FCC Wary of Greeks Baring Gifts at Games (washingtonpost.com)
In response to one or more indecency complaints, the Federal Communications Commission has asked NBC to send it tapes of its coverage of the Summer Olympics Opening Ceremonies in Athens, the network confirmed late yesterday.
Ironically, the night before, NBC’s Summer Games coverage was named the family-friendliest special of 2004 during WB’s broadcast of the sixth annual Family Television Awards. The awards are given by the Family Friendly Programming Forum, a group of 46 major national advertisers working to encourage networks to produce more family-friendly prime-time fare…
Yet another example of how open we Americans are to free expression and ideas from other lands nowadays…
• 
What part of “It’s YOUR job to monitor what your kids watch” are you having trouble comprehending?
If you didn’t want the responsibility that goes with raising a 7-year old, then you should have kept your pants on. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s the job you signed on for.
As I and others have tried to point out to you, all TVs come equipped with a feature that is 100% reliable in keeping objectional material out of your home.
THE OFF BUTTON!!!!
In other words, you want to change the rules of the game in the middle of the second half. Whether you like it, agree with it, understand it, or not, the fact is when TV and radio first were introduced, they realized they had a decision to make. The belief at the time was that the airwaves belonged to everyone. As such, anyone with enough money could put up an antenna. The one with the strongest signal on a given channel would win. In addition, they had to come up with a standard that a TV or radio would follow so that people could turn on the channel.
At the end of the day, the powers that be decided to keep TV and radio signals free. This removed the DIRECT ability of us as consumers to determine what was and was not aired. This was not “pay per view.” So in order to avoid any one party from controlling all programming, they put in place rules designed to keep what was on TV appropriate to a large segment of the viewing public. (If any of you disagree with my historical summary, I am open to hearing it. But this is what I have read of how TV and radio began.)
As a result, the comment “you can just turn off your TV” is changing the rules of the game. Network TV and AM/FM radio belong to the public as a whole. They do NOT belong to just a network, artist, or sponsor. So my desire that there not be nudity and obscenity is quite appropriate. The airwaves belong equally to us all. That is why I rejected Den’s comments last week. It ignores how this was established in the first place.
Until those rules are changed, I won’t accept your telling me to just “turn off” my TV. The airwaves are public property, and I have a right to express my desire of how they are used. I have a right to even demand that there are no “wardrobe malfunctions” during a sports event. (It doesn’t matter if I am monitoring a show with my child when such events occur.) Doesn’t mean my voice alone has to be listened to, but you are ignorant if you think I am a small minority in my thoughts on this matter.
As PAD and Glen have tried to imply with other posts, things can start small. I agree that censoring a book simply because it mocks Pres. Bush is wrong, even though I voted for him. At the same time, to not oppose a “small” wardrobe malfunction would be foolish. The line of decency does not make a massive change overnight, but it does so in small ways. It is one thing to have “Schlindlers List” or “Saving Private Ryan” on TV with appropriate advisements for parents (and I completely support their being shown). As a parent, I can make an informed decision. It is another for there to be what I am convinced is a staged “wardrobe malfunction” that unchallenged just moves that line one step towards even more indecency on TV.
That is my two cents worth.
Jim in Iowa
How long can these food references go on?
————————–
as long as the public is hungry for more, they’ll just eat it up
That’s not good, because I’m actually not terribly creative. I’m virtually starved for good ideas.
Lets go all the way. Big name clothing makers could cloth all of the “obscene” ancient art work. kind of a sponcership thing. David wearing a sporty body glove and vest combo!
Which begs the question: with Mr. Ashcroft leaving, will the statue of Lady Justice be restored to her full glory? Will she get sporty clothes (Nike would be best, of course)? Or will the new guy continue to keep Justice shrouded?
“Tell me what’s so irresponsible about wanting the free TV product that comes into your house from the simple act of owning a TV to be at some minimum level of decency?”
I have a standing policy never to bìŧçh about what I am given for free.
That said, the point, at least of my argument, is that it is of no relevence whether or not some or others of us find it desireable that the Federal Government regulate the content of TV programs. Broadcasting is a form of both speech and the press, and the Constitution, and its intent is clear. Even if it is indeed a compromise between different desires by different forces, the First Amendment that is the highest law of this land expressly forbids Congress from doing so. This prohibition is absolutely clear and without wiggle-room.
Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law, whether you like it or not.
Just curious if those of you who say “just turn off the TV” would still approve of MoveOn.org going after Sinclair broadcasting for its supposedly one sided editorials. Or will you suggest that when it comes to political speech, we should censor after all? If you don’t like what Mark Hyman says *to adults* who are capable of making a rational decision about what he says, just turn off the TV.
Here is the story: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=669&u=/usnw/20041214/pl_usnw/sinclair_broadcast_group_airs_conservative__the_point__without_counterpoint__says_media_matters_for_america121_xml&printer=1
Jim in Iowa
Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law, whether you like it or not.
Then the campaign finance reform of 4 years ago should be thrown out the window. It clearly is a limit on free speech.
Jim in Iowa
With no bearing at all on the particulars of the current discussion, I’d like to share a quote I just read (unfortunately unattributed) that has some bearing on the original post.
“The censor is not always a bully. He is often an ášš.”
In other words, you want to change the rules of the game in the middle of the second half.
I’m not the one who changed the rules. The FCC did. I happen to strongly believe that their entire authority to fine for the still undefined standard of “indecency” is unconstitutional. I realize that not everyone sees it that way, but that doesn’t make them right.
Which begs the question: with Mr. Ashcroft leaving, will the statue of Lady Justice be restored to her full glory? Will she get sporty clothes (Nike would be best, of course)? Or will the new guy continue to keep Justice shrouded?
Is that a great metaphor for this administration. Justice isn’t just blind, she’s hidden.
Just curious if those of you who say “just turn off the TV” would still approve of MoveOn.org going after Sinclair broadcasting for its supposedly one sided editorials.
Now Jim, didn’t we have a discussion last week about these little “trap” arguments? MoveOn.org is wrong on this one. The fact that I may agree with them on their disdain for our current idiot-in-chief is irrelevent. You think you’re being clever by saying, “ooh, those liberals will defend MoveOn.org just because they hate Bush that much. They don’t really mean it when they say censorship is bad.”
Guess what? Doesn’t hold with me.
Then the campaign finance reform of 4 years ago should be thrown out the window. It clearly is a limit on free speech.
Yes it is and yes it should be thrown out. You’re point being?
God, I’m glad I live in Canada.
“There’s naked people at the Olympics! Painted like statues!”
“Well that’s just silly. Now, about that NHL strike…”
I’m curious – why does everyone fixate on the “turn off the TV” arguement? It’s stupid reasoning – it’s much too easy to get the signal back, by turning off the TV. If you’re asleep and your kid sneaks to the TV, or a babysitter is over… who deals with it then?
BUT. As for controlling what signals you receive – you can control this. Most TVs and cable boxes have programable lockouts, which you can use to block out content. You don’t like the ads on CBS after 11PM? Block it. If you want to watch it, enter the password to temporarily unblock it.
As for the Olympics – you’re right, you were not warned beforehand that there could be objectionable material. But how different was it than going to an art gallery with classical statues? It is not as though the people dressed as statues were having sex.
A factor that hasn’t been brought into this discussion (to the best of my knowledge), is that of the parental response to a child seeing *enter offensive material of your choice here*. As a kid, I rarely attempted to get away with something that I knew that my father had strong feelings about. When I did and was discovered, consequences occurred. Whether one discovers a child has snuck around and a parent enacts a consequence for the misbehavior or witnesses said offense with a child and has a two-way conversation focused on reactions, seeing offensive material isn’t nearly as important as putting it into some sort of contextual perspective for a child.
Fred
Why do people freak out over the most fundamental common grounds we have?
That reminds me of this bit from South Park when the boys are in possession of a pørņø tape (Backdoor Slûŧš 9), but don’t know that its pørņ. They think its a copy of Fellowship so they set off on a quest to return it to the Two Towers video store. (The episode is called THE RETURN OF THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING TO THE TWO TOWERS, check it out if you can. It’ll be on the South Park Season 6 set whenever that comes out.)
ANYWAY, the kids unknowingly return the pørņø tape without watching it, but the parents are all freaked out because thier kids are seeing things about sex. So the parents say “No, no, no,its natural and we should tell them about it, otherwise they don’t know how to process it.” So, the kids return the pørņ tape and the parents corner them, intending to tell them about the birds and the bees. As follows:
STAN’S DAD: “Alright, now listen kids. There’s some things we need to put into context for you. You see, a man puts his pëņìš into a woman’s vágìņá for both love and pleasure. But sometimes the woman lays ontop of the man facing the other way so they can put each other’s genitals into thier mouths. This is called 69ing and its NORMAL.”
STAN’S MOM: “You see boys, a woman is sensitive in her vágìņá and it feels good to have a man’s pëņìš inside of it.”
KYLE’S MOM: “That’s right, but sometimes a woman chooses to use other things. Telephones, staplers, magazines. Its because the nerve endings in the vágìņá are so sensitive its like a fun tickle!”
KYLE’S DAD: “Now, onto double penetration, boys. you see, sometimes when a woman has sex with more than one man, each man makes love to a different orrifice.”
STAN’S DAD: “That’s right. Its something adults can do with really good friends in a comfortable setting.”
KYLE’S MOM: “Its ALSO important that you understand why some people choose to urinate on each other.”
STAN’S DAD: “Going ‘Number One’ or ‘Number Two’ on your lover is something people might do. But you must make sure your partner is O-K with it before you start doing it.”
KYLE’S DAD: “Ok boys, do you have any questions?”
*the kids stare back blankly, shocked, unable to say a thing.*
STAN: Wow. . .
Moral of that story? Just let kids be kids, man. Its a short time, might as well not mess around with it. That and don’t rent Backdoor Slûŧš 9.
d
I’ve watched a number of Monday Night Football games.
Then you realize that football is one of the most, if not the most, violent sport we have on television.
Every broadcast SHOULD come with a warning about what you are going to see, because it isn’t very pretty at times.
But, it’s ok to watch guys nearly kill each other – watching a guy getting carted off the field after being knocked out cold would likely qualify.
As long as there is no risk of being able to see a nipple.
hey, remember when we were talking about this admiminstration and science being a dirty word?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=541&ncid=718&e=1&u=/ap/20041215/ap_on_he_me/aids_drug
The government’s chief of AIDS research rewrote a safety report on a U.S.-funded drug study to change its conclusions and delete negative information. Later, he ordered the research resumed over the objections of his staff, documents show.
…
AP reported Monday that NIH knew about the problems in early 2002 but did not tell the White House before President Bush launched a plan that summer to spread nevirapine throughout Africa. Now, officials have new concerns the drug may cause long-term resistance in the hundreds of thousands of African patients who received it, foreclosing future treatment options.
Oh. How about this one?
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html
Someone snuck a creationist book on the Grand Canyon into a Park Service bookstore. The Park Service chief tried to yank it. The higher ups in Washington, DC blocked it.
I am a Bush supporter, but a lot of these things are pretty ridiculous.
However, censorship isn’t just a Republican thing.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=321779
However, censorship isn’t just a Republican thing.
Of course not. But it’s still our job to bring these idiocies into the light so they can be deal with properly.
Jim in Iowa: In other words, you want to change the rules of the game in the middle of the second half. Whether you like it, agree with it, understand it, or not, the fact is when TV and radio first were introduced, they realized they had a decision to make. The belief at the time was that the airwaves belonged to everyone. As such, anyone with enough money could put up an antenna. The one with the strongest signal on a given channel would win. In addition, they had to come up with a standard that a TV or radio would follow so that people could turn on the channel.
At the end of the day, the powers that be decided to keep TV and radio signals free. This removed the DIRECT ability of us as consumers to determine what was and was not aired. This was not “pay per view.” So in order to avoid any one party from controlling all programming, they put in place rules designed to keep what was on TV appropriate to a large segment of the viewing public. (If any of you disagree with my historical summary, I am open to hearing it. But this is what I have read of how TV and radio began.)
As a result, the comment “you can just turn off your TV” is changing the rules of the game. Network TV and AM/FM radio belong to the public as a whole. They do NOT belong to just a network, artist, or sponsor. So my desire that there not be nudity and obscenity is quite appropriate. The airwaves belong equally to us all. That is why I rejected Den’s comments last week. It ignores how this was established in the first place.
Until those rules are changed, I won’t accept your telling me to just “turn off” my TV. The airwaves are public property, and I have a right to express my desire of how they are used. I have a right to even demand that there are no “wardrobe malfunctions” during a sports event. (It doesn’t matter if I am monitoring a show with my child when such events occur.) Doesn’t mean my voice alone has to be listened to, but you are ignorant if you think I am a small minority in my thoughts on this matter
Well, Jim, here’s the thing you’re missing… since the airwaves are public property, your opinion matters as much as anyone elses…. so if you don’t want to see something you deem objectionable… and someone finds that objectionable content to be perfectly acceptable entertainment to them… guess what? You’re BOTH right (this is assuming that said objectionable content fits within most standards of “public decency”, I’m not talking about something extreme, like pørņ).
But given that someone would have to actively watch tv to see the entertainment you object to, but you have the option of changing the channel, or just turning off the tv, the most fair decision would be allowing the show with the content to air, thus giving everyone the freedom to decide for themselves if they want to watch it or not, rather than remove it, making the unilaterial decision of “not watching it” for everyone, including the people who do want to see it.
So, using your own justification, the “turn off the tv” arguement actually wins. Ain’t freedom great?
Derek said And I am really perplexed by the phenomenon of forming an ironclad opinion on something that you have never seen, read or listened to that seems to pervade our culture.
There are some things you don’t want to see, read or listen to but you have it forced upon you by certain groups with an agenda (i.e. allowing gay marriage).
That’s one thing I wouldn’t mind being censored. Keep it in the bedroom and out of the news.
There are some things you don’t want to see, read or listen to but you have it forced upon you by certain groups with an agenda (i.e. allowing gay marriage).
Typical authoritatian attitude. Y’all be at out in the PRC.
Just curious if those of you who say “just turn off the TV” would still approve of MoveOn.org going after Sinclair broadcasting for its supposedly one sided editorials.
Now Jim, didn’t we have a discussion last week about these little “trap” arguments? MoveOn.org is wrong on this one. The fact that I may agree with them on their disdain for our current idiot-in-chief is irrelevent. You think you’re being clever by saying, “ooh, those liberals will defend MoveOn.org just because they hate Bush that much. They don’t really mean it when they say censorship is bad.”
Guess what? Doesn’t hold with me.
Well, yes, we did. Except I did ask it in the form of a question rather than stating it as a fact. There are some, such as you, who are consistent. However, based on reading the posts on this site, I would respectfully suggest that you are in the minority for being that consistent.
Jim in Iowa
Novafan:
>>Derek said And I am really perplexed by the phenomenon of forming an ironclad opinion on something that you have never seen, read or listened to that seems to pervade our culture.
>There are some things you don’t want to see, read or listen to but you have it forced upon you by certain groups with an agenda (i.e. allowing gay marriage).
No wnder you feel so strongly about this. What was his name and why didn’t you simply file for divorce?
Well, yes, we did. Except I did ask it in the form of a question rather than stating it as a fact. There are some, such as you, who are consistent. However, based on reading the posts on this site, I would respectfully suggest that you are in the minority for being that consistent.
You may be right, but I would not make such an assumption without hearing what everyone else’s opinion is.
Den: turning off the TV doesn’t stop the signal. It’s still there, and when you turn it back on, there it is. It’s not 100%. And when my kids go to someone else’s house? Or see a TV on at Sears?
And by asking public airwaves to maintain a standard of decency, I *am* doing my job as a responsible parent. You want to show your 7 year old Girls Gone Wild 12? Go ahead, I’m not stopping you. Just don’t put it on a public broadcast that goes to everyone.
Jeff, let me ask you a question, as a good parent: Did you put child resistant covers over your electrical outlets before or after your kid stuck a pen in one? Welcome to the world of Closing the Barn Door after the Cows have Left.
It’s pretty apparent that most of those calling for unfettered public broadcasting view TV viewing as a private right. And to a certain extent, they’re right. What you watch in your own home is your business, and I’ve never said that it should be anything but. Watch whatever you want. But your right to see something ends when it comes into my house.
Sure, TVs do have the ability to block certain programming, but that’s not a reliable system just yet. Until it is, we have a need to maintain a decency standard over public airwaves.
Bìŧçh all you want, but I have 60+ years of history and law on my side.
Look, I’m not talking about that stupid DH/MNF bit a few weeks ago. I’m talking about hard core sex, graphic violence. We either have *some* standard of decency, and have to put up with groups like the PTC that want to moralize TV, or we have no standards, and TV becomes a true minefield of visual images.
And as for regulating TV as censorship, that’s just not the case. Unlike the PTC, I’m not calling for the abolition of certain shows, or even types of shows. I’m just sayiing don’t use public airwaves to broadcast them. You can’t censor something that has another avenue of communication available to it. Cable, DVDs, satellite, whatever, are all available options for shows that are not appropriate for public broadcasting. Just as there are places you can go to see nude dancing, but not the public park.
turning off the TV doesn’t stop the signal. It’s still there, and when you turn it back on, there it is. It’s not 100%.
But when it’s off, you can’t see the signal, genius! Until the networks figure out how to beam a signal directly into your brain, you still have to actively view the programming.
And when my kids go to someone else’s house?
Still your job. If you’re letting your 7 year-old wander the neighborhood and you don’t know whose house they’re at or what they’re watching, you should be reported for child neglect.
Or see a TV on at Sears?
Shop at Wal-Mart then.
You want to show your 7 year old Girls Gone Wild 12?
I never said that. Put the strawman away. I think that Girls Gone Wild is stupid. I’ve never watched any of their videos.
That’s not the point. The point is censorship is wrong, even when it’s for the children.
But your right to see something ends when it comes into my house.
No, you’re right to prevent programming ends when you try to block what comes into my house.
Bìŧçh all you want, but I have 60+ years of history and law on my side.
So did slave owners. What’s your point?
Den, I’m not trying to block anything from coming into your house. This is the point you’re not getting. Again, I’ve never said that you can’t watch something you want to. Just that, for things that get broadcast over public airwaves, there should be a decency standard.
My GGW example isn’t a straw man: you practically make my point for you. You think it’s stupid. Do you think it should be ok for ABC to have a GGW hour? Or do you think that GGW shows should not be allowed to use public airwaves to broadcast?
Regulating public airwaves is not censorship. Censorship is when you prevent an idea from being expressed. You don’t have an unfettered right to discuss your ideas anywhere and anytime that you feel like it. And so long as an alternative venue is provided for the expression of those ideas, there’s no censorship.
My GGW example isn’t a straw man: you practically make my point for you. You think it’s stupid. Do you think it should be ok for ABC to have a GGW hour? Or do you think that GGW shows should not be allowed to use public airwaves to broadcast?
First of all, as I’ve already said, I believe that the idea that the FCC has the right to regulate the content of the “public airwaves” is unconstitutional. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law,” not “Congress can declare a particular medium public property and censor it to their hearts content.”
Second, to answer your question, yes, if ABC advertised it as a program for adults and parents were advised to use discretion.
Regulating public airwaves is not censorship.
Yes it is.
Censorship is when you prevent an idea from being expressed.
Which is what the FCC does.
You don’t have an unfettered right to discuss your ideas anywhere and anytime that you feel like it.
According to the First Amendment, I do. The only exception is shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, which isn’t expressing an idea, just making an exclamation.
And so long as an alternative venue is provided for the expression of those ideas, there’s no censorship.
Bûllšhìŧ. If I tell you that you can’t hold a sign up to protest a particular candidate during a rally in a public place, but I tell you that you can hold your sign at a “free speech zone” on the other side of town where nobody is paying any attention, I’ve censored you.
God, I miss the days when this entire country was a free speech zone.
“God, I miss the days when this entire country was a free speech zone.”
When, exactly, was that? Before the first colonists landed?
“Second, to answer your question, yes, if ABC advertised it as a program for adults and parents were advised to use discretion.”
And what if they didn’t? Why do they need to do this? What happens if they don’t? If, as you state, there’s an unfettered right for free expression, then ABC is under no obligation to advise or warn anyone about any of their broadcasts.
Which proves my point: Even you think that there should be some standard of decency when it comes to public broadcasting. Don’t you think forcing ABC to make a statement about their show fetters their right to free speech?
Mind, I’ve never said what those fetters should be, just that there should be some. And, apparantly, so do you.
“Bûllšhìŧ. If I tell you that you can’t hold a sign up to protest a particular candidate during a rally in a public place, but I tell you that you can hold your sign at a “free speech zone” on the other side of town where nobody is paying any attention, I’ve censored you.”
Well, I think you’ve kinda got me here. Webster’s defines censor as “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.”
Your rally example is what I’d call effective censorship. The expression hasn’t been prevented, but because of the forum you relegate it to, it has been effectively suppressed, meaning that the message is lost when it cannot be presented to the desired audience.
I think relegating public broadcasting is different. Let’s stick with GGW (you’d think I was shilling it or something): The intended audience is people who want to see drunk college girls lift their shirts. That audience can be effectively reached through video/dvd, cable, sattelite. By preventing the broadcast of GGW over public airwaves, you aren’t preventing the target audience from viewing the material. No effective censorhip. The idea/expression is still able to reach the interested audience with no loss of the information it contains.
The First Amendment protects free speech from abridgement, meaning a reduction in scope. Which is why your example of political protesting locations is a good example of something that violates the First Amendment. Can explain to me how the creators of GGW have had their free speech rights reduced by not having access to the public airwaves to show their product?
You may be right, but I would not make such an assumption without hearing what everyone else’s opinion is.
I agree. Which is why I *did* ask it as a question in the first place. In the meantime, I formed a hypothesis based on what others have written. If anyone else takes time to answer my question, I will find out whether or not my hypothesis proves true.
The point is censorship is wrong, even when it’s for the children.
Have to disagree with you there. But based on your statement, it is probably not worth debating since there are a number of underlying assumptions that bring you such an absurd conclusion. Not all censorship, even for children, is right, but I would hope there is enough common sense left to realize that some censorship for children is appropriate. (For example, it is basically child abuse / sexual abuse for an adult to leave a copy of hardcore pornography accesible to a 5 year old child.)
Jim in Iowa
When, exactly, was that? Before the first colonists landed?
Maybe. It seems like it was just a few years ago that we had more freedom of expression.
Oh wait, it was. 🙂
And what if they didn’t? Why do they need to do this? What happens if they don’t?
They will lose viewers and the market forces will demand that they do.
The First Amendment protects free speech from abridgement, meaning a reduction in scope. Which is why your example of political protesting locations is a good example of something that violates the First Amendment.
And yet is has become common practice in this country.
Can explain to me how the creators of GGW have had their free speech rights reduced by not having access to the public airwaves to show their product?
It isn’t just about their rights. It’s a slippery slope. First they go after drunk topless coeds, then they block people from holding up signs at political rallies and require “loyalty oaths” of attendees, then they go after books by foreigners that mock our idiot-in-chief, next it’ll be other forms of dissent.
I’ll save a seat for you at the “re-education camp” and we can discuss this further.
Den, it’s kinda funny, ’cause except for the minimum decency thing, we’re on the same side of the argument.
I agree, a few years ago there were fewer restrictions on expression. Or at least, the government was unresponsive to complaints, so it seems. And that Bush’s prevention of opposing views during his campaigning *was* censorship, and that it went too far.
That slippery slope is more like a teeter totter. Or the more common analogy is a pendulum. Rights are always balanced against other rights, none are absolute. That process is going to swing back and forth, often in reaction to one right taking precedence over another. It’s no surprise that this current administration is continuing to push an agenda that effectively curtails the rights of individuals. They’ve been doing it for 4 years.
The hope is that we can reign them in before we end up in adjoining Clockwork Orange Rehab chairs.
But if we do, I’ll bring the beer….
And that Bush’s prevention of opposing views during his campaigning *was* censorship, and that it went too far.
Kingbobb, what are you referring to?
Jim in Iowa
Bush only allowed campaign supporters into his rallys. At least some (I’d say all, but I can’t verify that) of his rallys only allowed known supporters, or those who were willing to sign an oath of loyalty or support for Bush. There was at least one instance in Flordida where the audience was asked to stand and repeat and oath to promise to help Bush get re-elected.
None of which by itself is bad, but when people interested in seeing the President speak can’t get in because they are undecided, I take that as a form of censorship.
I know of one man who received his ticket from a a client, and tried to yell questions from the crowd. He was escorted out, and fired. His client knew the man was anti-Bush when he gave him the ticket, yet the boss decided to fire him anyway.
I don’t know the full efforts that Kerry made to essentially seed his audience, but I do know that Kerry-opponents made it into his rally, and were allowed to make some noise or yell questions.
So, Bush didn’t just suppress opposing views, he prevented them. The fact that our president would avoid a sector of the population that disagrees with him is unsettling at best.
I’m sure than in the 1930s, the Jews of Central Europe told themselves that things will swing back again.
I’m not so optimistic.
Oh, and this country outlawed beer before, too.
And reversed that beer decision. Swiiingingg baaaccckkkk….
Hitler was allowed to rise to power. Which, now that I think about it, *is* scary, because Bush was elected…I think…. Ohio still seems to have some doubt, even though the electoral college voted Monday.
Maybe this is just one of those times when we have to trust in the Constitutional process, and hope that the next 4 years don’t bring about catastrophic change for the worse.
Novafan wrote:
“There are some things you don’t want to see, read or listen to but you have it forced upon you by certain groups with an agenda (i.e. allowing gay marriage).”
When you are kidnapped, forcibly taken to a gay wedding and made to watch the entire thing at gunpoint maybe I’ll feel your pain but the idea that to even talk about the issue of gay marriage is somehow indecent is kinda stupid.
And reversed that beer decision. Swiiingingg baaaccckkkk….
The point is, they can swing in that direction again, often with disastrous results.
BTW, the last time the GOP controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress after two elections was the 1920.
Remember how that decade ended?
When you are kidnapped, forcibly taken to a gay wedding and made to watch the entire thing at gunpoint maybe I’ll feel your pain but the idea that to even talk about the issue of gay marriage is somehow indecent is kinda stupid.
Kinda?
There’s nothing “kinda” about it!
So, Bush didn’t just suppress opposing views, he prevented them. The fact that our president would avoid a sector of the population that disagrees with him is unsettling at best.
Thanks. I would disagree with your perspective, but now I understand what you are talking about.
By the way, I went to a Bush rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I did not have to pass a loyalty test. I was not asked my party affiliation before they gave me a ticket. So I can say that what you described did not happen at every event.
I personally have no problem with not allowing heckling at a political rally, whoever the candidate is (Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Perot, etc.). That is not stopping free speech, it is simply allowing the majority there to actually hear the candidate speak. When I left the Cedar Rapids rally, I heard at least 10 minutes of the opposition outside the event sharing their perspective on Bush as I walked down the street to my car.
If Bush made sure he *never* heard what the opposition says, you would have a point. But I guarantee that he had heard before everything a protester would have said that day if he or she was allowed in the rally. The fact that he rejects what they say may be a problem for you, but avoiding a pointless debate is a totally different matter.
Bottom line, he did not truly prevent any dissenting views, he just avoided hearing the same things repeated over and over and over. I would have no problem with a Democrat doing the same thing.
Jim in Iowa
I have a hard time believing that a man who brags about never reading a newspaper has “heard before everything a protester would have said.”
The man lives in a bubble surrounded by yesmen who just tell him what he wants to hear, where sycophants are rewarded and the honest and competent are punished.
Omigod! We have Charles Montgomery Burns for president!
So, the command to launch the attack in Iraq went something like this?
“Excellent. release the robotic Richard Simmons.”
“Um, Mr. President, the Robot Richard Simmons is being repaired.”
“Poppycock…oh, very well…release the US Marines….”
So I can say that what you described did not happen at every event.
Maybe not at the end, but I recall a variety of stories during the summer about people who, when going to the door, said they were not Republican (whether Democrat or independent) and were thus turned away.
Regardless, I think it’s pretty obvious that Bush didn’t give a dámņ what those outside of his party thought of him – he didn’t try and get their vote, nor reach out to them in any way, shape or form.
I should add: in these reports I read, there was nothing to indicate that the only reason people were there was to protest or whatnot in the middle of the rally.
If you’re an independent, and you want to make up your mind by going to a rally, yet you’re turned away because you’re not already a guaranteed vote for the candidate holding the rally, what does that leave you to think?
So I can say that what you described did not happen at every event.
I’ve heard and read enough reports to know that it happened at least some of his events, which is bad enough.
I personally have no problem with not allowing heckling at a political rally, whoever the candidate is (Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Perot, etc.).
We’re not talking about heckling, we’re talking about people quielyt holding up a simple sign. People were ejected from rallies of both paries for that.
More like:
Bush opens a cage, releasing flying monkeys.
“Fly, my pretties! Fly!”
The monkeys jump out the window and plummet to their deaths.
“Rumsfield, continue the research. In the meantime, send in the marines!”
Regardless, I think it’s pretty obvious that Bush didn’t give a dámņ what those outside of his party thought of him – he didn’t try and get their vote, nor reach out to them in any way, shape or form.
Of course, I would disagree, but that is your opinion/belief and not worth rehashing. I must say his approach was effective since he did get the majority of the votes.
I can understand both sides about the signs. It would have ended up being a huge distraction as people around them “attacked” the sign holder. (And that would have been true at either party’s rally.)
I did not agree, however, with “loyalty” tests for the reasons mentioned, unless it was a paid event to raise funds. But an open rally should be open to whomever wants to come, provided they behave in a courteous manner. So we agree on something at least. 🙂
Jim in Iowa
From the letters section of “The Nation”:
TWENTY-FIRST (-CENTURY) PSALM
Brooklyn, NY
A fool is my shepherd. I shall not think. He maketh me to bog down in a quagmire. He leadeth me beside dirty waters. He destroyeth my ozone. He leadeth me down paths to the extreme right, for his lobbyists’ sake.
Yea, though I walk through relatively safe streets, I do fear evil (the threat level is orange), for thou hast scared me. My assault rifle comforteth me. Thou anointest my car with oil. My deficit runneth over. Thou preparest my table with fast food in the presence of my television.
Surely paranoia and resentment will follow me all the days of my life. And I will dwell in this Empire of Fools till I die, uninsured.
LAWRENCE SWAN
“BTW, the last time the GOP controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress after two elections was the 1920.”
“Remember how that decade ended?”
What, the Cubs are gonna get to the World series again? Sweet!
Finally, the FCC does something RIGHT!
I’m thinking that the FCC is viewing satellite radio like cable tv.
—–
FCC Declines to Censor Satellite Radio
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – The Federal Communications Commission (news – web sites) rejected a request Wednesday to begin imposing indecency standards on satellite radio, where frequent agency target Howard Stern is taking his show.
The FCC (news – web sites)’s media bureau turned aside a radio station owner’s request that broadcast indecency regulations apply to subscription satellite services.
Saul Levine, who owns three radio stations in California, asked the commission in October to modify its satellite radio rules to include an indecency provision similar to the one that governs broadcast stations using public airwaves.
In a letter to the FCC, Levine complained that the commission needed to create a “level playing field” in protecting the public interest. “Indecent programming has been and continues to be an ongoing problem