sign to support free speech

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]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.[/QUOTE]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24CND-GAY.html?ex=1080450000&en=72b24fe4bad43877&ei=5070

Bush Backs Ban in Constitution on Gay Marriage

"The voice of the people must be heard," Mr. Bush said in a brief White House speech..."

I know it's not completely in line with this particular conversation, but it does tie in nicely with the Gay Marriage debate. The quotes in the story sound strangely familiar, in fact, almost word for word what mattboy had to say in that thread.

I agree with Bush here, but I'd like to change his words around a slight bit. The voices of the people must be heard. Let's get the otherside of the story here. It seems he was trying to dictate that all Americans thought the same as him on this issue. I'm sure graphicsguy would have something to say about that.

With a fear of cracking open a whole new can of worms, I think your whole voting process is an infringement on your own freedom of speach, in a manner of speaking. Having the popular vote is great, it should be the framework of how the new system should be built, but the electoral college silences all the voters in the smaller states. Case in point, the last election, we all know what happened there. Two of the smaller states didn't even matter if they voted or not, it was all up to Florida. If I lived in one of those states, why bother even going?

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]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.

[/QUOTE]

No I agree. I think with television I’d be more concerned that children may flip the channel to “Real Sex” and see people doing adult things. It’s a lot harder to really monitor your children around a TV too. Especially since parents seem to have the TV raise their children know a days.

I just don’t believe the radio should have those filters. People have been broadcasting across the airwaves for quite awhile and to have the government years upon years later step in and allow companies to own more and more stations which they’re weren’t intended to ever have is what I have a problem with.

It’s not like they’re moving programs around or anything either. They’re terminating programs with their own filters. That’s bad.

I do agree to disagree. :D

I can assure you that radio is a hell of a lot harder to monitor than television FlackBait. With television you have V-Chips so that the parents don't have to worry that their kids will stumble upon porn. Radio has no ratings schedule, radio has no V-Chip, radio is almost completely unregulated.

And how were corporate radio stations NOT INTENDED to have multiple stations? Explain that statement to me. I don't get your last statement either, doesn't make sense to me.

And Spectra, banning gay marriage has nothing to do with dictating personal taste. You can still love your man-slave all you want, you just can't marry him.

And yes, I also agree that we need to rid of the Electoral College. The "every vote counts" statement in this country is total crap.

[QUOTE=graphicsguy]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.[/QUOTE]

Amen brother. Maybe someday And I agree, right now there is no chance in hell of a Libertarian winning right now. But I think if people keep voting that way the powers that be will have no choice but to take it seriously and allow them in debates, etc...

Who knows. And please remember. I have backed Bush all along. I'm just tired of him playing democrat for the sake of winning. His spending is out of line and he has totally gone overboard with entitlement programs. Medicare is screwed and I am really starting to think there is a hidden agenda for a lot of his moves. It really does make me sad. I was and still am behind the war. It is all this other crap that is swaying my decision...

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]
And yes, I also agree that we need to rid of the Electoral College. The "every vote counts" statement in this country is total crap.[/QUOTE]

I agree 100%.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]
And how were corporate radio stations NOT INTENDED to have multiple stations? Explain that statement to me. I don't get your last statement either, doesn't make sense to me.
[/QUOTE]

You’re twisting my words.

I said “the government years upon years later step in and allow companies to own more and more stations which they’re weren’t intended to ever have is what I have a problem with.”

That doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to have multiple stations. I was saying that people can own a whole crap load of stations and that’s bad.


Here’s a little history. Keep in mind there has been radiotelephony linking North America with Europe since 1927.


Before the 1996 Telecom Act, the largest number of radio stations owned by any single corporation was 38. Currently, media giant Clear Channel / Jacor Communications owns something over 900 US radio stations, 19 US TV stations, and has interests in 240 international stations and over 700,000 outdoor ad spaces like billboards. CBS/Infinity and AMFM can tell similar stories. This triumvirate controls an awesome number of broadcast facilities and... get this... Clear Channel / Jacor Communications is merging AMFM under their control. This will soon (or may already have) put the control of a lot of media in the hands of just two large corporations.

Last year 35% of ALL radio ad revenue went to the top three owners groups.

In Rochester, the 14 stations owned by Clear Channel / Jacor Communications had 94% of the ad revenue from their market in 1997.

CBS / Infinity controls what 25% of Chicago's radio listeners hear.

If a given media company can control a market, it can dictate rates, say what will and won't get played, and exercise a tremendous amount of power in the marketplace.

In 1997, 5,222 owners controlled 10,246 radio stations. In 1998, 4,241 owners controlled 10,636 radio stations. That's an 8.7% drop in owner numbers verses a 3.8% increase in the number of stations. The latest information that I could find has the total number of US radio stations to be 12,300.

Up-to-date stats on ownership transfers are harder to come by, mostly because there are stations transferring ownership every day. Between 1996 and 1999 a whopping 4,000 radio stations changed hands. Media conglomerates are involved in the majority of these transactions, and it is eroding the diversity of the medium.

This is why I’m concerned. I hope that helps explain my statement.

What sucks Pank is that there will never be a single candidate who will promise everything that you want, or agree with everything that you agree with. You have to make sacrifices and vote for the one that can win and the one that agrees with you more. I don't agree with everything Bush wants/does/says either, but he is a helluva lot better choice than Kerry.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]What sucks Pank is that there will never be a single candidate who will promise everything that you want, or agree with everything that you agree with. You have to make sacrifices and vote for the one that can win and the one that agrees with you more. I don't agree with everything Bush wants/does/says either, but he is a helluva lot better choice than Kerry.[/QUOTE]

Yes, he is better than Kerry. But once again I feel I have to choose the lesser of two evils. And that pisses me off...

GraphicsGuy, I still haven't seen a link to something proving that GW is trying to dictate personal taste.

On another note, you free speech supporters arent' saying anything about this situation, why not? http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.journal08apr08,0,2826413.column

The gay folks of Asheville demanded that the billboards be taken down, so are they anti-free-speech? Speak up, I want to hear your opinions.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]GraphicsGuy, I still haven't seen a link to something proving that GW is trying to dictate personal taste.

On another note, you free speech supporters arent' saying anything about this situation, why not? http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.journal08apr08,0,2826413.column

The gay folks of Asheville demanded that the billboards be taken down, so are they anti-free-speech? Speak up, I want to hear your opinions.[/QUOTE]

I think that person has the right to say what he wants. I don't think its ok to put it on 6 billboards though. What are gays suppose to do? Burn the billboard down? It's not like they can change the radio station or tv channel.