Slashdot Mirror

Enough with the stupid fucking boycotts that are nothing but attempts at silencing free speech.

Really!

I much rather have state censorship. The state can be voted out. Amazon can not.

I know it's not much, but I vote with my money. If company X enters into a behavior I find horrible, I stop doing business with them.

In fact, Conservative Christians have done with for the past few years, and it seems to work for them. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/15/usa.mcdonalds and http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147483663)

Why not try it with Amazon? I think they'd notice if the geeks were to put their money where their outrage was.

This guy would also defend "No jews allowed" or "Whites only" on private businesses. The dream he chases? I want none of it.

Perhaps you're right - I don't know the "guy". But from reading his post (to which you replied) I didn't get that he racist or bigoted, only that he was mistaken about what censorship is, and that he was claiming that a company can constrain what it sells in America.

Perhaps you're right that he's a Right Winger, but then I don't get that from his post. Perhaps he is an Independent?

I'm still interested in the legal ramifications of Amazon removing purchases titles from Kindles....

And I encourage a everybody else to boycott Chick-fil-a. As someone who is not a xistian, I find the corporations stated purpose of "Glorifying God" and imposing their religious doctrine on employees incompatible with my own beliefs.

I much rather have state censorship. The state can be voted out. Amazon can not.

I know it's not much, but I vote with my money. If company X enters into a behavior I find horrible, I stop doing business with them.

In fact, Conservative Christians have done with for the past few years, and it seems to work for them. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/15/usa.mcdonalds and http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147483663)

Why not try it with Amazon? I think they'd notice if the geeks were to put their money where their outrage was.

This guy would also defend "No jews allowed" or "Whites only" on private businesses. The dream he chases? I want none of it.

Perhaps you're right - I don't know the "guy". But from reading his post (to which you replied) I didn't get that he racist or bigoted, only that he was mistaken about what censorship is, and that he was claiming that a company can constrain what it sells in America.

Perhaps you're right that he's a Right Winger, but then I don't get that from his post. Perhaps he is an Independent?

I'm still interested in the legal ramifications of Amazon removing purchases titles from Kindles....

Volvo is Ford. So is Jaguar, Land Rover, and even Mazda. If you go to Ford.com they display all of their brand markers on that first page.

What was offensive to me was the filth in the magazine, and that a company like Ford who has built it's name on family values for years, would find it worthwhile to advertise their products in such a rag.

Seems to me they have sold themselves out trying to find anybody to buy their cars, so much so, that they've trampled on the many requests from loyal family-values Ford buyers of the past who have asked them to repeatedly stop advertising in those magazines, myself included.

Go to the BoycottFord.com website, and see the details of exchanges between Ford and those who oppose their own advertising.

My point was simply that if they are going to complain how others use photos of their cars, then they may want to start to honor the complaints they've received about their own use of the photos of their cars.

And if you still think I am off my rocker, Click here to read a letter from an association representing 78 Ford Delerships expressing dismay at the advertising approach.

I would not be happy about it, but I guess I can give them the right to complain about how I use pictures of my privately owned Ford vehicle in certain circumstances if I'm looking to make a profit based on the fact that the items are from their brand and represent the likeness of their brand that they've spent years crafting..

But what Ford really needs is someone at Ford re-thinking how they themselves use the pictures of their vehicles in search of profits!

Join the Ford Boycott!!!!

Click here for an offensive sample of their advertising dollars at work...

Probably about as effective as the American Family Association's boycott of Disney. The only way they actually generate any publicity is changing their position every few months.

"Everyone look at us! We're boycotting Disney again!" ... "Everyone look at us! We've stopped boycotting Disney!"

The FCC isn't a group that just randomly censors this and that. They have a "constituency" (of sorts) that tells them what to do. People that complain about things that they don't want to see on television. And nearly all of those people all fall within exactly one group: parents. There's a reason that censorship and the police state are generally referred to be the euphemism of "family values".

One of the principal offenders.

Here's another. Oops! That was accidentally a link to a compilation of the corruption, greed, and support for fascist dictatorships that the Bush family has been engaging in for the last six decades. Still, it makes for an interesting diversion on the subject of Republican "family values" (ie: they're completely fictitious).

You are making parallels between a right-wing talk show advocating torture, maiming, and the murder of journalists and American politicans with a fictional comedy show about a gay guy and his female roommate...? Good luck on that world view, buddy. But, yes, in answer to your question if a company with a highly conservative consumer base doesn't want to advertise on Will and Grace that's their perogative.

Anyway, the right wingers are already attacking shows like Will and Grace (here's an example; hee hee a religion cooking show called "Cruci-fixin's" :-). If anything, this is a case of the moderates adopting the tactics of the far right.

Here are some websites to check out if you liked that!
http://www.successories.com/
http://www.oprah.com/
http://www.mjbovo.com/Affirmations.htm
http://www.lifetimetv.com/
http://fukkad.com/jokes/office/office.shtml
http://www.familycircus.com/
http://www.garfield.com/
http://www.afa.net/

Here is the ACLU's official policy on hate speech:
http://www.aclu.org//studentsrights/expression/128 08pub19941231.html

But the whole debate over homosexuality is an easy target where the ACLU clearly shows a double standard. They worked to actively deny the right of a private organization to chose who it associates with (google ACLU vs Boy Scouts), one of the most basic freedoms of a free society.

When a group of fundies were arrested for protesting a gay rights even, one of the charges was hate speech -- simply for having signs that said the Bible says gay sex is wrong, etc. The ACLU declined to support their case.

(Amusing video of the "hateful" actions that got them put on trial for a maximum 45 year sentence: http://www.afa.net/clp/videos/philly11.wmv)

MUCH more timid than the gay activists, especially including the ones I see here in San Francisco.

Any way you slice it, they're not following the I'll Die to Defend it line.

Note: there are documented cases where these ultra-conservatives don't win. Look at the so-called "American Family Association" and their pathetic attempt to sabotage NYPD blue.

They don't give up-EVER, and never learn because they are convinced beyond any rational argument that their agenda, is the correct one.

The best thing WE can do is to contact the FCC and let them know that we disagree (yes, use the American Family Association's website against them). The bulk of the feedback they get tells them that showing a naked breast on TV or speaking a certain word is the most horrific thing that could happen to the populus.

-S

The best thing WE can do is to contact the FCC and let them know that we disagree (yes, use the American Family Association's website against them). The bulk of the feedback they get tells them that showing a naked breast on TV or speaking a certain word is the most horrific thing that could happen to the populus.

-S

I believe that MPAA released this tool in order to take the very first step towards data censorship. Give it a couple of years and we'll have to run this tools on a weekly basis and report our findings to MPAA or Windows could do it for us automatically.

Everybody wants to cover themselves. Parents are afraid of getting sued for their kids downloads. Teachers are terrified of teaching or not teaching religion in school because somebody may or may not like it. We can't even show a boob or a bare back on TV without generating a lot of fuzz from folks lke this. Americans have become so paranoid that even Super Bowl is taking a hit as described in this article. It takes only one person to turn this world upside down.

That is why I am not surprised that MPAA is doing what it does. FCC fined radio broadcasting corporations for indecency; some stations dropped Howard Stern because they did not want to be fined in the future. Now that there are lawsuits against people who download movies, MPAA released a product that will help you to avoid the fines. I bet you $20 many people will fall for it. When you're a single mother of two, the last thing you want to see is a law suit against you. For some people it is a no-brainer. Once you start the ball rolling, it will never stop unless something major happens. People will "clean" their computers and bend over as far as MPAA wants them to because people do not want to lose their money.

Imagine a slogan that says, "If you run product X and we still find illegal movies on your computer, you will not be fined! Otherwise, we'll charge you because you did not put any effort in protecting our copyright!"

You can read the very same argument being made on the American Family Association's site. Murder is illegal, and is also immoral, therefore all immoral things should be illegal.

The NY Times just recently published an article about red America's viewing habits. Surprisingly, the States that voted conservative in the last election are the same States where the highest viewing population for "CSI" and "Desperate Housewives" arise. You should read the article before NY Times starts charging for it. What does that say about America's viewing habits? "Do what I say, not what I do?"

Lastly, all this attention on the PTC should not divert attention away from the thoughtless actions of the American Family Association, who according to an NPR report the night of Veteran's Day, were poised with thousands of people ready to lodge complaints to the FCC about stations that were going to air "Saving Private Ryan" in commemoration of Veteran's Day.

Americans are fucking schizophrenic, and it's only getting worse. This Puritanical neoconservatism is really, truly dangerous.

Don't read their websites unless you don't need to sleep tonight. After the FCC ruled that you can use "The F Word" as long as you are not using it to describe copulation, the AFA had a letter writting campaign that has now but a stranglehold on talk radio.

They also lead a letter writting campaign for Jane'ts Boobie. I heard that there were 40 Thousand letters complaining about that sent to CBS. What was a lot less publicized was that they received ten times as many letters complaining about their refusal to show the moveon.org ad.

So maybe there are more people against censorship than for it, but the mainstream liberal media isn't reporting it?

"Baseball, hotdogs, apple pie. . .and Disney." A few years ago that statement would have rung true. No longer. For decades Disney was a name families could trust. The name Disney meant wholesomeness, laughter, quality family entertainment without pornography, violence and profanity. More than anything the name Disney meant children. Sadly, this is no longer true. Disney has gone from trusted friend to hostile foe of those who hold the same values and ideals that this - the world's most popular entertainment giant - once represented. -- AFA

The Village Voice declared Miramax/Disney's Kill Bill "The Most Violent American Movie Ever Made," and the Hollywood Reporter warned it "oozes, drips, flows, gushes, splatters... scalps, limbs and heads are freely removed from characters' bodies."

You'd think that Disney would tone it down for a Christmas movie. Sorry, no Miracle on 34th Street here. In Bad Santa, Miramax/Disney features a disgusting Santa that yells at a kid, several times: "G**-d***it! Are you f**king with me?" Another scene depicts a barmaid having sex with Santa in his car outside of the bar: "F**k me, Santa! F**k me, Santa!"

Disney-owned [television] channels account for the overwhelming number of erotic and pornographic network programs on air. -- FFA

We all know which backwater these litigation crazed reptiles (aka music industry executives) were bred in. Kill them now, before they get a chance to breed.

You have to understand: it's not that music industry executives always reproduce at that rate. It's just that Australia doesn't have any natural predators to counter-act the growth of the entertainment industry. Here in America, for example, our high population of lawyers and politicians ensures that there will always be _someone_ who wants to eat a music executive.

Fortunately, there are instances where that doesn't always work.

Apply this to all similar ads: Let them know you're going to switch to their competitor's products, and why you're switching. This tactic is used by those who would prevent the broadcast of programming they find objectionable; there's no reason the technique can't work for other protests.

It's titled Celebrating Pornography Awareness Week.

One political example is worth mentioning here. Dan's Data did a test of Pornsweeper, which is supposed to filter images. This picture of George and Laura Bush was blocked. Filthy porno indeed!

-- Diana Hsieh

But they seem to be concentrating their efforts against the ALA directly.

Your quote is best answered by the paragraph directly following in the CNN article, which quotes Marvin Johnson of the ACLU.

"Responsibility implies choice, but blocking removes all choice."

Many (most?) people don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, this person for example. Even for those people, the facts do not support the argument and that is Jamie's point.

I'm a Libertarian and I'll be voting for Harry Browne. I think the reason why I finally decided to become a Libertarian is because it seems like their is a growing anti-literacy lobby in this country. There seem to be people around who simply oppose to much book learning and independant thought, and there numbers seem to be growing. Has anyone ever looked at the American Family Associations Website? I think that one of the things that disturbs me most about their condemnation of Harry Potter (for example) is that he shows "disrespect to authority figures." I have heard this argument for censorship in at least on other context, in the case of the early 20th Century German film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The film originally had a twist ending, in which the evil doctor controlling the murderer turned out to be the head of the local insane asylum. However, German censors decided that this sent the wrong message, and forced the film makers to add a second twist ending, in which the whole story turned out to be a delusion of a mental patient and the asylum administrator was actually kindly. The strong belief in German society at that time, that authority figures should never be questioned, was one of the defenses later used at the Nuremberg Trials.

Obviously, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman are not Nazi's, but then neither were the German censors who altered Cabinet. These censors were merely part of a system that made someone like Hitler possible.

I'm sure that someone will point out that Reverand Wildmon, of the AFA, and his ilk are part of the right and therefore supporters of George W. Bush. I do not dispute this, I know Bush was trying to curry favor with these people during his appearances at places like Bob Jones University, where inter-racial dating was forbidden because it was "against scripture" (a low point in American politics).

I'm glad I'm a Libertarian, I don't have to make a choice between two tickets that support censorship.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."

The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda" produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDY PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

In summary, if you're expecting to engage in reasoned debate with these venomous loonies, I would advise you not to hold your breath.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."

The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda" produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDY PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

In summary, if you're expecting to engage in reasoned debate with these venomous loonies, I would advise you not to hold your breath.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that"A pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from thebeliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda' produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDYPROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.

I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda

The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that"A pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from thebeliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda' produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDYPROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.

The notion of "community standards" is very relavent to a Slashdot audience. Many, who read Slashdot, produce information for the public to consume. They are interested in any legal issue that would prohibit some members of their audience from accessing their content. In the past we have seen instances of "community standards" used to fine or imprison people in one state for providing pornography to those in another(like the case where somebody in Tennesse downloaded pictures from a porn business in Oregon, or something like that). The Internet does not like censorship at any level, local, regional, national, or international. Local politics are always important because often that is where the government has the most control over our lives.

I know Slashdot likes to take on the Causes of the Geek(tm), but I think there comes a time when one has to step back and take a look at exactly what is going on. We have a small community in America, typical of many, I'll assume. Through the workings of democracy, they manage to get a controversial issue on the ballot. A large group of people think this is an initiative that should be enacted. Another large group of people think this is an initiative that shouldn't even be considered. We're not talking about anything groundbreaking here. Moreover, this whole issue isn't even being determined by lawmakers; it's being determined by the people. That's the way it should be.

It is not the way it should be. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. In a democracy the people can vote to do literally anything(like say execute a segment of the population for their religious beliefs). A constitution restricts the power of lawmakers from infringe upon our basic rights(like free speech, religion , etc.). You made another good point about government run libraries and that is that you have to expect them to put in place their rules, which will undoubtedly be motivated by politics. Libraries should be run by non-profit organizations, universities, etc., not governments. I would suggest to the AFA that they organize themselves in the area, form a non-profit and create a "family friendly" library.

I read over the AFA's web page and outside of using the powers of the state I think they have the right idea for civilized protest. In the past it seems they have expressed their opinions to broadcasters, advertisers, etc. and let them know that they would stop watching shows, buying products, etc. I.e. they voted with their dollars. In some cases broadcasters and advertisers responded. This is not government censorship, this is capitalism in action.

Another reason why this story is valuable is touched upon in your last paragraphs. When it comes to your down you will worry about it. Well then the information provided from Holland, MI should assist you in how to deal with this issue when it comes up locally.

And yes, you should vote libertarian so you don't have to worry about garbage like this.
Stuart Eichert