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.
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
-1, Flamebait
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of Anonymous Cowards and Cowboy Neil. - Thomas Jefferson
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
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
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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
and the price of liberty is eternal moderation (and meta moderation)
come for the naked robots, stay for the zombies
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...
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.
See, I disagree. Neither Sarandon nor Robbins intended to make the ceremony a political forum. Petroskey didn't ask them not to. He simply decided, unilaterally, that people who thought the way Sarandon and Robbins did shouldn't be allowed to speak in public.
In so doing, Petroskey politicized the Baseball HOF much more strongly than Robbins or Sarandon could have.
He made no attempts to control the content, like by asking Robbins and Sarandon to keep their speech non-political and centered on baseball and the movie being celebrated. His intention was to *punish* Robbins and Sarandon for saying what they believed and he didn't like. That, my friend, is the stifling of free speech. Let us not forget that Dale Petroskey served under President Ronald Reagan as press secretary. While he may not currently be a government official, it's clear that his actions were politically motivated and intended to act as political protection for the sitting President.
It IS the stifling of free speech, both directly and by intimidation. Moreover, it is wrong. Morally and legally.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Perhapse Scalia should be added to the list.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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
Err. No. There was one protecting the rights of a kid who wanted to advertise his NRA membership; another defending a child who handed out Christian religious messages at school; the CBS TV is bipartisan; another supporting a Christian message on a sponsored float at a state fair; another supporting a pro-life group.
Pro-life, prayer in schools and handgun ownership. Well known opinions of the left.
Your, sir, are a cretin.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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
Gee, could it maybe be that there have been more attacks on the left than on the right?
Also, perhaps you missed the fact that our government is now headed by conservatives, so the power of the government will be flexed in that general direction (not a complaint - thats just the way it works).
Also, this certainly reflects the unhappiness of many Americans with our military and foreign policy. Did the fact that most protesters in the '60's protested for civil rights or against vietnam - stories that would lead on the Wall Street Journal -- make the Journal left wing?
Besides (ob-troll), it isn't my fault that right wingnuts have to resort to violence and the surpression of civil rights to get their point across.
I stand corrected. I just caught the " The University of New Orleans Administration" piece.
If you think a shirt with anythig written on it can make you afraid then you need a backbone. Nobody can make you fear them it's your choice. Removing one persons choice to make another person not have to choose it tyranny plain and simple. If the kid does something or says something thats an action and the school should deal with that action as harshly as nessicary but you should never stop them from making whatever statement they want. I will strangle your mother is an overt threat it's talking about an action. I gun is a tool not an action, yes a lot of people that have been living happaly in there safe envirment dont like guns. Guns are tools that can be used to kill yes that is fact. And where do you draw the line when I was in school I was 240 lbs and 5 7 in 5th grade was I intimidating sure, should I have been expeled because I was intemidating by your logic yes because I might intimidate your child.
Everybody should have the right to express themselves up to the point of threatning others directly. Those shirts threaten nobody directly and nobody in particular. Schools are a place to learn and grow up part of growing up is learning to not be afraid. Freedom from fear has to be learned it cant be given.
No sir I dont like it.
...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.
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.
I must confess that I probably did overstate that part. It's a stretch to extend the prohibition against governmental suppression of free speech to a former governmental shill (nice word, BTW). Hey, I can wish, right?
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
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.
"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
Yeah, I'm with you - but I don't think that was a good example. There's much better ones. After all, those pamphlets were being distributed by someone from off-campus, not related to the school.
How about this one, where Clarence Mason Weaver, author of "It's OK to Leave the Plantation : The New Underground Railroad", was to give a presentation at Cal-Poly. A summary is here.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
So, what is it? Are you kidding, stupid, or did you just not read the article?
In this particular case, the tshirt was relevant to the shooting sports. It bore the same type of silhouettes used at the Olympics to denote shooting events. (You are aware, aren't you, that shooting is an Olympic sport, with a number of events?)
In what idiotic alternate universe does wearing a tshirt that promotes legitimate, competitive sports get confused with "...a classmate (acting) as though they might shoot people..." or "...glorify(ing) violence..." or "...intimidating clothing..."?
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?
That's nice. However, it has no relevance to the marksmanship award T-shirt in this case.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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.
A musket is a historical weapon that has no relevence to today. What about all of the school mascots with Roman spears or Tomahawks?
Tell that to the high-school kids in metal shop making primitive weapons that work just fine in gang warfare.
These things are symbols for us because at one time they were part of our values. Perhaps the politically correct find a Roman with a spear less violent. I do not..
Here is what I am trying to say, the school has a policy about glorifying violence. Intimidating clothing is part of it.
There are far more intimidating things done and worn by kids in school, and more-likely to happen than bringing an assault weapon to school. There are also certainly more single-shot hard-to-load weapons carried to school than assault weapons.
No one is going to put on a tricorn hat and go on a school rampage with a muzzle loader. So your argument is baloney.
So as long as they have a tricorn hat with their weaponry it is ok, because no one would wear a tricorn hat when killing people? Your argument makes so much more sense now :-)
However, people wearing shirts with the silhouette of a modern firearm might just be considered a intimidating. Our children go to school to learn, not be intimidated by classmates that act as though they might shoot people, or glorify violence with their fourteen year old understanding of the world. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you have some children before your reply, it might change your attitude.
I have children in school, and they have been repeatedly harassed by bullys, but never with an assault weapon. Taking the symbols off of their shirts seems like just removing the warning label, if it indeed was indicative of violent tendencies at all. It sounds like this school's approach is very superficial.
Should the school also allow shirts that say "I will strangle your mother if you look at me again"? After all, in this country you can say and express what you want!
No. That would seem to be a clear threat.
But they should be required to provide evidence that a musket-carrying soldier is an order of magnitude less intimidating than an assault weapon. Perhaps they should eliminate the problem and get rid of violent sports like football altogether, and other things that contribute to the jock mentality that seems to cause actual bullying and be rid of the violent mascots at the same time.
See?
I see that the problem and hypocracy remains.
In any society, even a free one, there is a responsibility, and a line to be drawn. Even in America there is a line. The line is a lot deeper than most countries, but there is still a line. That is to let other people live with freedom from tyranny, oppression, religion, and fear. Remember those?
Yes. But drawing the line will always be arbitrary, and obvious hypocricy such as this does not make the system credible.
I would give a different message in school. I am not sure what eliminating the symbols of modern weapons in schools does.
Anti-war speech is as likely to refer to symbols of violence as the pro-war neo-conservatives, as well as the traditional conservatives, who don't shoot anyone but believe that popular sovereinty includes the right to self defense.
Many are taught that the cross is a symbol of hatred, and most other symbols, too have roots in issues that are violent in nature. This is why crosses, muslim scarves, and other symbols were banned in schools in France. How did you arrive at the conclusion that your line is responsible, and that of others, who consider it unjustified abridgement of free speech, are not?
It's only government censorship when it is enshrined in law.
A movie director can censor there own film like Stanley Kubrick and a Clockwork Orange.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
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 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.
I don't believe he does have that right. He may have that power (obviously does), but not that right.
Quoting:"The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a not-for-profit educational institution dedicated to fostering an appreciation of the historical development of the game and its impact on our culture by collecting, preserving, exhibiting and interpreting its collections for a global audience, as well as honoring those who have made outstanding contributions to our National Pastime."
Says nothing about making political statements or endorsing political positions, which is exactly what Petroskey did.
His own statements, "We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important -- and sensitive -- time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict," show that his motives were not to protect his institution, but to protect the President politically. You DO remember that he's the former press secretary for Bush's dad's old running mate, right?
He even calls it patriotism, says he's protecting U.S. troops in the field. But only a total moron would believe the balderdash about putting our troops in danger - you're not a moron, are you? He was one step short of calling Robbins and Sarandon terrorists - and you KNOW he thought about it.
The worst part, to me, is that the letter of apology that Petroskey sent me didn't apologize for being a repressive prick - it apologized for not calling them to cancel instead of sending the letter.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
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!
It IS the stifling of free speech, both directly and by intimidation. Moreover, it is wrong. Morally and legally.
I agree with you 100% that it is morally reprehensible that Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon have been denied work because of their political views. When I was growing up my parents used to tell me "see how nice it is that we live in America and can say anything we want to without fear of retribution?" Well, it just isn't true folks.
The problem is: There's nothing illegal about it. The Baseball HoF is not a government institution, and thus, is not bound by the constitution. While it may be morally reprehensible to politicize baseball in this way, there's nothing illegal about what he did.
He's still an asshat.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
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
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.
You obviously haven't spent much time on a college campus lately.
Recommended reading....
The Shadow University
and....
Dr. Mike S. Adams.
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.
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.
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.
1. Work for government
2. Go into private industry
3. Do government's dirty work for them
4. It's not real censorship because you changed
hats.
Who is John Cabal?
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.
Hmmm...my original is mod'd Troll. Guess someone doesn't like the idea of free-Conservative-speech here either.
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.
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.
In truth, I think O'Reilly is conservative in the healthy majority of his opinions. You can't fault a guy for this as everyone has their own personal political slant. And his show is an opinion show, so a requirement for a lack of bias would be unreasonable. But what irks me is that he sells himself as moderate, which is clearly not the case.
I guess in my perfect world, a person who has a political show dedicated to the presentation of opinions would be upfront about his own political beliefs. Anything less is being disingenuous.
Taft
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...
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.)
The American coverage of the Olympics generally includes little shooting. During the Winter Games, the Biathlon will generally get 5 minutes coverage at 4AM on a weekday and the segment will not be repeated.
At the Summer Games, things are a tad better if we win a medal or two or if one of our shooters is particularly telegenic. Luckily, one or two of our shooters are usually very lovely young ladies.
You want an illustration? I sat next to Ralf Schumann's wife when he won the gold for Rapid Fire Pistol at the Atlanta Games. As soon as the line was clear and people could move, we were surrounded by TV cameras and microphones. I beat a retreat instantly and then looked back. There wasn't a single U.S. news source in that gaggle of reporters.
Sad, really.
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
"The guy did coke, well documented if you'd open your mind a bit"
As did Bill Clinton. Clinton also ordered "Arkancides" and Bush assassinated black leaders in Florida to win in 2000. Elvis is alive, and Jews control the media. All of this is true. I read it on the Internet. The Internet would never lie.
"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.
You clearly don't understand the economic definition of "monopoly."
It is not "when someone owns 100% of something." That would be called "100% ownership" or "complete ownership."
It is when a company effectively controls a market, regardless of the actual percentage controlled.
Do you get it now? Repeat after me: No percentage is necessary, only effictive control...
Pro-life, prayer in schools and handgun ownership. Well known opinions of the left.
You mean the right - the conservative view. The left is generally pro-abortion, anti-prayer in school and anti-gun ownership.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
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.
Maybe it has something to do with him being 57 in the fifth grade...
when I was in school I was 240 lbs and 5 7 in 5th grade
though their stations are a small slice of a market, they are often the most popular (i.e. they serve the listeners).
Which is EXACTLY why you can't go strictly by the number of stations they own when determining the control they have over a market. They could easily own 10 or 20% of the stations, but have 75% of the listeners.
False. ClearChannel temporarily suspended Stern before the fines; they officially dropped him for good in immediate response to the fines.
As an aside, the local CC station here in Rochester (NY) that used to carry Stern is FAR more vulgar in their 5-second station promos than Stern ever was.
Ok, IANAL yadda yadda yadda...
No you don't need 100%. But typically to be a monopoly means you need to have the power to exclude competition from your industry. How exactly does Clear Channel exclude competition?
The only real barrier to entering the broadcast radio market is getting space in the spectrum (from the FCC). You could argue that the FCC gives all the space to Clear Channel so CC is the barrier, but that argument *would* require far higher numbers of CC to non-CC stations out there.
So...how *is* CC a monopoly? All I've heard you say is that you don't need 100% marketshare to be one. Fair enough. I don't have 100% marketshare in anything I do either; does that make me a monopoly?
Actually, I was being sarcastic.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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?
That act was about campaign finance reform, and is aimed at leveling the playing field, not prohibiting speech. In that case, the goverment does not stop/ban certain ads or messages, it just provides structure so that all candidates have an equal shot at being elected, regardless of financial background. Read this article
Hmmm... Not really. Unless you consider the government prohibiting YOU from buying a political ad within 60 days of an election as "leveling the playing field." With this restriction in place, only ABCCBSCNNETC will be allowed to influence elections. Now isn't that lovely?
You can be political without being part of a campaign. If you are simply supporting a candidate with an ad, then you are part of his campaign. You have to regulate those contributions or else big corportations will buy all the ad time, and the little guy has no chance.
If I am wrong, I would appreciate an article link so I could become more informed.
1. I can see how you parsed it, but if you read closely, I didn't say that Stern had only a 3 million person fan base, I said that (an example) advertiser might be aiming at only 3 million of them.
2. You can call it "made up rantings" if you want. Point is, Stern can turn x amount of profit if his advertisers pay CBS Radio/Infinity, whether his advertisers keep turning a proportionate amount of profit or not. To make it real blunt - His profit is for his company, not his sponsers. A profit for one does not have to be a profit for the other - the two are only loosely indexed. If you have some proof that all advertising is equally well priced and any company can predict an exact guarenteed in advance profit by simply devoting x amount to advertising, why are you posting to slashdot instead of buying 100% control of Clearchannel from your petty cash reserves?
Who is John Cabal?
As I see it, we all have to pay taxes. Giving huge corporations (and their billionaire officers) tax breaks gives them an unfair advantage over the rest of us that do pay our fair share of taxes. The Earned Income Tax Credit that many families with children receive is also a form of welfare--in this case designed to redistribute income to those who have less of it.
I see corporate tax cuts as the same. Redistribution of money from the middle class to the corporation.
And you, AC, I hope you enjoy the next four years of Bush rule. This country deserves whatever it gets.
I see corporate tax cuts as the same. Redistribution of money from the middle class to the corporation. I have to agree with this. In fact, two of the richest men in the US agree too - Warren Buffet and George Soros. They both went on record that Bush's tax cuts were aimed at shifting more money to the rich. I can't find the article at the moment though.
>Come on, folks, self-censorship is not bad. [...] That's called self-control.
Indeed: that's called self-control; and it has very little to do with what people generally refer to with self-censorship.
Self censorship is believing you know how to say the right thing, but not airing your thoughs because that would have indirect repercussions from a major (political) power. So, in a sense, there is no difference between censorship and self-censorship: They are both enemies of free speech and thus of democracy and peace.
--
A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular -- Adlai Stevenson