Slashdot Mirror
2004 Jefferson Muzzle Awards
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."
OW! mmmm! mmmffmm! mmfmfmf! m! m!
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Don't mod me down!! I want my Free Speech! DAMMIT!!
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.
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
What with the Slashdot Effect and all . . .
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
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
Slashdot, for bringing the site down with its traffic and not allowing other people to read it. :)
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:V6FSfxtunyYJ: www.tjcenter.org/muzzles.html+&hl=en&ie=UT F-8
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
And you SO missed the point by not even reading the blurb at the top of the page, let alone the article!
-1, Flamebait
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
dotted in 10 comments. I think that we should get the lifetime acheivement award for that alone.
"If a quarter is two bits, then a dollar's a byte." -R Deric Miller
Why didn't Slashdot get an award for its inhumaine suppression of Anonymous Coward postings?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
..Awarded to any web-site which can survive a slashdotting.
No, the point is coming here and making an FP without reading something! Is that so hard to understand?
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.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
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
:P
Die Hard fans know what I mean
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.
Evil_Twin_Cat.mpg
Ahh, but the alternative dubbing of "Muddy Funster" has given a friend of mine an excellent name for his football team...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
oops - meant FX.
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...)
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
Posted by, of course, a USA patriot, of the type dedicated to shutting down all presses in Iraq not controlled by Rumsfeld. If that were the conservative right, every American should become a leftist. Fortunately, there are real conservatives who believe freedom of speech and freedoms in general in America are a good thing.
By your
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 :-)
Freedom: "I won't!"
"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.
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, Alaska, and the Unnamed Arsonist of Harrisonburg, Virginia
The Arizona State License Commission
The Pilot Point (Texas) Police Department
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
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
CBS and Baseball Hall of Fame do not belong on the list.
CBS did nothing but exercise control over its own content. Doing such is the heart of freedom of the press.
The Baseball guy did something similar.
I think I remember TBS editing it to "Yippie-kay-yay, my friend". Even matched the lip movements! They just bleeped profanity in "Shaft" though, which was... distracting to say the least.
Freedom: "I won't!"
small typo mate: it is cache.
Another link with the winners can be found here.
fortune is my favourite linux command
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?
Operator, give me the number for 911!
**** This Post Has Been Censored **** For Containing Individual Thought ****
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The one about the guy from Soldotna is classic. I think I still have that email.
Nice to see moderators muzzling my opinion for daring to take a different viewpoint. Isn't it ironic?
Ironic? Not at all. You run in waving your pee-pee in the air (nice high UID) spewing flamebait. Your idiodic rantings are not discussion unless you try to make a point in there.
People can read at -1 (I do, hence how I'm responding) but that's a personal choice. If they don't want to read things that go against with the "slashdot meme" they have a higher threshold.
Sucks to be you, but that's the way it is "patriot".
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.
----(o)----
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.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Why should CBS care that a biased political pressure group doesn't think that CBS has a right to control what it airs on its own network?
SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis, 1928: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Drew Carey: "I'd burn him like a witch if I wasn't afraid of the fumes".
Bush really bothers me but Ashcroft is the stuff of nightmares. Where's Emma Goldman when we need her?
Opps, got to go, there's someone at my door ...
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
...the site is blocked by my school's proxy filter!
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.
The above comment is a troll, how exactly?
It's not, but troll is the closest mod option to idiot slashdot offers.
I can still see it. So can you. It can't be censored then, can it?
Shit, hit the wrong button. What also meant to say was he should've been number one on this year's awards like last year.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Emma Goldman was a fascist. She claimed to be an anarchist, but spent most of her time campaigning to have the government get more powerful and take rights away from people.
I didn't win again. *sigh*
Who do I have to censor to get one of these things...?!
Think I'll go to the mall today and harrass kids with political t-shirts.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
This list means nothing. Your freedoms and right to free speech and expression haven't changed or been suppressed because of these "awards". Finding a bunch of wrong-headed decisions and disagreeable actions by private individuals, corporations, and some members of government doesn't mean censorship is creeping up on society.
You can laugh and point at these examples, but as a free person in America, you can "censor" anything and anyone you don't like. I wouldn't let my kids read Playboy, is this Jefferson Center going to come after me for censoring them?
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
Yeah, like their story about the kid who got harassed by a school administrator 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.
hang brain.
I think Slashdot should get an honorable mention for muzzling their webserver...
"The reason is the radio and television frequency spectrum is regulated by the FCC because it is a limited resource."
Did you know that there are more than 12,000 radio stations in the country? For limited, that is pretty much unlimited. It is no reason not to have Clear Channel (which controls a mere 8% of stations) be accountable to its listeners instead of to meddling government bureacrats.
Anyone who mods this down is a gay Linux fanboy!
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.
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 withdrawals are being forwarded to the authorities with information attached on who, where, and why these transactions have occoured.
The problem that the banks are having is with the new citizens. Apparently, people born in the United States have no problem giving up personal information to banks in order to conduct transactions. It is the people that are now citizens but came over from oppresive regimes that are having trouble handing over personal information about them and their families, friends, associates.
This is also affecting the economy, as banks are afraid to loan money without knowing exactly where the money is going to be spent. If a bank has any doubts about where even a few dollars will go they will deny the loan and forward the person's name to the authorities.
Perhapse Scalia should be added to the list.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
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, Alaska, and the Unnamed Arsonist of Harrisonburg, Virginia
The Arizona State License Commission
The Pilot Point (Texas) Police Department
U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
"Our national experience instructs us that openness is essential to public confidence in the administration of justice."
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Without question, the criminal investigation and prosecution of homemaking diva Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker Peter Bacanovic generated immense media coverage. So much so that prosecutors in the case requested that the public and press be denied access to the courtroom to observe the jury selection process. United States District Court Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum granted the request. In arriving at this decision, Judge Cedarbaum reasoned that potential jurors would be more candid in their responses to questioning if the press were not present. She was also influenced by the fact a member of the jury pool had posted a question from the jury survey on the Internet.
While detecting biases among prospective jurors in a criminal case is vital to ensuring a fair trial, public openness generally acts to protect, rather than to threaten, that process. The Supreme Court has said, "public scrutiny of a criminal trial enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the fact-finding process, with benefits to both the defendant and society as a whole." Indeed, the Court has held the value of public scrutiny is so great that the First Amendment creates a nearly absolute presumption of public access to criminal proceedings that may be overcome in only rare circumstances.
Judge Cedarbaum's reasoning that the Stewart case was one of those rare circumstances is troubling. The judge contended that she could close the jury selection process because the case had generated "an extraordinary interest quite beyond the public's right to know." Under this view, jury selection in any case generating significant public interest could be closed.. In ruling that Judge Cedarbaum had erred by denying the press access to jury selection, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held, "[w]e find it difficult to conceive of a potential juror who would be more willing to reveal a bias against the defendants in their presence, but not in the presence of reporters." The Court of Appeals also took note of the fact that Judge Cedarbaum's ruling was prompted by a request from the prosecutors and not the defendants. "If openness would truly have jeopardized the fair trial rights of the defendants in this case, we imagine that the defendants, represented by experienced counsel, would have initiated the request for closure."
Judge Cedarbaum's decision is part of a disturbing trend of judges in high profile cases giving too little weight to the presumption of openness in criminal proceedings-a willingness to set aside for celebrity defendants the rules that are applied every day to less famous defendants in courts across the country. The danger is a perception that our justice system works differently for the rich and famous. In an editorial on the decision, executive director of The First Amendment Center Ken Paulson wrote: "The way to build confidence in the judicial process is through the even-handed administration of justice and public access to the entire trial, from beginning to end." For failing to recognize the importance of public access in the Martha Stewart case, Judge Cedarbaum earns a 2004 Jefferson Muzzle.
The United States Department of D
U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
"Our national experience instructs us that openness is essential to public confidence in the administration of justice."
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Without question, the criminal investigation and prosecution of homemaking diva Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker Peter Bacanovic generated immense media coverage. So much so that prosecutors in the case requested that the public and press be denied access to the courtroom to observe the jury selection process. United States District Court Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum granted the request. In arriving at this decision, Judge Cedarbaum reasoned that potential jurors would be more candid in their responses to questioning if the press were not present. She was also influenced by the fact a member of the jury pool had posted a question from the jury survey on the Internet.
While detecting biases among prospective jurors in a criminal case is vital to ensuring a fair trial, public openness generally acts to protect, rather than to threaten, that process. The Supreme Court has said, "public scrutiny of a criminal trial enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the fact-finding process, with benefits to both the defendant and society as a whole." Indeed, the Court has held the value of public scrutiny is so great that the First Amendment creates a nearly absolute presumption of public access to criminal proceedings that may be overcome in only rare circumstances.
Judge Cedarbaum's reasoning that the Stewart case was one of those rare circumstances is troubling. The judge contended that she could close the jury selection process because the case had generated "an extraordinary interest quite beyond the public's right to know." Under this view, jury selection in any case generating significant public interest could be closed.. In ruling that Judge Cedarbaum had erred by denying the press access to jury selection, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held, "[w]e find it difficult to conceive of a potential juror who would be more willing to reveal a bias against the defendants in their presence, but not in the presence of reporters." The Court of Appeals also took note of the fact that Judge Cedarbaum's ruling was prompted by a request from the prosecutors and not the defendants. "If openness would truly have jeopardized the fair trial rights of the defendants in this case, we imagine that the defendants, represented by experienced counsel, would have initiated the request for closure."
Judge Cedarbaum's decision is part of a disturbing trend of judges in high profile cases giving too little weight to the presumption of openness in criminal proceedings-a willingness to set aside for celebrity defendants the rules that are applied every day to less famous defendants in courts across the country. The danger is a perception that our justice system works differently for the rich and famous. In an editorial on the decision, executive director of The First Amendment Center Ken Paulson wrote: "The way to build confidence in the judicial process is through the even-handed administration of justice and public access to the entire trial, from beginning to end." For failing to recognize the importance of public access in the Martha Stewart case, Judge Cedarbaum earns a 2004 Jefferson Muzzle.
The United States Department of Defense
"That's a flat-out gag order"
-- Miami Attorney Neal Sonnett, Chairman of the American Bar Association Task Force on the Treatment of Enemy Combatants
Soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration announced its intention to make use of military tribunals for the trial of yet undesignated enemy combatants. The precise policies and regulations that would govern such tribunals were yet to be developed, but would be announced in the future. During the spring of 2003, the Department of Defense issued such policies. Several provisions evoked immediate media interest, and drew cr
The other ones are pretty bad and well deserving of the "award", especially the last few, IMO.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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 person) is really a bit worrying.
But no matter, nothing can take our ____(plural noun) away from us, thanks to our ____(noun) that I'm sure everybody would defend with their lives should it ever be under threat.
Anyway, this is just my ____(adj) cents.
Regards, ____(middle name) ____(street you grew up on)
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
US TV censorship amazes me.
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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
So you'd like to censor him?
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 and state - I just don't believe that was an issue.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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/
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Every single one of the award 'winners' was a conservative or someone showing concern for a 'conservative' point of view other than the school that was trying to ban the NRA t-shirt.
Another example of the Leftist sway of slashdot.
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
A musket is a historical weapon that has no relevence to today. What about all of the school mascots with Roman spears or Tomahawks?
Here is what I am trying to say, the school has a policy about glorifying violence. Intimidating clothing is part of it.
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.
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.
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!
See? 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?
A mormon bishop I once knew took down the picture of Jesus in his office where he interviewed youth, and when asked why, he said "I got tired of looking at long hair."
Probably he got tired of explaining it to observant youth who he was trying to convince to get a conforming hair cut.
I beleive the parent was making the point that someone wearing an NRA shirt shouldn't be censored either.
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 censoring them are deserve to be on that list.
In fact, I would argue that the rights of these people to make such statements are being infringed when leftists attack and make points like this.
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 pro-christian poster on the "clubs board" at the school because it deemed inflamatory. Or what about the kid who was wearing a t-shirt which was also pro-christian... he was told to leave school.
And of course was the Republican clubs at some universities who were selling cookies at lower prices to minorities in order to point out the injustices of affirmative action. Was this listed? Didn't see it, yet this is a very clear example of the first amendment violation from the leftists.
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.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
corepirat bootlickers everywhere run for yOUR options?
tell 'em robbIE?
that have been limiting the free speech of conservative student organizations in the name of political correctness? I would have liked to have seen at least one of those on the list.
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.
--
dman123 forever!
Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
The US Govt talks about passing some dangerous law like restricting free speech.
We complain.
If the complaint is "loud enough" they wait a few months or a year and pass said bill into law.
Once again, we lose.
It's kinda like software patents in the EU. We complained, they paused for a bit and waited just to try again. IMO most people are happy being treated as cattle. I don't see anything that is happening now that will fix this broken system. Do you?
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Holy crap, somehow hit "insightful" for this crap. Undoing my mod ... Anyway, if CBS says "We'll post ads at this cost/time." Then an anti-bush ad comes along and they say "no, except for this," it's stupid. Why do we give up all our rights when it comes to large corporations? We believe in freedom so much we fight wars over it, but we give up all our freedoms when it comes to corporations and shrug "meh, it's okay because they make money."
...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.
" Howard Stern was dropped from a handful of stations (he's on hundreds) in markets that he was doing poorly in."
This is so far from incorrect that its not funny:
1) Howard is on in "dozens" of markets because unlike Laura or Rush, he gets paid to be on the station instead of taking cut of the commercial time
2) He was indeed yanked (particularly in Florida) on stations that he was highly rated, and in one or two cases rated number one.
3) You are clearly a Clear Channel troll. I hope clear channel dies and all the people who work for it get cancer. Including you.
Clear channel buys radio stations and makes them pablum.
Name one clear channel radio station that is good or interesting.
You can't do it. They're all the same homogonized crap. Really, they're a corporation that should die. And the sooner the better.
If Natalie Maines has to risk her livelihood (or her life) to express her views, where is free speech then?
It's where it always has been - protected by people who fought and died to make sure you have it. There is no cost "too high" for your freedom, and I personally would fight to defend yours as well as mine, regardless of wether you have similar convictions.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The Supreme Court has ruled that burning flags is a form of free speech.
Hear that? That's the sound of your argument being completely destroyed.
THAT IS TRUE!
CBS and baseball do NOT deserve to be on that list.
they are PRIVATE companies. quoth the parent:
"CBS did nothing but exercise control over its own content. Doing such is the heart of freedom of the press.
The Baseball guy did something similar."
that is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!
its only censorship when the GOVERNMENT does it.
stupid mods
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 to find out.
PS : your examples demonstrate you've completely missed the point of these awards.
"free speech can not be limited without being lost"
Sounds nice. On the other hand, Germany has been limiting the speech of anti-semitic hate-mongers for 50 years precisely to prevent losing freedom to another Hitler again. Do keep in mind that he was elected into office solely through the power of his and his supporters' voices.
Does that mean that Germans have no freedom of speech? Heck no. As Eric Cartman knows well, there are things published in Germany that would never get past US obscenity censors. But maybe these obscenity controls in the US mean that Americans have no free speech either.
How about my freedom to denounce all my neighbors as pedophiles, terrorists and drug addicts? Hey, you're free not to believe me after the third wrong call - and the neighbors will get their kids back from the foster home in a couple of years - so what's the problem? Absolutely unfettered freedom of speech is obviously more important. Right?
A working democracy is considerably more complicated than simply settling on a certain set of absolutes and then sticking to them. The limits of freedom need to be constantly discussed by an interested populace, or else misuse of the limits or the freedom may destroy society.
Democracies founder as soon as a majority of citizens tunes out. So let's keep talking about this.
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
Jeff Webster, one of the Muzzle winners, is from my home town of Soldotna. I have the idiotic video they mention here at my server. Based on community newspaper editorials, it was astonishing how many people in my hometown supported Webster's despicable actions.
I blame this odd censorship on Christian upbringing.
Moral : Violence good, boobies bad.
No no you didn't get it. The moral here is: while boobies are generally good, if you look at the boobies of a mobsters wife you get the living crap beaten out of you with a trashcan.
Makes a lot more sense that way doesn't it?
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
Recently I became aware of an art exhibit by a photographer (Subhankar Banerjee) depicting ANWAR and it's wildlife.
For some reason The Smithsonian moved the display from a main exhibit hall to a basement hallway. Then removed the texts that accompanied the photographs.
Ted Stevens being head of apropriations who authorizes Smithsonian funding was not happy with a Jimmy Carter quote used in one of the captions.
No matter where you stand on oil drilling, the photographs in this display are some of the best I think I have seen.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
I agree with you about the ten commandments, but when the government (in this case it's generally small city or county governments) supress a religious display, that's a problem.
Here is some of the text:
So the display itself would not have been county sponsored, the government would not have been endorsing one religion over another. In fact, displays would most likely have a sign saying something to the effect of "sponsored by" (why else would businesses sponsor any of the displays?
It would have been an issue ONLY if some religion or religions were excluded while others were allowed.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
for shutting down UCSDuncensored.com1 9239&mode=nested&tid=126&tid=146&tid=95&tid=99
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/18/0
Shut up, AIRHEAD!
Also, anybody who thinks cell phones should be outlawed because they're "annoying".
The example was a church putting 'Jesus is the reason for the Season' on holiday light display put together by the city. The difference was that sponsors had to pay $15,000 to put their message up. Its unfair discrimination to deny a religious them when corporations are allowed to put up their messages.
... who knows?
... it got so bad that a teacher who wanted to ask me about my religious affilations -- off campus mind you -- had to ask me not to say that she had ever mentioned it for fear of reprimand. I think a whole lot of people's freedom of speech and religion was trampled in this case.
I think that's something that get often overlooked. The government shouldn't be advertising or promoting a particular corporation or business anymore than it should be promoting a particular religion. Its discrimination to allow one and not the other.
As for an example I'll give you a very personal one that happened about 10 years ago when I was in HS. The school was allowing time for a student-led talent show. The entries were open, the rules said you could do anything you wanted as long as the student council approved it. There were student bands, a puppet show, lots of people singing, etc. Some friends of mine and I put together a religiously themed choriography. The student council approved our entry but then the sponsoring teacher said our group would need special approval from the principal. Which he denied on the basis that our entry promoted our religion.
Now there were other religiously themed things that happened in the talent show (Heck someone sang 'Amazing Grace'). It was later revealed that were singled out because we had earlier been trying to start a Bible club which was denied because it "wasn't school related" (nevermind businesses were sponsoring on campus clubs). I assume he thought we were trying to get back at him and bring what we wanted to say on campus anyway
Sure we went and talked to some foundations that provide legal representation for sorts these things but the principal threatened to fire any teacher who talked about it. We were stonewalled in the end
The Anti-Blog
The official secrets acts are not things you "sign up to".
They are just acts of parliament (laws), and you wouldn't sign it in the same way that you wouldn't sign the "Theft" act or the "Murder" act.
Under common law, a person can legally commit an offence, if they do so to prevent a greater crime taking place.
In this case, the person believed that releasing the information was justified in an attempt to stop an illegal war which would kill thousands.
The government would have ended up in court trying to justify that the Iraq war was legal.
Rather than "not having the will", I suspect the government dropped the case because it felt it would lose.
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;
5) Bernard Goldberg, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
6) Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
7) Sean Hannity, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
8) Al Franken, oh wait, nevermind.
I look forward to seeing how the /. mods view censorhip here.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Fortunately, Jefferson understood (as did the other signers of the Declaration of Independence and the other "fathers of our country") that the decision to not repeat someone else's "expression" was itself a protected form of "expression".
And yes, that observation is in support of CBS's and ClearChannel's "expressions", just as I'm sure Jefferson himself would.
Understandable, yes.
If you'd bothered to RTFA, you'd see plenty of examples of both left and right infringing the right to free speech, so your ill-informed whine of leftist bias is a troll at best, and more probably flamebait.
Proper patriots are: Paul Revere, Ben Franklin, Henry Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Woody Guthrie, Andrew Jackson, etc. etc. They aren't idiots who moan about 'leftist bias' or whatever your beef is.
Go back to playing with your George Bush Action Man toy, and stop bothering the rest of us with your stupidity.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
I guess in all honesty I should check out this group's position in detail, but the remark above is so dumb, it hardly seems worth the bother.
From leading a murder conspiracy to slander, false advertising, child porn, and unethical medical treatment/research, there are all sorts of limits on free speech that are easily justified and don't lead by a slippery slope to genuine censorship.
Such remarks are like claiming that, because we set speed limits on highways, the government is about to dictate where we can travel, or because crooked business practices are punished, we're about to become communists.
Free speech simply doesn't trump all else. It doesn't let you get away with planning murders, sexually exploiting children, duping customers, or slandering people. And it shouldn't.
Just because some people are too stupid to make proper distinctions doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
Editor: Dachau Liberated
http://www.InklingBooks.com/inklingblog
Reading those awards is a very depressing experience. It really drives home the simple-mindedness of so many authority figures. I found it mind-boggling that people can be so stupid and lack basic insight and 'common sense'.
I guess it all goes to the nature of the world these days. Whereas these imbiciles would have died naturally, thousands of years ago due to lack of common sense, today, it's "survival of the fattest" and stupidist. The law of Natural Selection is now null and void - one can be a total jackass and thrive, and not only thrive, but be a leader.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
OK Shoot my Karma:
For the record I lean waaaay to the left. But not about this issue.
If Stern had been on at 10pm or later I would have fought for him, as much as I loathe the man and everyone like him. But 7am is when my 8 year old is on her school bus. If I listen to Stern it's not filth. If you listen to Stern it's not filth. But when he's talking that that way to my 8 year old daughter - it's filth. His first amendment rights don't stretch that far. I can't control the radio broadcast on a school bus or in a school yard; so my government has to. I demand that they do.
I repeat: if Stern had been booted off of late night radio when I can control what my children hear I'd be on his side. I am not.
when you have children to protect you don't lean so hard to the left.
This was my post. I didn't mean to anonymize it. I'll take the kick in the karma for it.
Thomas Jefferson would have shot Stern.
You forgot to add the Bush Administration and the rest of the neo-cons. If they didn't want Lott to go, he wouldn't have.
6) Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
Does Larry King count?
Really, man, Google before you type.
hang brain.
OK. OK. I didn't mean that the way it sounded. I meant TJ would have actively opposed Stern. IMO
What about ClearView and the shock-jock Howard Stern issue?
Though he may be nasty looking, he still has the right to free speech (luckily, we aren't bound to have to listen to it; his "guests" are another matter.).
Sorry homeskillet, it's not a violation of the First Amendment unless the government restrains you from going around an calling people "nigger." I thought conservatives were supposed to be big on a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Sidebar: I'm still kinda amazed that in 2004, people still fail to grasp the essential difference between a minority reclaiming a pejorative for it's own use and a bigot running around spouting off the same word in a different context. Gay people occasionally call each other "faggot." Hope that doesn't make your head explode.
Of course you only "glanced" at the article. Otherwise, you might have noticed that they made mention of a municipality banning a privately-funded display by a Christian group. Dunno, maybe the Christians were some of those Episcohomos or something.
hang brain.
The Bush administration caved after relentless negative media coverage that began to hurt the GOP and the administration. Not the BA's finest leadership hour (should have stood up to the libs), but this is off-topic since we are dicussing censorship, not lack of leadership. Compare: How the liberal media has not covered the nearly identical Dodd-Byrd flap. Had you even heard of this? I'll bet most people haven't.
6) Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
Does Larry King count?
No, a single example (I saw the King interview) is not a major premise, it is (faulty) inductive reasoning. Ann Coulter has written extensively and accurately how she was given nowhere near the coverage and interviews on her book tour that Franken was given, Larry King notwithstanding. Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly were all at times dominating the NY Times Bestseller List and the NYT wouldn't review their books! What an embarassment.I got a Google for you: Search Al Franken's book vs. Coulter's for reviews and TV interviews, then give me your smug Google-before-posting crap. Coulter was virtually shut-out on the broadcast nets. Not to mention Franken's new lib radio network was covered like the Second Coming.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The fact that many news stories shown on national TV now don't contain nearly the amount of content that international news stations have. Like the 'war' in Iraq going on right now. Most news broadcasts from overseas have much more gruesome, but effective imagery that conveys what is really happening over there. Our news stations show only Americans getting killed, or only the bad things happening to arouse emotions and make Americans support the war.
I have yet to see a news broadcast that showed anything relatively good that was longer than 5 seconds, like when they caught Saddam, 5-10 seconds spent saying "Saddam was captured" then on to the stories about people getting eaten by a bear in Utah.
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
The events mentioned in the article, and the events that happened to you, were wrong. And I say that as a dyed in the wool Social Democrat/Secular Humanist.
I've got no problem with student-run Bible study groups in public schools, as long as any other religiously- or secularly-oriented groups of students are permitted to form their own clubs.
I'm NOT in favor of letting any such groups disrupt the educational objectives of the school, though. That means no fag bashing in the Bible group, no Christian bashing in the Athiest group, and no smoking out in the Hemp Legalization group.
Yeah, my caveat is a restriction on free speech, but it's been pretty well established that minors don't necessarily have the same rights in school as they do anywhere else.
hang brain.
And the biggest winner should be campaign finance reform, muzzling millions of people all over the US.
1) Rush Limbaugh, ESPN
Rush was fired due to the fact that ESPN's viewers simply didn't like him - that and the fact that he was a cruddy commentator. He was hardly "censored". One only has to tune in to one of the five bazillion stations he's broadcast on for hours a day to see this.
Trent Lott, US Senate/US mainstream media
Uhh... the guy said that our country would be better off under uber-kook Strom Thurmond's love of segregation. He was rightly pilloried for saying something incredibly stupid. The First Amendment also includes the right to protest when somebody says something hateful. Lott (inadvertendly, perhaps) condoned segregation, and paid the price for it. That's not censorship - that's free speech in action.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger, gay-right groups - see Trent Lott. Free speech also means people can protest your words.
Conservative faulty & speakers, every college campus
EVERY college campus? Even this one?
Bernard Goldberg, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
I never heard of this, so I'll keep quiet...
Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller
Ignoring the fact that Coulter writes complete fiction on a third grade level, I do recall seeing her on Larry King and Fox News numerous times. This allegation is simply not true. Besides - the book was a best-seller. How can that be censorship?
Sean Hannity, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller
The guy has a book, a radio show, and a TV show. I don't think he's in any danger of being censored...
Al Franken, oh wait, nevermind
Yeah. Nevermind that FOX News tried to have his book banned. Of course, the case was laughed out of court.
For a long time, CC has been fine with airing Stern, but in an age when politicians are screaming about protecting the children from public indecency, they knew they would receive the brunt of the backlash because of their position in the broadcasting world.
And they received it last week in the form of a $495,000 fine. Granted a company that size isn't going to be hurt much even if they pay it, but it's an expensive and unnecessary cost of business.
Powell and the rest at the FCC needed someone to make an example of and who better than the biggest and the one they knew could absorb the monetary impact the best.
Dropping Stern was just a business decision so they can keep broadcasting as much crap as they want to and if they're questioned about it they just say, "Well, we got rid of Stern, what more do you want from us?"
The school bus driver who puts Howard Stern on the radio when children are on the bus and the principal who allows him to be played in the schoolyard both need to be fired. I can't control whether a teacher plays porno tapes in class but I have a reasonable expectation that it won't happen without having to make porn illegal for everyone.
.. kids are going to hear and see bad stuff and parenting is not about burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist, it's about teaching them how to tell the good from the bad.
I have kids and I don't need the government or the FCC or the religious right to raise them. I've got that covered, thanks just the same. Guess what
In any case, notwithstanding the fact that ClearChannel is firmly in bed with the Bush camp and yanked Stern just days after he became critical of Bush, the issue is not with them. They have every right to make a business decision to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they like. Their listeners will vote with their radio dials.
The real issue is the selective enforcement by the FCC and the lack of any clear and objective standard as to what is indecent. Stern is positively tame compared to some of the things that Oprah has broadcast but somehow she is immune because she's considered "educational" or because "she does good things". If there were clear and unambiguous guidelines as to what constituted indecency, Stern would follow them. As it is, the FCC seem to make the rules up as they go along and enforce them selectively and often retroactively. The latest round of fines against Stern were for a broadcast that occurred three years ago! And in case nobody noticed, he's been doing the same show for over 20 years. What made the FCC suddenly sit up and take notice? Plus these charges would never stand up in court; the FCC makes sure that never happens by threatening huge fines and non-renewal of broadcast licenses. The broadcasters have no choice but to cave in. If this is constitutional it's a sad day for America.
You're right, it's so much better to have politicians beholden to large corporations and wealthy contributors than to their constituents.
"ClearChannel has an exclusive, government-granted monopoly over a large swath of the FM broadcast spectrum through their numerous, sweeping FCC licenses"
If you look at the numbers, you will see that Clear Channel has no monopoly anywhere. Overall, they control a mere 8% of radio stations. In certain large markets where they have many stations, they control as much as 25%. Words do mean things. You do not have a monopoly if you control a mere 25% of something.
"Someone who can't get their work published in the NYT can simply print their own newspaper and distribute it. Not so with radio."
So, someone shut out of CC's 1,200 stations is perfectly free to go to the other 18,000 or so radio stations.
"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."
I agree. Who better to determine this than the listening public? Check the ratings; that is the best determination of whether or not a station serves the public.
As a result, I made a webpage against the asshole (which we'll call spamtard henceforth). Naturally, spamtard did not like the webpage, and so he kept larting it, and, as a result, the page kept being mirrored and moving all over the place. At one point, there was upwards of 20 copies of it all over the place, copies spamtard kept larting left and right.
Eventually, I received an e-mail from a mirrorer who was asked by a police detective to take down the page "or else, criminal charges will be laid". The mirrorer also made clear that the police was looking for me, and that I should contact them, or else they will supoena my ISP for my personal information and lay criminal charges (for what crime? I never learned it).
Spamtard had complained to the fuzz about my webpage when he saw that he could not have it taken off!!! And a detective was bored enough to pursue the case...
It is interesting that the police did not attempt to contact me personally at that time, but that they resorted to intimidating threats through a third party. According to my counsel, the police was doing a fishing expedition and trying to give me rope so I could hang myself.
Naturally, I DID NOT contact the police, because they have no jurisdiction over where I live, and one should never volunteer information to the police (this is basically a consent search), especially if they are investigating you.
About three months later, I (finally) received an e-mail from the police, asking me to call them, and, again threatening with criminal charges if they had to subpoena my personal information.
Again, I did not contact them. So, three weeks later, I get another e-mail saying that I should call them, because now they have my "personal" information, and if I do not do so, they would send a local cop to investigate me.
The "detective" included my "personal" information he was able to get.
It was totally wrong.
Again, I continued my intensive campaign of doing nothing at all. I suppose the poor chap who was listed as my "personal information" got harassed by the cops; hopefully, he did not cave-in to their bullshit bullying.
Worse, spamtard publicly aknowledged getting back information from the police. This meant that the police was passing back information to the criminal!!! So, if the criminal ever learned my true identity, I would be nothing but toast!!!
A few weeks afterwards, we learn on NANAE that spamtard was harassing police departments over mirrored copies of the web page! A phone conversation between the detective and an ISP operator also indicated that finally, there would be no criminal charges laid against me, because the prosecuting attorney did not think they could get a conviction.
This is very strange that I have been the target of a criminal investigation without having formally been identified nor directly contacted, and that I learn through a third party
When they came for Howard Sterm, I didn't speak up because I was not a drunken lesbian dwarf
.
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.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"You know, that was true before the FCC allowed Clear Channel to buy everything! Now the only "choice" is to not listen at all!
(I'm exaggerating, but only a little - it's a slippery slope and such)"
Clear Channel controls a whopping huge 8% of radio stations. That's fewer than 1 in 10. You are right: it is either listen to CC or nothing at all.
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 than willing to remove an outspoken opponent of W.'s, that's just truly cowardly behavior. To pose as morally indignant while you do that, after years of promoting the selfsame indecent show, that's nauseating. It'd be in there with CBS claiming "artistic reasons" for pulling the Reagans. Say what you did and why. Admit it.
And, gee, funny how the FCC chose Howard as the first object lesson. Pretty brave truth telling on their part, too. Obviously they care pretty deeply about the shocking degradation he'd been spouting for so many years.
I can definitely see either the FCC or Clear Channel winning these awards for this one. Doesn't have to be a breach of the law. Government entities using pretexts to intimidate media outlets into removing critics of the President, that's wrong.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I'd have to say that Canadians are generally more reluctant to embrace government-mandated censorship, but I think Canada and the US are mostly different sides of the same coin... ...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...
Concentration of media ownership is a threat to freedom of expression in Canada at LEAST as much as in the US. Sometimes it ssems the government-funded CBC is not entirely arms length. Then we have CanWest Global and Bell GlobeMedia which together form a near-monopoly and are headed by well-known supporters of the Liberal party. Right now it doesn't seem to have compromised objectivity (Liberal-related scandals still make a lot of press), however red flags have been raised in the past when editorials in regional papers offended the political sensibilities of the "big boss" and those newspapers were ordered to print an editorial issued from upon high that defended the prime minister.
In other aspects Canada has done its own share on censorship lunacy. In the US, the "religious right" lobbies to supress "un-American, un-Christian" expression. In Canada it's the opposite, although not to the same magnitude--there is an "athiestic left" that works to limit religious expression for example. I'd say the average Canadian has no problem with not having prayer in public schools, however pressure from the left extends in some cases to banning "God Save the Queen" from schools and advocating the removal of the word "God" and phrases like "all thy sons command" from the anthem, and in some schools advocation of religous holidays is frowned upon (Christmas, Easter and sometimes even non-Christian holidays such as Hanukkah or Eid).
Canadians are less sensitive to strong language or nutity on television than the US, but we make up for it in our sensitivity to French-English relations. Not long after Janet's outfit malfunctioned an uncensored picture of it appeared inside the newspapers in Canada, right alongside articles about Don Cherry's putdown of French hockey players sparking debate in Parliament and the implementation of a tape-delay on Cherry's future commentaries.
Seems freedom of expression must be defended diligently no matter where you live...
You and I aren't too far apart so don't take too much offense where I disagree with you. Also I am being brief out of necessity.
It's not the school bus driver or the principal. It's the kid in the seat next to them with the portable radio.
And kids will hear bad stuff, agreed. But a parent can dampen the awfulness of what they hear; and should. Kids do not have to hear the kind of schtick Stern peddles unless I do bury my head in the sand.
I will not support any platform that lays it's foundation upon the argument that your first ammendment rights stretch to filling my children's ears with filth.
I do agree with you that there needs to be a clear and objective standard as to what is indecent. But I can't beleive that describing oral sex, in great detail, to an 8 year old girl can in any sane society be considered anything else than indecent.
Maybe these are absent because:
1) Ann Coulter is a crazy M____f____. She thinks Joe McCarthy was a hero. She thinks the left and all associated with them are evil. Basically, her entire career is built on hate. Can you really not see why a major TV network would refrain from giving her airtime? ... Maybe because he tore them a new one!!! Or, alternatively, why was Eric Alterman (author of "What Liberal Media") also "banned" from network interviews? Or how about Joe Conason? He wrote a liberal bestseller, yet I never saw his exclusive interview with Baba Wawa. Maybe its because these folks weren't banned from network interviews, its just that the establishent didn't feel these were voices worth hearing. Personally, I don't think most of these guys are worth listening to, either. They spout hate and spun facts to make their points. Journalism should have a higher standard and I support networks "ban" on writers with these tactics. Too bad Moore is independently famous, as his fame seems to be the reason networks still give him a voice ocasionally.
2) Sean Hannity, while occasionally reasonable, released a book called "Deliver Us From Evil." It was written about the left. Again, we have Left==Evil. Again, we have a person whose career seems founded in hate. Maybe you haven't noticed, but networks don't generally give a lot of time to extremist voices. Or would you prefer to hear from Neo-Nazi's, the Michigan Militia and co. during the nightly news?
3) Bernard Goldberg's book was a scathing account of his time at CBS. He basically tore CBS a new one (with varying success, depending on your perspective). Now why wouldn't CBS want to share his voice with America?
You can try to spin these authors lack of airtime any way you want but a few facts are undeniable. One is that networks will do anything--ANYTHING!!!!--to get ratings. Why did the "left-biased media" cover the Clinton scandal so thoroughly? Because it was a ratings goldmine.
Another fact is that just because an book is a NYTimes bestseller, doesn't mean that they will be popular with America as a whole. The books you listed sold overwhelmingly to very conservative audiences. America, while it certainly has very conservative and liberal people in it, is overwhelmingly moderate. This is why Bill O'Reilly sells so well: he is sold as a "common man" looking out for his fellows in middle America. Ultra-Conservative messages and ideas do not play well with middle America just as ultra-Liberal message do not. Networks understand this and program accordingly.
Taft
Freedom: "I won't!"
And then there were none...
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
All that was needed was to forbid people who'd legally bought airtime from speaking their minds during their time.
It's just a little bit of freedom, you'll never miss it- though there is a funny loophole for those people who are famous or own media companies.
"This is why Bill O'Reilly sells so well: he is sold as a "common man" looking out for his fellows in middle America"
At last someone who recognizes that O'Reilly is a moderate.
"George Carlin takes great pains to call these the Seven Words You Can't Say On Television "
so, if i call them something else, he'll have me censored?
From an AP article about this, it says that CBS was cited
for acts of self-censorship
Come on, folks, self-censorship is not bad. If I am very angry at someone and want to say or do something harmful to them, but decide not to at the last moment, I have censored myself. That's called self-control. If I decide something is not good and not constructive and decide not to do it, or in this case not to air it, how is that a dishonorable thing?
From an AP article about this, it says that CBS was cited:
for acts of self-censorship
Come on, folks, self-censorship is not bad. If I am very angry at someone and want to say or do something harmful to them, but decide not to at the last moment, I have censored myself. That's called self-control. If I decide something is not good and not constructive and decide not to do it, or in this case not to air it, how is that a dishonorable thing?
Agh, pie in my face. I read through alot of the article but didn't read all the entries. Yes I would say that this constitutes censorship, and is definitely wrong.
"Thanks for the clarification. That certainly makes more sense, but they are still asshats for wasting taxpayer money and time needlessly."
Things would have been better overall if the Dixie Chicks had not chosen to utter their mean-spirited lies.
"In truth, I think O'Reilly is conservative in the healthy majority of his opinions"
Not really. Would a conservative be repeatedly bashing Cheney for secrecy? Or fault Bush's environmental policy?
"But what irks me is that he sells himself as moderate, which is clearly not the case."
It clearly is the case. People just do not know what to make of him, an "angry opinionated moderate" is a rare beast. Rage is not the sole domain of 'wingers like Franken and Limbaugh.
"Is slashdot your friend?"
Yes.
"The one that also has a picture of an Indian Programmer smiling at you? Whats the conclusion?"
The conclusion is that VA will hire the best workers, even if they are damn foreigners. Looking as you do from within eyeholes cut in a white bedsheet, I doubt you see it this way.
I do agree with you that there needs to be a clear and objective standard as to what is indecent. But I can't beleive that describing oral sex, in great detail, to an 8 year old girl can in any sane society be considered anything else than indecent.
The irony is that Oprah recently broadcast a far more explicit description of oral sex than Howard Stern ever has (transcript) and no-one is looking to fine Oprah. While the transcript from Howard's show is filled with euphemisms and code words that would go right over a child's head, the Oprah show spelled it out in plain English.
Which do you think is more damaging to an 8-year-old child?
Howard's show is usually over by 10:30am, probably before most kids' first recess, while Oprah is on after school in many markets. I have a hard time believing that properly supervised kids have either the access or the interest in listening to Stern for it to even be an issue.
In any case, like you, I agree there should be some standards; let's just define them clearly and objectively and apply them equally to everyone.
Wait, isn't that the essence of censorship?
Sounds like your definition of freedom of expression comes from the Newspeak dictionary.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
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.
I don't really understand this argument. Companies give money to politicians so the politicians will do what the companies want. If there was really that much pressure put on Clear Channel by the Bush Administration, why wouldn't Clear Channel just stop donating money to the Bush campaign? It doesn't make sense to me to bribe (sorry, donate) someone if you have to do what they tell you. Maybe I am naive
Well, instead of having Campaign Finance laws I would much rather have politicians with the backbone to say to their contributors: "I'll take your money but I am going to vote my conscience and in the best interests of my constituents...
Oops, sorry, I fell off my chair laughing.
Now about those laws...
Which markets are you referring to? You mention as many as 13 out of 20 of the stations being owned by CC. That is well over half. The markets I checked only had a maximum of 25% of stations being controlled by Clear Channel: not much of an oligarchy.
Robbins, by becomming a leading anti-war proponent inexorably became a political figure, even if his speech at cooperstown would have avoided the topic, just as surely as if he had decided to become NRA spokesperson. Petroskey, by taking about Robbins "putting the troops in danger" was suggesting that his particular stance, rather than his current high political profile, was the cause of his removal from the ceremony.
In short, I don't think it was unfair to remove Robbins, but would he have done the same for say, Mel Gibson or Arnold or some other politically active celeb that he agrees with? If not he is a hypocrite, but not a law breaker.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
I would like to commend the Jefferson Center for being nonpartisan and including infringements on free speech by both the right and the left.
I still see righties whining here about the total bias of these awards, but I don't think they'll ever get their panties out of that knot. (Not referring to all right-wingers in general. Just the ones whining here.)
"He ends up with a big fanbase that doesn't have enough money to buy the products advertised on his show. When an advertiser finds that reaching those particular 3 million listeners isn't working as well as expected, it bails on the show, leaving the marketing dept. to find another sucker who will support Stern"
Okay, you are clearly from Clear Channel.
A couple of points that are incorrect:
1) Stern's fan base is probably 5 times what you mention. Well, probably less now that you company has booted him off the top rated stations all over the country.
2) Howard Stern was on a decade before Jerry Springer and guess what... he'll be on a decade after Jerry Springer. Meaning that he isn't a flash in the pan. The guy has been on the radio for close to 30 years. You don't get to stay on that long based on trailer park demographics.
3) As to your made up rantings on advertisers, its irrelevant. Again, you don't stay on the radio for almost 3 decades if you aren't turning a profit. Stern turns a profit
4) CBS Radio/Infinity/Stern is a thorn in the side of Clear Channel because without him, then you get all the pablum DJ's that maybe can get some ratings. As it is, Stern kills in all the critical demo's, and thus is costing Clear Channel Real money.
5) Say it... Clear Channel sucks, and the sooner they go out of business, the better for (a) radio (b) local communities (c) the democratic process.
Clear Channel sucks, they will go out of business, and their employees will get cancer. Its god's will.
" Clear Channel dropped him in response to government fines. "
False.
They dropped stern 8 weeks before any fines; in fact, Clear Channel baited the government into fining them in an attempt to demonize stern.
"I wish there was another line for the 1st amendment that stated my freedom to not have to listen."
You do have that freedom.
Or does Stern come to your house every day and put a gun to your head and says "LISTEN!".
Oh wait...think of the children. Go ahead...I dare you to talk so stupid.
Fox didn't try and have his book banned. They sued him over trademark infringement of the title. If he had changed the name (and I don't think he should have had to anyway), Fox would have had to drop the suit.
Besides, all the pundits on both sides are just in it for the confrontation, money and "fame."
If a cancer is in 25% of a person's body, that body dies.
The sooner Clear Channel is exorcised, the better for all of us.
"You do not have a monopoly if you control a mere 25% of something."
This is so false that I suspect you of being a clear channel employee for stating this.
You do not need 100% of something to be a monopoly. You don't even need 90%. Or 80, or 70.
Its only enough to have effective control over that market. And that may be as low as 10%. Imagine if you controlled 10% of all banking in the United States. That would be close to a monopoly.
No, clear channel is an awful company that will die because it is immoral and its current president probably sold his soul to satan.
Steve Ballmer and Microsoft look like Jesus CHrist compared with the Clear Channel Mafia.
If you don't get that this is Bush's inner circle directing Colin Jr, then you're naive.
Michael go the job as a favor to his daddy, who sold his soul just to work for Bush.
This is all about securing the christian right-wing base for election. Bush could give a shit about "public morals"; the guy is a coke addict and a drunk. He would watch porn with his daughters in it if such a thing were available. He has no morals.
He wan't censored. He was able to say what he wanted and he was then fired for what he said. Many people can and do get fired for saying the wrong things on the job. Especially if it is against guy like Donovan McNabb who plays a lot of good football which gets people to watch your highlight/fake news show. And in the end the sports journalists loved the whole event because they had something to talk about for a week. Plus he has his own radio show to vent on.
2) Trent Lott, US Senate/US mainstream media;
Again, he was able to say what he wanted. Boo-F-ing Hoo that America does not value his words like John Stewart's
3) Dr. Laura Schlessinger, gay-right groups;
This was not censorship. This was people using economic pressure to remove someone from the air that was not liked enough to produce such a sentiment. If you believe that removal of a product (even media) by boycott is censorship, I would hate to hear what you think about labor unions.
4) Conservative faulty & speakers, every college campus;
Um, come to Texas bub!
5) Bernard Goldberg, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller. 6) Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller. 7) Sean Hannity, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
Hmmm. I think they all got plenty of air time on Fox News. That's why the network exists. And cry me a river for these people who lack media exposure but are on the bestseller list!
Open Source Sushi
Keep it in context, chief.
"Actually, you need 100% control. Monopoly means one. Words mean things."
No, this is a common misconception. The government found Microsoft had a control over the desktop. How can that be, with Linux and Mac? Doesn't matter. THey are effectively a monopoly.
When standard oil was broken up, they didn't control 100% of the market.
You're trying to define words and I'm trying to tell you the law. And in a legal sense, you are wrong.
No you didn't get it. Looking at pixelated boobies results in violence. If the wife had nice regular breasts, everybody would just order a beer, sit back, and watch those.
"When standard oil was broken up, they didn't control 100% of the market."
Are you the one who advocated censoring Clear Channel because controlling even 10% of a market was a monopoly?
"Objectively, it is a good company because it serves the public by providing programming that the public wants"
Dude, how can you say (a) I've never heard of them, and then 3 sentences later say (b) They are a good company.
You must be the president of clear channel. I just talked to god...he says you have cancer as do your kids.
We must stop outsourcing, because the heathen Chinee is a slant-eyed devil out to steal our jobs and seduce our women.
"And we'd agree, he's an ass. "
No, he's not. If you want to listen to moron, you listen to hannity and combs. If you want to listen to fat lard ass, you listen to Rush Limbo, if you want to listen to laugh my ass off, I listen to stern.
Sorry, dude, just because you have a 2x4 up your ass, doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you. Live a little. Don't worry that looking at sex will screw you up... it won't. You're only in this world because your mom and dad had sex. Big deal. The entire world has sex. You just think its dirty. That's your shame, not mine.
"the FCC is cracking down because of public outrage over the Superbowl halftime orgy"
Since when it is an orgy exposing a female breast?
Your grasp of reality is sorely lacking, so please, do not attempt to advice others about the subject.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
---Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
So it's like the Darwin awards for the educated. I read it and it's boring humour.
little Communist, Charleton Heston
Uhh - the Communists are the lefties. The NeoCons are the righties. Get your terminology straight.
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
Better throw away your money, then. It reads, "In God We Trust".
The First Amendment reads, in part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
I fail to see how displaying the Ten Commandments on government property establishes a national religion. Is the government making you worship God as compared to someone/something else? No. In some countries if you practice a religion that isn't on the books, you're executed.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
Simple political maxim:
Never trust anybody who tells you to do it for your country or to save the children.
At 7AM, you are controlling your daughter. At 8:30 she's in school.
So stop your lying. Besides, 8 year olds don't care about stern. I've raised a few, and stern doesn't interest kids until they hit 18. Not a bit. Its not even on their radar.
If you 8 year old is sexualized enough to enjoy stern, then you're an unfit parent. ANd it has nothing to do with stern.
...that every time a thread develops critical of Michael Sims, there is a tremendous flurry of new stories posted, and the one with the anti-Sims thread quickly disappears off the /. main page?
I don't mean occasionally, or often, but ALWAYS. It'll be a slow news day up until that point and then BLAMMO...a whole bunch of usually irrelevent and trivial stuff (more so than usual) hits the page. Coincidence? Sure it is...
If you are critical of outsourcing you must be rascist! My God?! Why did I not see this before when it's so damn obvious?! Thanks for wising me up! Now, I shall ask my boss to give my demanding job to some wholly-inexperienced person in a foreign country based on the rationale that it'll save the company the cost of my salary. And with all of my in-depth training and near-lifetime of experience I'm sure there'll be plenty of work left here for me, so...oh....wait...
In a nutshell, as they say.
Corporate welfare (tax cuts), etc
Tax cuts are not corporate welfare. Letting someone keep more of their own stuff is never "welfare"; never a gift.
But he didn't screw up the economy
Where have you been, dude? The current recession started under Clinton. Bush has been trying to get us out of it, but the Democrats have blocked him out of the belief that a bad economy will be blamed on Bush in November 2004.
None of these people were censored.
Just because you can say something, there is no God given right to force someone to help you do it.
If I write a script, submit it to CBS, and they say "NO", was my right to free speech violated?
"I've never heard of the government banning political ads, would you please give a reference?"
Read the recent act generally called "McCain-Feingold"
It has to be intentional....
/. know ANY american history?
We're talking about Tom Jefferson, who pardoned his supporters who were convicted by Adams under the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS, then used the same acts to shut down his own critics?
Does no one on