Anti-Censorship Rant

LeeJend

OSNN Veteran Addict
Joined
25 Jan 2003
Messages
5,291
Good rant, you can tell by the length and number of responses. I have a major issue with it though:

"These people even criminalize sex, the single most basic biological function. "

Breathing is the most basic biological function (every couple seconds or so) followed closely by urination and defecation every few hours. Drinking 5-7 days minimum, then eating ~20 days minimum are the next most basic. Then comes rationalization (though in some people this runs neck and neck with breathing). Sex is way down the list.

Don't believe me? Ask how long it's been since the average NTFS reader got laid.
 
P

PseudoKiller

Guest
LeeJend said:
Don't believe me? Ask how long it's been since the average NTFS reader got laid.
20 minutes ago
Lets_do_it_wild.gif
 

Glass

sgàthan ìnnleachd
Joined
7 Jan 2004
Messages
101
I quote it as the most basic biological function simply because it is the single act responsible for bringing you into this world. If you ask me it's pretty friggin basic, right up there with breathing and eating. I hope further replies can stick to the real debate here.
 

Sazar

Rest In Peace
Joined
12 Apr 2002
Messages
14,905
Glass said:
I am talking about ClearChannel's cancellation of The Howard Stern Show which has absolutely nothing to do with this unrelated incident that happened over a month ago. OK, thanks.

unrelated?

it has the same basic underlying problem does it not? indeceny laws?

clear channel has not had problems paying this before but a record fine plus the stricter code everyone has had to follow since the superbowl which btw was over a month ago as well...

also keep in mind that not only howard stern but in the florida area Bubba's show was cancelled on the same premise...

unrelated... ? hardly... unless you unilaterally declare it to be so...
 

Glass

sgàthan ìnnleachd
Joined
7 Jan 2004
Messages
101
Sazar said:
it has the same basic underlying problem does it not? indeceny laws?
Wrong. ClearChannel incurred no fines from the FCC because of The Howard Stern Show as it was not violating any laws. They were under no pressure whatsoever to suspend the show. They made up their own rules and canned the show at their discretion.

There is no stricter code since the superbowl. People are trying to look busy in wake of that incident.

Also keep in mind Colin Powell's son is head of the FCC and Howard Stern had been bashing George W. Bush in the days and weeks preceding his suspension, which comes a few months before the presidential election.
 

muzikool

Act your wage.
Political Access
Joined
27 Dec 2001
Messages
7,626
Glass said:
I can tell you first hand it is possible. I, and most of my friend's operate in this manner.

So you and most of your friends can live your lives with the foundation being logic and reason. Why is it logical to conclude that the rest of the world would be capable of doing the same? I fail to see the point of your argument.

Glass said:
Government "protecting" your children is OK? Are you insane or just incredibly naive? If a child sees Janet Jackson's boob is their head going to explode? Why can every other industrialized country in the world have blatant nudity all over every public medium and no one cares? Because the fact is, ultra conservative jesus freaks ARE largely in control of America and ARE on a religious crusade to rid the airwaves of everything they deem inappropriate.

Yes, government protecting (without the quotes) children is OK. You might think I'm insane, but if children can come home from school and see explicit nudity and hear vulgar language on cable while their parents are at work, then there need to be some changes. Beyond freedom of speech and expression, the government protects children by removing them from abusive homes, and I'm OK with that as well.

Glass said:
You said my comment on the popular American government criminalizing sex was absurd. The whole Janet Jackson thing is a clear indication. Gay marriage is illegal. Gay men can be arrested and thrown in jail for having sex. Tell me now, how this comment is absurd?

The Janet Jackson incident was not sex, it was indecent exposure. It was taking advantage of celebrity and live TV to draw attention to a music star who had faded in recent years. If you are going to argue on Janet Jackson's side, then you need to appeal Pee-Wee Herman's conviction for indecent exposure as well.

When I said that your comment was absurd, I was referring to the idea that the government criminalizes the act of sex. Now, if you want to qualify that statement and say that the government criminalizes the act of sex between gay couples, then I would agree because there are sodomy laws. There, now it's not an absurd statement.

Glass said:
Gay marriage is another example of just who is in control in America. Who the hell cares if a couple of gay dudes get married? Religious fanatics, and that's about it. How is this any different than women not being able to vote and black people not being able to marry? How is your life going to be adversely, or hell, just plain affected in any way if some gay guys get married? Why should straight men be the only ones to suffer? I can only hope we get a gay president who abolishes straight marriage because HE thinks it's wrong.

If only things were so simple in the real world. Instead of providing massive amounts of information on the subject, I'll let you do your own research. Just to get you started, take a look at insurance carriers and taxes.

You make it sound as if Bush is the one abolishing gay marriage... nevermind hundreds of years of American law.

Glass said:
ClearChannel has more than enough resources to cater to pretty much everyones individual tastes.

If you don't like a company's product, don't buy it.
 

Glass

sgàthan ìnnleachd
Joined
7 Jan 2004
Messages
101
muzikool said:
Why is it logical to conclude that the rest of the world would be capable of doing the same?
I never said that. I simply said it would be appropriate.

muzikool said:
if children can come home from school and see explicit nudity and hear vulgar language on cable while their parents are at work, then there need to be some changes.
Why? Children in most other countries can tune into such things and it's no problem. I'm not even talking about nudity and explicit language or cable television anyway. The Howard Stern Show is on when your kids are at school, you can't see any nudity, and vulgar language gets bleeped.

muzikool said:
The Janet Jackson incident was not sex, it was indecent exposure
And indecent exposure has nothing to do with sex. Please. You didn't even see any nip anyway. You could see as much walking down the street on a hot summer day.

muzikool said:
if you want to qualify that statement and say that the government criminalizes the act of sex between gay couples, then I would agree because there are sodomy laws
Sodomy is sex and it is criminalized. It's none of yours or the government's business to tell two men they can't have sex, much less throw them in jail for it.

muzikool said:
take a look at insurance carriers and taxes.
Some states and many countries already allow gay marriage so this argument is totally moot. Every state could have gay marriage if they were so inclined.

muzikool said:
You make it sound as if Bush is the one abolishing gay marriage...
I haven't said the man's name once, but he is repsonsible for it. I guess you haven't heard Bush's latest hateful comments on this issue in which he allout bashes gay men and women.

muzikool said:
...nevermind hundreds of years of American law.
People have been killing, raping, lying, and dressing unfashionably for hundreds of years too. Another pointless argument.

muzikool said:
If you don't like a company's product, don't buy it.
One of the most ignorant statements I've heard in a while. ClearChannel assimilates every company they can. When there is only one company offering one kind of product in a particular area, the consumer is screwed.
 

muzikool

Act your wage.
Political Access
Joined
27 Dec 2001
Messages
7,626
Glass, you have stumbled across a solution to these horrible censorship issues that are plaguing your unfortunate life as a free American. However, somewhere between supporting your arguments with such points as seeing nipples while walking down the street and finding parallels between American law and fashion, you might have missed that solution. So here it is just in case you missed it: move to another country.

It really is that simple. In another country, you can see and hear anything you want anytime of day, and you will be free from the oppressive force that is ClearChannel.

You have made your point with your rant and your replies, but nothing you've said has made me sympathize with your views. You will just have to believe me when I say that I am not close-minded, and I have great respect for those with different views who make valid arguments for their side. Perhaps you could turn to perris for assistance in making your arguments, he tends to formulate his quite nicely.

I feel that I have made my points as well, and for the time being I won't reply anymore in this thread as to avoid rehashing the points already made.

One final thought: Why don't you ask the mods why certain words are censored in these forums? You might not want to create a double-standard by posting in forums that censor your freedom of speech.
 

Glass

sgàthan ìnnleachd
Joined
7 Jan 2004
Messages
101
muzikool said:
move to another country
Tell that to the millions of people who can no longer tune in to their favorite radio programs. I don't live in America anyway. I'm currently in New York helping my mother move into her new house, and was quite surprised to see just what goes on here.

muzikool said:
nothing you've said has made me sympathize with your views.
I am not attempting to garner yours or anyone's sympathy. I'm simply speaking my mind.

muzikool said:
I am not close-minded, and I have great respect for those with different views who make valid arguments for their side.
You insinuate my arguments are invalid. How so? I have strived to be as clear as possible.

muzikool said:
I feel that I have made my points as well, and for the time being I won't reply anymore in this thread as to avoid rehashing the points already made.
I'm sorry you feel this way. I acknowledge everyone's individual views are different and I'm just trying to have a discussion. I'm not out for a fight, I've only stated some facts and opinions, and I am interested in your replies, however confrontational they may be.

muzikool said:
One final thought: Why don't you ask the mods why certain words are censored in these forums? You might not want to create a double-standard by posting in forums that censor your freedom of speech.
You're throwing the NTFS forums and every public medium accessible to the American public in one basket. The NTFS administrators own this board and can censor whatever they please. Public information however is a different story. Once again, a pointless argument.
 

Sazar

Rest In Peace
Joined
12 Apr 2002
Messages
14,905
Glass said:
Wrong. ClearChannel incurred no fines from the FCC because of The Howard Stern Show as it was not violating any laws. They were under no pressure whatsoever to suspend the show. They made up their own rules and canned the show at their discretion.

There is no stricter code since the superbowl. People are trying to look busy in wake of that incident.

Also keep in mind Colin Powell's son is head of the FCC and Howard Stern had been bashing George W. Bush in the days and weeks preceding his suspension, which comes a few months before the presidential election.

howard stern's show has been levied fines on many occasions... in fact afaik it holds the record for highest cumulative fine incurred though that was on the infinity broadcasting co that covers about 70 odd % of his listener-base...

in the wake of the superbowl there are stricter guidelines that are voluntarily being imposed... look around... NYPD... MTV... they all censored themselves to an extent and limited 'suggestive' material... albeit for short periods of time only...

bubba who was no.1 in his category was also canned... in fact in the florida area he was listened to more widely than howard.. the fact is he is COMPLETELY off the air...

now if you want to say this is political censorship that is a whole other issue... personally I agree with many of your points (though not the tone) even if you have issues with this particular segue of the topic...
 

Tittles

Dabba Dooba
Political Access
Joined
29 Jul 2002
Messages
6,344
Well i didnt read all of the posts but Do people not know bout the thing in the corner that comes up before the shows start? Like it says TV-MA or TV-G or whatever. I mean thats the reason I thought they put that they is to tell u if your child should watch it or not. Its the like the same damn rating as movies have the parents can easily not let there child watch it. I think its kinda stupid that all this started cause one boobie was shown on tv. Look at the simpsons,king of the hill, and some other adult like cartoons. They show naked butts on there all the time and u dont see anybody complaining. Even Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon have naked cartoon butts. Well I have more to say but I will save it for later cause I am hungry so peace out
 

Aussie983

ßµ®?i? ?ili???
Joined
7 Mar 2004
Messages
134
TittleBitties said:
Well i didnt read all of the posts but Do people not know bout the thing in the corner that comes up before the shows start? Like it says TV-MA or TV-G or whatever. I mean thats the reason I thought they put that they is to tell u if your child should watch it or not. Its the like the same damn rating as movies have the parents can easily not let there child watch it. I think its kinda stupid that all this started cause one boobie was shown on tv. Look at the simpsons,king of the hill, and some other adult like cartoons. They show naked butts on there all the time and u dont see anybody complaining. Even Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon have naked cartoon butts. Well I have more to say but I will save it for later cause I am hungry so peace out

i have to agree. while i do think boobygate was wrong since it was during a major sporting event, the rating system is in place for a reason. Most TVs have a v-chip in them now, and its really simple to block out TV-MA and such.

I think that the FCC went about this all wrong, and shouldn't be trying to rip all offensive content off the air, but to regulate it on live broadcasts so that boobygate doesn't happen again. Parents should know what their children are watching and use the rating guide to their advantage. but when the rating guide doesn't hold true to the content, thats when action should be taken
 

Sazar

Rest In Peace
Joined
12 Apr 2002
Messages
14,905
tbh... they are only acting on the calls by the conservatives to their stations..

the FCC would have been less inclined to point out it was possibly revising things were it not for the neo-con's and their crying out about the corruption of the youth of america...

if you read the superbowl thread related to this part of the topic it is a bit ludicrous given the rest of the imagery on the field..

wrt clear channel.... they can be dealt with because there are laws out there to allow competition.. by swallowing all competitors clear channel increases its voice but @ the same time opens itself up to inquiries...
 

jan

Aspiress
Joined
5 Jan 2004
Messages
183
I think as muzikool and others have so elegantly pointed out its really about the free market.When you get right down to the brass tacks.Except of course when the govt gets involved (w/over regulating and such).I really disagree w/the notion that there is some sort of christian conservative monopoly (or whatever you wantta call it) involved here too. A recent article in the LA Times by Mr Limbaugh defends Howard Stern and I think clears the air on this buisiness just a tad.You must be registered to read from there site and its not very long so to make it a bit easier for everybody I'll post it here;

March 7, 2004

There's No Right to Be Heard

By Rush Limbaugh

In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a listener of "The Show" and I did not hear firsthand what he said that led Clear Channel Communications to drop his show from six of its more than 1,200 markets. And to further disclose, Clear Channel also distributes "The Rush Limbaugh Show."

After it happened, people were stunned when I came to Stern's defense. The uninformed thought that I, as a conservative, must believe that the government should be in the business of silencing smut and regulating morality. But that was a week ago and the story has stretched. Now the buzz is that Stern was not dropped by Clear Channel for violating its decency standards. No, Clear Channel dropped Howard because he had been critical of President Bush. And, as the tale goes, since Clear Channel is reputedly close to Bush, the president called Clear Channel and told it to get rid of Stern.

So are we now going to popularize loony conspiracy theories from the left-wing fringe to defend Howard Stern? All that's missing here is that Stern discovered that Bush had an ancient relative who used to live on Mars and worked for Halliburton there before it destroyed that planet and arrived here on Earth to destroy Iraq by procuring oil for Dick Cheney's portfolio.

Let me try to restore some reason to this mess. First, Howard Stern was not censored by Clear Channel. He was fired. It happens all the time in radio for whatever reason evil management desires. Just ask me; I was once fired for using the word "therefore" too many times (management said it confused the audience).

Secondly, the 1st Amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can shout all you want but no one has to listen to you.

And a third point: If Clear Channel is firing people for criticizing the administration, then I am next. In fact, I should have been fired two years ago. I have been so critical of the administration's domestic agenda that some of my own listeners have been threatening to abandon me if I don't stop. And I haven't.

From letting Ted Kennedy write the most bloated education bill in history, to the redundant, unnecessary farm bill, to the new Medicare entitlement, I have watched in disbelief as "compassionate conservatism" came to mean "mainstream liberalism."

But what should really concern us is the McCain-Feingold law, which specifies who can criticize a candidate on TV in the days before an election. It prohibits union and corporate funding of advertisements that mention candidates for federal office within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. The fact the Supreme Court found it constitutional is horrifying.

Yet people are concerned that Howard Stern has been censored? By President Bush?

Stern is not the problem. He is "Romper Room" compared with what we can watch in prime time every night on TV. The difference is that the garbage on TV wins Emmys.

The real hypocrisy here is saying we need to regulate radio but we can't have standards about what appears on TV if it arrives in your home via cable or satellite.

And let's not mention the cultural depravity of much of the music aired on radio today. Artistic expression must be "understood and encouraged." It's the same thing as saying "The Passion of the Christ" is dangerous and anti-Semitic, but a crucifix in a jar of urine is art that we must endeavor to appreciate and not judge prematurely.

If music radio stations can play garbage, if TV can show us filth and museums can exhibit depravity, then broadcasters should have the right to choose what not to air as well, as in the case of Howard Stern. Besides, there are any number of stations free to air his show in markets where it was canceled.

Whatever is happening, it isn't censorship and it isn't George W. Bush. Some may call it reasonable. I call it the free market.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...1,5554855.story
 

Perris Calderon

dealer
Staff member
Political Access
Joined
24 Jan 2002
Messages
12,374
clear channel is the most dangerous force in america..

clear channel's megaliath power is NOT the free market, it's oposite what the free market is.

clear channel's s whole goal and agenda is to circumvent the free market, by buying the market as much as possible, then force what they think "should" be listened to down the throats of Americans, ands so further their agenda.

the kind of power clear channel has was once illegal, as well it needs to be, and it's important to make it illlegal again...we need the free market to decide content, and not megaliath companies like this

as thosed on this thread that do wnat a free market in America once again have so elegantly stated previously on this thread;

clear channel has removed content from markets that would have NOT removed the content if the respective market drove decision.

this company will fire hosts that don't share their "agenda" once they aquire these stations, and they will make certain what Americans "should be listening too"...even though these fired hosts are popular in those respective markets...then they make beleive the hosts they do hire, with their "view and agenda" of what America should be lsitening to ARE popular.

they are more dangerous then anyone on this thread imagine
 

Tittles

Dabba Dooba
Political Access
Joined
29 Jul 2002
Messages
6,344
Well from what I hear bout clear channel and its power. Isn't that a monopoly or whatever? In American Studies like a month ago were learned bout compaines back in the 1800's or whatever having monopolys and it bein illeagal. Correct me if i am wrong.
 

Perris Calderon

dealer
Staff member
Political Access
Joined
24 Jan 2002
Messages
12,374
the ability to own this much media in America was once illegal...it's not illegal anymore.
 

Tittles

Dabba Dooba
Political Access
Joined
29 Jul 2002
Messages
6,344
Wait...now that i think of it...did it just become legal couple years ago or somethin. Cause i sware i heard somethin bout foxnews owning so much stuff or whatever.
 

Sazar

Rest In Peace
Joined
12 Apr 2002
Messages
14,905
yah I thought there were regulations concerning this as well :confused:

oh well...

/me goes back to reading about packaging...
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.
Terrahertz wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Yo fellas!
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Where are you buddy?
Perris Calderon wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Hey EP! All good with me, applying for Microsoft MVP right now, should have done this a while ago.

Notifications don't work, I only found your response by coming back to hunt up some threads, if you want, give me your email address so we can keep in touch easier!

Forum statistics

Threads
61,999
Messages
673,424
Members
5,593
Latest member
moussa021