sign to support free speech

Very well stated, Mattboy. Love ya GGuy, but I can't follow the distorted road to believing liberal politicians care any more about my personal freedoms than Doubya. Democrats do not now, nor have they ever broadly purported that the rights of the individual are foremost. They're all about big government, and big government means bigger taxes and smaller personal freedoms.

Plus, I did a little research, and I found out that stopFCC.com is actually just a front for spam mailing lists. Have fun cleaning out your inbox.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]GG, show me an example (and not a CBS news story) that proves GW is trying to dictate personal tastes.

Let me state how I feel on this issue:
I don't think the government has any right to decide what I listen to, but I do think they do have the right to say where I listen to it. The people who complain because Howard Stern was removed from ClearChannel BY ClearChannel aren't complaining because they have to go to HBO to watch "The Sopranos". I think shows like Stern and Mancow should be placed on satellite radio feeds only.
[/QUOTE]

You know I love ya Mattboy but I totally disagree. Why should they be foreced to satellite? So called safe harbor shows are 1000 times worse on tv. Just look at the view, Oprah, and even the Simpsons (my favorite show). The last few weeks as I'm sure you have heard Mancow say included things that would have gotten him fined up the ying yang.

And you know I normally side with GWB... This is really out of control. Ok. They change radio... What is next. Your beloved cable tv. The internet. Once they get their foot in the door they will not stop. Mark my words. There is no reason at all these shows should not be on free radio. Sure if they say the F' word, fine them. If not leave them alone.

I haven't missed an episode of "The Sopranos" in 5 years, and I'm not mad at the government because I have to watch it on HBO.

As said above, this type of deal may be next. Why do you think cable is all of the sudden offering FREE parental control equipment for those people who don't have vchip. They are trying to beat the FCC to the punch.

Once again. I respect your opinion but I totally disagree. Ok. So right now it's mancow and Stern. Let's say we get another Clinton type in office. All of the sudden he says Rush, Fox News, etc. is hate speach. Now they are off the air.

Lets say they win the radio war. Once again what is next. They start f'ing with cable tv there will be an uproar. GWB really needs to get on the ball. We are moving backwords not forward. And to me it really is sad.

And I don't think Kerry is any better. That fool has yet to actually come out on one side of anything...

I actually agree with the censorship, my religion (LDS "Mormon") doesn't believe in cussing, porn, and all the other crap stuff out there. And I agree with Mattboy completely, he had a great point.

I don't think this is one of those legislative black-holes that keeps getting deeper and deeper at all. People assumed that the tightening of laws against fully-automatic rifles in the 30's would never stop at fully-automatic assault rifles, and it did stop there (not by choice of Democrats that is). Granted, we do have tighter gun laws now than we did then, but nothing to continue the path of banning guns.

I honestly do not believe that this is an infinitely deep hole.

I'll go back to my argument about "Real Sex". It's not hardcore porn, it's rarely even soft-core porn, and it's far less risque than many shows in Germany and the like, but I sure as hell do not want my kids watching it at all under any circumstances. I like the show, you might even call me obsessed (I have probably 20 different ones taped), but just because I like it doesn't mean that I think it should be easily available to children. I put TV and radio on the same plane in this discussion. Just because you can hear AND see on television does not make it any worse than only being able to hear. Ever read a really good book?, you can still get good visuals without actually seeing anything.

And remember, the Democrats already tried to legislate talk radio after the Oklahoma City Bombings. Clinton blamed the attacks on right-wing radio and implied that censorship was needed. The Democrats late last fall even tried to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" which forced radio stations to give equal time to both points of view. It was originally dumped in the late 80's.

...and don't even get me started on Kerry, though I'd much rather suffer through him than that freak Howard Dean (brruuuuuaaaahhhhhhh! (http://www.marriedadults.com/howarddeanscreamaudio6.mp3))

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]I put TV and radio on the same plane in this discussion. Just because you can hear AND see on television does not make it any worse than only being able to hear. Ever read a really good book?, you can still get good visuals without actually seeing anything.

[/QUOTE]

The majority of people listening to the radio today are commuters. Are there really that many kids listening to the radio these days anyways?

Isn’t it more likely that a child would press the button on the tv remote rather than fettle around with a stereo and successfully tune into something that’s clearly offensive?

The idea that kids MIGHT NOT LISTEN is a non-factor. The factor that you need to take into account is that they MIGHT LISTEN. One kid hearing Howard Stern is no less destructive than 5 kids. Many kids have clock-radios in their rooms. Kids are far more likely to have a clock-radio in their room than a television...what happens when a kid is home sick for the day stuck in bed...you are going to assume that he's not going to turn on the radio. You obviously don't have to listen to more than 2 seconds of Stern's show to hear a word that you wouldn't want your kid to hear.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]The idea that kids MIGHT NOT LISTEN is a non-factor. The factor that you need to take into account is that they MIGHT LISTEN. One kid hearing Howard Stern is no less destructive than 5 kids. Many kids have clock-radios in their rooms. Kids are far more likely to have a clock-radio in their room than a television...what happens when a kid is home sick for the day stuck in bed...you are going to assume that he's not going to turn on the radio. You obviously don't have to listen to more than 2 seconds of Stern's show to hear a word that you wouldn't want your kid to hear.[/QUOTE]

Can’t you see that people are being censored and some aren’t? Nobody should have the power to silence people no matter what they have to say because it’s one big double standard. We’ll silence him but that guy over there’s ok.

Howard Sterns a bad man because he uses the N word but oh it’s ok that we can play rap songs that use the word.

Oh this persons awful because he’s talking about drugs and alcohol but its ok to run beer commercials on stations teens listen to.

Why not take everyone off the radio then if it’s such a huge issue? The KKK still have broadcasts on the radio for Pete sakes.

My point is, is that someone HAS the power to point the finger and silence whoever suits them. Nobody should have that power.

This whole thing about children that might tune in is just silly. A radio is a luxury. If you’re afraid your child might tune into a station that has some adult stuff on it don’t let them have a radio.

I think I'm going Libertarian...
Seems like they stand for what Republicans "used" to stand for. We are in desperate need of a third party. Bush, Kerry, it really does not matter. Both parties have become the same as far as how far they will go just to win.

Hey Pank, I agree. - that's a darn good idea - except, voting for third parties generally translates into a wasted vote. Too bad, too. I really like the Libertarian Party. I REALLY like them.

The idea of voting FOR someone died years ago. People vote AGAINST people, now. Like my father told me: Vote for the EVIL of two LESSERS. ;) er, you know what I mean...

check these books out, Pank, James Bovard is a popular Libertarian author I've read a few things from. Pretty amazing stuff.

LOST RIGHTS

p.s. those Bush / Cheney sigs are hilarious. You guys are so adorable.

FlackBait, you and are just going to have to agree to disagree here. I'll go back to my point that we don't want to censor what people are saying, how they are saying it, when they are saying it, just where they are saying it. You cannot run into a movie theater and yell "FIRE!", that is against the law. Is that infringing on your right to free speech? You can yell "FIRE!" just about anywhere except an enclosed crowded area, and I don't hear you Liberals complaining about that. Why not? It's not apples and oranges, it's the same argument.

And back to television...FlackBait, do you think that shows like "Real Sex" should be allowed on prime-time network television? If not, why? These comparisons are not black and white, there may be gray area, but it's black and white.

And GraphicsGuy, I didn't get a link to prove that GW is trying to dictate personal taste. I'd really like to see that, maybe it will open my eyes a little wider.

And the reason that it's hard to get a 3rd party to be taken seriously is that there are not 3 sides to every issue. If there were, we'd likely end up near a 33/33/33% vote ratio.

And GraphicsGuy, I think you are right about voting against someone. My main reason for voting this year is for taxation reasons. John Kerry wants to raise my taxes to pay for more welfare families who don't want to work. GW lowered my taxes last year. I'm against about 95% of social programs that my taxes pay for, and the absolute last thing that I want to do is to pay for more of them to have bigger budgets.

I'm going to start another thread or two since I'm in a political mood this weekend.