

  • "Free Speech" is expensive, but worth it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:38AM (#8847847) Homepage Journal
    When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.

    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)

      by expro ( 597113 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:44AM (#8847915)
      So, where do you draw the line? Just because you are Bill Gates or some other corporate criminal does not mean you should have more voice than others. Just because your father was a respected politician doesn't mean you deserve respect. Face it. Different people have different assets that are theirs to manipulate, justly or unjustly, and movie stars are clearly not the worst abusers.
    • When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.

      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)

      by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @11:13AM (#8848327)
      When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Canada is like the Usenet of the world. It has its annoyances but offers a lot of freedom. It's also largely ignored by American corporations and government, and that's a Good Thing, let's keep it that way.

    • Dixie Chicks (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dman123 ( 115218 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @11:14AM (#8848331) Journal
      I have to agree about celebs thinking they are more important than others. But I'm sure you aren't criticizing the Dixie Chicks for speaking at all. I'm sure you Read The F***ing ;-) Article about the Dixie Chicks/South Carolina. I'll repost the important part.

      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.

    • People have a right to be heard... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @11:20AM (#8848423) Homepage Journal
      ...by as many people are willing to listen to them. If you think that too many people are willing to listen to celebrities then criticise those people, not the celebrities.

  • Ironically... (Score:4, Funny)

    by jlleblanc ( 582587 ) <contact.jlleblanc@com> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:39AM (#8847863) Homepage
    ...the site is blocked by my school's proxy filter!

  • CBS, Clear Channel etc. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:40AM (#8847865)
    Does Free Speech have any real meaning outside of the context of government?

    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.
    • Business and government are hopelessly intertwined. Take a look at the congressmen pushing antipriracy legislation through, and compare it to congressmen that receive campaign contributions from recording companies. When money buys influence we need to pay attention to what the people with the money do. Because it will be a preview of what its lobbyists will try in the next session of congress. Company policies are one thing, but legal protection for you policies are even better.
  • One award "winner" was a judge that kept the media out of the courtroom. I think that's a great idea.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    My father-in-law is an executive at a bank and he has been telling me how they are now required to forward information about any transaction which might look a bit funny with information about the person doing the transaction to the FBI. The banks are so afraid of not sending enough information or being blamed for supporting terrorists that they are sending EVERYTHING - including personal information about their customers, and all of the people that the customers do business with.

    Most loans, deposits, and

  • Supreme Court Justice Scalia (Score:3, Informative)

    by bmongar ( 230600 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:54AM (#8848060)
    Perhapse Scalia [msn.com] should be added to the list.

  • I don't agree with some of the complaints... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @10:55AM (#8848071)
    • Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey As head of a private organization, he made a decision and stood by it. I personally don't agree with his decision, but he did NOT stifle Tim Robbins right to free speech... Tim made his message loud and clear in many different and varried venues. His right to free speech doesn't include a right to make people give him a podium from which to give it.

    • CBS Television Again, agree or disagree with their policy, they are a private organization that should not be forced to carry a message they did not want to convey. MoveOn.org got their message out, the commercial was aired on other channels as well as downloadable from the website. The Reagan miniseries was shown (albeit on cable) and is probably available to rent. There is no censorship, not violating free speech rights.

    • The South Carolina House of Representatives Again, they may have been wrong, but they didn't inhibit anyone's right to free speech.

    The other ones are pretty bad and well deserving of the "award", especially the last few, IMO.
    • The South Carolina House of Representatives Again, they may have been wrong, but they didn't inhibit anyone's right to free speech.

      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)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @11:04AM (#8848200) Homepage Journal
    First, The Reagans was pure trash. I think the only thing that was factually right about where the names of the characters. Otherwise it came across as an attempt to rewrite history. CBS did as any big corporate entity that relies on customers would do, they marketed to a different consumer through a different channel.

    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/

  • The issue with the CBS movie wasn't caused by the government, so I don't see what this has to do with Constitutional rights. It was basically a fuss caused by an angry group of Reagan fans (obviously). If we're going to hand out awards based on one group's desire to hush another's opinion, or even the truth, maybe we should be handing out these awards to cable news networks as well.

  • The right to lie - Fox, Monsanto, Florida (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @11:37AM (#8848652)
    Apparently the right to free speech also protects the right to knowingly tell a lie even where public health is involved.

    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)

    by apchar ( 226653 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @07:07PM (#8854479)
    How could they leave out a law that prohibits groups from the NRA to NARAL from broadcasting "any mention or likeness of a candidate including issues that can be identified with a specific candidate" 30 days before a primary, 60 days before an election. For Petes sake, this is the biggest bite out of the first amendment since the last sedition act.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close