sign to support free speech

Thank you for making my point for me...I have no further questions.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]Thank you for making my point for me...I have no further questions.[/QUOTE]

Glad I could help. :rolleyes:

Probably nobodies said anything about the situation your talking about because not that many people on this board read the freaking baltimore sun. I sure don't.

You are making my point for me again. The Liberal news-media doesn't want to bring this up.

And I posted the link so that the people who haven't heard of it can see it now.

I’m not proving any of your points because you don’t have any. You somehow think your article is relevant to people being censored on the radio and television?

Since you always seem to ignore everything I have to say let me repeat myself, “What are gays suppose to do? Burn the billboard down? It's not like they can change the radio station or tv channel.”

People should have the right to say what they want when they want but they don’t have a right to step on peoples freedoms…Gays have the right to live among heterosexuals don’t you think?

How is your example from some small unknown source anywhere near as important as taking someone off the radio? At least people have a choice to listen to what they want and watch what they want vs having a hate billboard right next to where you get groceries.

You’re assuming I or anyone here who’s been defending people right to say whatever they want on the radio or tv with someone posting what they want on 6 billboards.

They’re completely different medias.

Yes you did prove my points Flackbait, yes you did. Let me illustrate: In my first post regarding this new matter, I was aiming to see if someone who previously defended radio would step up and say that the billboards should have been taken down. You did that. My other point was that nobody wants to talk about this issue, because if the free-speech movement stepped up to the plate like they should have if they really believed in and supported free speech, they would have been crying bloody murder here. They don't want to talk about it because they are afraid to offend anybody, yet demand that anything offensive to anyone else that is removed/taken down is a violation of free speech. But if their agenda is in alignment with the removal of the message, they they will keep their mouths shut. So yes, you proved 2 of my points without me having to say anything.

The medium that the content is on is irrelevant. The "gays' can't turn the channel surely, but they absolutely can ignore the billboard. You don't have to look at them if you don't want to. Now I'm not at all saying that they should not have been taken down, I think they should have removed, but this is clearly a violation of free speech, so why isn't the free speech community in an uproar?

...and besides, I heard about the ordeal on the radio here in Iowa, so it's not just from a small source. I just did a Google search and that was the first article that came up, so I posted it.

The medium isn’t irrelevant though because other things come into play depending how you’re using your right to freedom of speech. You have to compromise.

For example someone can hang a nazi flag outside there house. They have the right to and should have the right to. But as a community as a whole its promoting hate. So what if people are offended right? This person has a right to say what he wants how he wants. Wrong because this persons also a citizen and has other rights like being protected by the police and so on. Which is this person willing to give up?

Either he or she can hang that flag in their house or they can give up all there rights to be protected and take the risk of something doing physical harm to them or damaging their property.

Radio and Television you really do have completely different options vs having to see a nazi flag or any type of offensive thing when you’re walking outside your house when you go to work for example. If your offended by Howard Stern (just using him as an example) when you turn your car on you don’t have to have your radio tuned into him. Your happy and Howard can say what he wants.

I think people are in more of an uproar about radio stations “compromising” because like in all the figures I’ve posted in this thread, there really isn’t a lot people can do if a select few owns everything and decides to compromise. It shuts everyone off. There isn’t the option to say hey we don’t care if we’re upsetting people we’re doing this anyways.

Please don’t think I’m arguing my point for everyone. This is just what I think.

Sorry it took me so long to answer Mattboy's request for evidence of Bush's personal freedom removal campaign. I've been extremely busy lately...

Why Howard Stern REALLY got banned from Clear Channel.

Fast Tracking the "Decency Bill"

President Bush eliminating another personal freedom

Stern's fine, firing and who did it. Not a Republican vs. Democrat issue.

This IDIOT literally cried in front of an FCC panel because her kid saw a boob on TV. (nothing to do with Bush, but I had to include it just for fun.) a group keeping track of this Nazi freak

So, read up, and let me know if you need some more. This took only a few minutes to dig up, I'm sure there's more great examples of how George II can't figure out when he's at Church or at the Oval Office.

The first article is 97% speculation by Howard Stern, a person which I am inclined not to believe.
==================
The 2nd article states this:

But Frist's efforts may have gotten a boost as Sen. John Breaux, D-La., is unlikely to push an amendment to include some cable programing under the same indecency regulations that broadcasters have to meet, according to his spokesman Brian Weiss.

A Democrat? I hardly think that he has even the slightest thing to do with the Bush Administration

As defined by the FCC and the courts, material is indecent that "in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time, but indecent speech can be broadcast from 10 p.m.-6 a.m.

That statute was in the FCC guidelines long before Bush was President. That goes back to my statement at the beginning of this "discussion" that the government doesn't want to regulate what you watch/listen to, just when you listen to it. The following quite is also from the FCC guidelines:

Any consideration of government action against allegedly indecent programming must take into account the fact that such speech is protected under the First Amendment. The federal courts consistently have upheld Congress’s authority to regulate the broadcast of indecent material, as well the Commission’s interpretation and implementation of the governing statute. Nevertheless, the First Amendment is a critical constitutional limitation that demands that, in indecency determinations, we proceed cautiously and with appropriate restraint."

=====================

And I hardly think killing babies is a personal freedom that you should enjoy. If you do some research, you'll see what that article left out GG. That bill was originally proposed before George W was in office. It originally passed the House in 1999. Bush wasn't elected until 2000, remember? If you want to give MORE rights to murderous criminals, I firmly believe that you should be chained to the floor of a prison shower for a few weeks. I want everyone here to read what the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" does, and see if you can stand beside GraphicsGuy and think that it is such a bad thing to persecute a murderer for the death of both the mother and the unborn child. If your wife was pregnant, and someone stabbed her in the stomach, but she survived, would you not want the criminal in jail for murder, or would you just want him charged with assault with a deadly weapon? If you prefer the latter, I honestly don't think that your cold, black heart will survive another winter.

=======================

The word is now Ashcroft is wanting to regulate stuff like HBO because he thinks it's porn.
This is getting out of control. I really hope you agree mattboy...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obscenity06apr06,0,3004361.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
I'm sure there are more links. Do a google search.

I am a big time Christian. BUT... I don't think anybody has the right to tell other people what to do except the Big Guy. This is our version of radical islam. We are heading down a very scary road. You want freedomes. Get rid of Ashcroft or we will be living in a policed state.

I could understand if HBO was a regular cable channel...and the more adult shows were broadcast at 8 pm... but it isn't. I pay to have HBO in addition to my regular channels and I know that my kid's not going to accidentally stumble onto anything he shouldn't see because
a) those shows come on after his bedtime, and
b) I assume the role of a responsible parent and use the parental control features. John Ashcroft is not my kid's dad. The government has no right to tell me what is "indecent" and what isn't. I like horror movies. I don't want the government telling Anthony Hopkins he can't eat anybody else because it's "indecent".
I believe in right and wrong, but I DON'T believe it should ever come to any branch beside the judical to tell me where the line between them is drawn.