|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Lapsed Heathen wrote: Your definition of censorship is too narrow.
What I've posted here aren't my personal definitions. They're the definition propounded by the Supreme Court. And in the United States, theirs is the only definition that matters.
Not to some people
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I think you'll find that I've already said that the US does impose a freedom of restriction that is, IMO, completely unconstitutional and morally repugnant.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Wow. When did I become equal to the US Supreme Court? Some of you need to go ahead and grab your ankles while others might as well go stand by the wall.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
Maybe Erin or someone across the pond can answer my question, but could Jerry Springer the Opera be shown on American TV (private or public)?
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
You said you stand with the martyrs. What we're talking about here is whether or not the state should enforce any particular stream of religious thought. I'm trying to make the connection between your statement about standing with the martyrs and the subject at hand. The only connection I could come up with is that you know of martyrs who were martyred because they wanted the state to enforce a particular stream of religious thought. Otherwise, "I'll stand with the martyrs" doesn't make a damn bit of sense and is a pompous, arrogant non sequitur in an otherwise interesting, if frustrating, discussion.
With respect, Erin, you are talking about 'whether or not the state should enforce any particular stream of religious thought'. Fr Gregory asked in the OP quote:
whether there should be any boundaries when dealing with any significant religious figure in the media AND in particular, should Christians mobilise.
and the debate devolved into a discussion about free speech, then about the state's restriction of free speech, as if the only way to regulate human behaviour were through legislation. I decided to offer a different perspective. If my intervention is a non sequitur, perhaps it is because it doesn't follow your way of looking at the issue.
I refer to the martyrs who were executed for their opposition to idolatry in order to suggest that robust Christian opposition to impiety is not abnormal. However, you misrepresent me if you infer from this that I simply wish the state to legislate against blasphemy. Indeed, you misrepresent the martyrs too, since they regarded themselves as belonging to another world and would have been more concerned about their obedience to Christ than for the consequences of their actions for the society they left behind. Nevertheless, society did change. To be sure, legislation was part of this change, but, more importantly, so were the manners and morals. And it is these elements of the social fabric which may be open to influence.
Consider, for example, the way that British social attitudes to homosexuality have changed in the last 40 years; although there have been some changes in the law (e.g. the age of consent), homophobia in the media is not illegal, and yet, as far as I am aware, it has disappeared from our TV screens because society at large no longer finds it acceptable. This change did not happen by itself, but as a result of campaigns going back to the 1960's.
Why should not Christians try to influence Britain's manners and morals to make such things as broadcast blasphemy socially unacceptable? If the Maori's, to cite another example, can persuade the rest of New Zealand society to respect their sacred sites, cannot we attempt a similar persuasion with respect to our sacred figures? Maybe our attempt will fail - we live in spiritually bankrupt times - but do we simply sit on our hands?
Last thought: for Christians, there is more to social change than public campaigns. The true history of the world is the history of God's involvement with His creation and the outpouring of His grace upon the world through both the visible and invisible work of God's people. If we forget the work that goes on in secret (both God's work and ours), then we cannot expect our public campaigns to succeed.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
Maybe Erin or someone across the pond can answer my question, but could Jerry Springer the Opera be shown on American TV (private or public)?
It not only could be shown on cable/satellite TV in America, it almost certainly will. 250 channels don't just fill themselves, you know - they can't afford to be choosy.
The TV channels on the public airwaves would only be able to air the program off peak hours, per the FCC regulations, and many of the broadcasters might turn it into one long bleep noise occasionally punctuated by a stray word.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It not only could be shown on cable/satellite TV in America, it almost certainly will. 250 channels don't just fill themselves, you know - they can't afford to be choosy.
The TV channels on the public airwaves would only be able to air the program off peak hours, per the FCC regulations, and many of the broadcasters might turn it into one long bleep noise occasionally punctuated by a stray word.
So it could not be shown on ordinary terrestial TV on the public airwaves broadcasting to the whole nation as it was in the UK? Why is that? (You have free speech - don't you!?)
Will it be shown by a public service broadcaster in the US?
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Yes it could be shown on broadcast tv, RooK just said that. They'd bleep out the fucks and such, but the real Jerry Springer show in all its glory is shown on local broadcast channels in the middle of the day. So really, a parody of the thing isn't so shocking.
PBS may or may not show it. It all depends on whether or not they think it'd get decent ratings. They tend to go for nature and news shows, though.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
But in the UK we watched it with all the swearwords?
And seeing as most of it seemed to consist of sung swearing in pseudo-poperatic style I really cannot see how they could play it and that it would make any sense. It would be one long bleep - with bleeps all over it it would lose any minor artistic merit that it may have had in the first place!
So essentially the US would censor it!
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
There are plenty of us who argue that the FCC standards are puritanical to the point of insanity. That fact notwithstanding, the restrictions on obscenity are content neutral. That is to say, they do not discriminate against or promote any particular viewpoint and do not, therefore, limit anyone's right to express a viewpoint, idea, or opinion. You are just as free to say "[bleep] Michael Powell" as "[bleep] Michael Moore" or "[bleep] Buddha" or "[bleep] Jesus".
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
So essentially the US would censor it!
If it was deemed obscene, it could not be broadcast, on cable or otherwise.
Furthermore, cable operators, by law, can decline to carry anything they consider indecent. Of course non of the free-speech advocates here would accuse such a cable company of being "puritanical to the point of insanity" or denying free speech, because they aren't the government.
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
That fact notwithstanding, the restrictions on obscenity are content neutral. That is to say, they do not discriminate against or promote any particular viewpoint and do not, therefore, limit anyone's right to express a viewpoint, idea, or opinion. You are just as free to say "[bleep] Michael Powell" as "[bleep] Michael Moore" or "[bleep] Buddha" or "[bleep] Jesus".
You obviously have no understanding of obscenity laws. Obscenity is not protected speech. Ignorance is bliss.
[ 15. January 2005, 06:32: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Returning you briefly from the general censorship department back to Jerry Springer the Opera: I particularly liked what Giles Fraser has to say in the Church Times this week. Christ engages with the real world in all its sordid glory, and doesn't need protecting from it as much as many of his followers seem to think.....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fair enough. Though I'm sure the atheists would disagree about disrespect for the sacred being an inherent evil...
As mentioned above, I think atheists have feelings of "sanctity" about places, people, and concepts like everybody else, they just do not attribute them to a "higher power". Which is really not required for respecting them.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm sure it could be shown that the former follows on from saying "I hate ______s". Should that be controlled as well?
I do not believe that there is any simple rule one can use to compute the impact of statements. That's why we need people judging them, even though that clearly brings its own problems. But robot-like ticking off "keywords" just doesn't work. I can easily write a speech inciting violence against some group, which only uses "hate" not "kill". In fact, I don't even need to use "hate" if I work a bit harder.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course I do. How can I claim freedom of speech for myself if I would deny it to anyone else?
I'm not against freedom of speech, I'm against making it rule absolute. There are other goods in the world, and there's no reason to assume that putting freedom of speech before all other goods at all times optimizes the benefit for society and the individual.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Tact is a good attribute for anyone to have, especially around religion. I'm with you all the way on that. I just don't think it should be legally required.
Actually, I don't think "tact" could be legally required, simply because it's a too sophisticated concept. It belongs to an "advanced" stage of morals, which should be taught by society and perfected by the individual. However, obvious large scale attacks on a religion are a different matter. I also do not think that all the necessary rules need to be "proper law". A public broadcaster has a duty of care and should be self-regulating to some extent even without state laws forcing the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Hitler gained his power by preaching things that his countrymen thought to be inherently good. MLK advocated things that many people at that time believed to be inherently bad. Your standard would allow Hitler while muzzling King.
[As an aside, Hitler never won the majority in a free election and he gained votes mainly because of promises that he would restore Germany's ailing economy, reduce the massive unemployment and repudiate Versailles. He was able to grab power with the help of the conservatives, who wanted to use him as fire to fight the fire of Communism. He didn't get into power on anti-semitism, although it didn't hurt him either...]
Your statements simply ignore my argument, since I've advocated restrictions based on inherent good/evil. And this means - as mentioned - only concepts which can be shown to exist in practically all cultures and all times. That one should not murder is such a concept. Clearly, restrictions based on this would not have stopped Hitler after he had gained control. Because as usual in this, he changed the definitions for illegal killing, and for human. That he felt the need to do so is a demonstration of the power of this concept! The only way of making his actions not appear evil was by defining them to not be murder. However, if the restrictions had been in place before he had gained power, when more sensible definitions were still in force, it's not impossible that he could have been stopped. As to King, I fail to see how anything he preached could possibly be at odds with for example the inherent good collected in the Decalogue. And I sincerely doubt that his opponents criticized him using that as argument...
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
"Negotiations" must be protected at all costs because the civil right of free speech is a greater good than you, LD or anyone feeling offended by JStO. You and FGs and Glimmer's willingness to deny free speech to the BBC and to the producers of JStO are a greater evil than any blasphemy in the show.
I'm not denying free speech, I'm saying it should be restricted. Unfortunately, you have it in your head that a "restricted freedom" can not be freedom at all. Which is weird, because you live precisely such freedom every day - it's the organizing principle of every society. For example, in driving your car you have the freedom to go anywhere (actually, even that is restricted), but you must obey traffic rules or you will be punished by society. So you operate your car under restricted freedom. Nevertheless, you do not whine endlessly about that. Because you realize that without some rules more people would get hurt. Well, just so with "absolute free speech"...
Further, whether this opera is bad enough to wish for a restriction of the BBC I do not know, as I've said before. However, I was actually commenting on something else you wrote - namely, that a religious group should be free to advocate hate killings, slavery and whatever else they wish. Well, no, they shouldn't.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
If some Nazi gasbag advocates a return to the death camps, as abhorrent as I find that philosphy, I find still more abhorrent the idea his speech should be censored.
What can I say? I find your priorities naive at best.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
They're fought--and successfully, too--by letting them air their words, letting people see what evil morons they are.
Which works well if they are evil morons. In the case of the Nazis, for example, unfortunately some of their people were quite bright and charismatic (although it's hard to see it that way in hindsight). Letting a Goebbels air his words can lead to most devastating consequences.
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Do you really think no hate speech = no hate killings?
Not "no", "less".
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
You're free to say I should be killed and boiled down for soup; you're free to urge Glimmer to kill me and boil me down.
You are saying this because of security through obscurity. If I knew your name, address and livelihood, if I had the opportunity to run this opinion non-stop in all the mass media, if I was staging a massive agitprop effort in your home town, the situation would look rather different...
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
You argue religiously-based censorship is inherently good, I argue it's inherently evil.
Which means it's not inherent. Lucky then, that I did not argue for a "religiously-based censorship". (Although clearly, if you are religious, you are held by your religion to much higher standards than what I'm arguing for.)
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
I think what you advocate is inherently bad, it's evil, you're none too many steps away from pulling on that pointy black hood, Torquemada. Now, who gets to referee our dispute?
I assume the public. Even if my system was fully in place (and actually I think it is to some extent...), nothing you've said is a strong attack on any inherent good. You didn't agitate for people to kill me, you didn't agitate for them to rob me of my possessions, you didn't invent extensive lies about me to slander my name, ... All you are saying is that I'm wrong. On the day when I come to believe that I am the inherent good of humanity, I'm sure the Lord will smite me for my incredible pride. Or perhaps He will just ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) with ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Obscenity is not protected speech.
What the fuck are you talking about? When did I say anything about obscenity being protected speech?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your statements simply ignore my argument, since I've advocated restrictions based on inherent good/evil.
No, I addressed your argument in the second paragraph of the quoted post, which you've left out.
quote:
I said:
Oh, but I forgot. Your criteria for good and bad will be a religious one (which can historically be counted upon to prevent injustice) and will be interpreted and administered by the government (which is immune from corruption and bad judgement).
If you don't see a problem with having some thinly veiled theocracy enforcing standards of "inherent good/evil", then we truly are living in different realities.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Consider, for example, the way that British social attitudes to homosexuality have changed in the last 40 years; although there have been some changes in the law (e.g. the age of consent), homophobia in the media is not illegal, and yet, as far as I am aware, it has disappeared from our TV screens because society at large no longer finds it acceptable. This change did not happen by itself, but as a result of campaigns going back to the 1960's.
This is an extremely relevant point. Homophobia is no longer an acceptable attitude in the broadcast media, neither is racism. Satirising or picking apart of those attitudes, however, is a common tactic - such as some of the Louis Theroux programmes.
For those who are hard of humour, that's exactly what the Jerry Springer Opera is doing. Satirising people with the kinds of language, attitudes, and lifestyles that people seem to object to so much.
I guess I can kind of understand this whole hoo-ha might have arisen if the makers of the show had seriously intended to suggest that these attitudes and behaviour were laudable. But I don't see why people have gotten their knickers in such a twist over a satire.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
No, I addressed your argument in the second paragraph of the quoted post, which you've left out.
quote:
I said:
Oh, but I forgot. Your criteria for good and bad will be a religious one (which can historically be counted upon to prevent injustice) and will be interpreted and administered by the government (which is immune from corruption and bad judgement).
If you don't see a problem with having some thinly veiled theocracy enforcing standards of "inherent good/evil", then we truly are living in different realities.
Now you've simply ignored my argument twice. Thrice lucky?
Although most religions provide a decent list of "inherent good/evil", the point is exactly that "inherent" are those concepts which arise independent of culture, time - and yes - religion. Murdering people is evil. Find a person who truly disagrees, and we call him "insane"! It's always been like that, everywhere. Which is precisely why so much effort is spent on moving the goalposts on what "murder" and "people" means. If it was OK to murder people, you wouldn't have to argue that your war is just, a necessary evil. If it was OK to murder people, holocausts wouldn't be initiated by declaring that the future victims are, in spite of appearances, not people.
Now, the discussion about what "murdering people" means is clearly an important one - and I think modern societies have made considerable progress on what "people" means (not as much on the "murder" side of things...). But since this is an inherent evil, restrictions based on it are always good. If the definition scope is more limited, it simply means less people get protected. But some still are protected by it.
Another valuable discussion is what restrictions on free speech should be like which are derived from "inherent good/evil". I think that discussion should focus on the "volume" of a statement, as already discussed above. However, I think it is wrong to say that any volume of "inherently evil speech" is allowed, i.e., that free speech rules absolute.
[ 15. January 2005, 22:27: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Obscenity is not protected speech.
What the fuck are you talking about? When did I say anything about obscenity being protected speech?
You said quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
That fact notwithstanding, the restrictions on obscenity are content neutral. That is to say, they do not discriminate against or promote any particular viewpoint and do not, therefore, limit anyone's right to express a viewpoint, idea, or opinion.
The restrictions on obscenity are not content neutral. The restrictions depend on the content.
They do discriminate against the expression of obscene viewpoints, obscene ideas or obscene opinions.
Obscene speech is not protected from discrimination. It is not protected speech. The expression of obscene viewpoints, ideas or opinions is discriminated against. It is not protected against discrimination.
You would be wrong to suggest that the FCC does not limit anyone from expressing obscene viewpoints, ideas or opinions. But don't let that stop you.
You don't have the right to broadcast obscenity in the United States of America.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[...] I've advocated restrictions based on inherent good/evil. And this means - as mentioned - only concepts which can be shown to exist in practically all cultures and all times. That one should not murder is such a concept.
What kind of speech exactly do you favor restricting, IngoB? If it really is such a (nearly) universally recognized "inherent evil" I'd think it should be easy to explain. No need to go on and on about murder (in favor of which no one here is arguing.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
IngoB, where do you get the extremely silly idea that there is a universal standard for behavior, especially without reference to religion? Many cultures have accepted and even celebrated the killing of collective or individual enemies. That's why we have concepts like heroic warriors, blood feuds, duels to the death, cannibalism, and so on. Maybe you want to start equivocating over what sort of killing is murder but, as I've pointed out before, that judgement would have to be made by some sort of all-powerful morality police.
Ley Druid, give me an example of an obscene viewpoint or opinion which is restricted by the FCC. Not an opinion which can be expressed (but not broadcast) in an obscene manner, but one which is inherently obscene, or even indecent or profane.
The FCC restriction on the broadcast of obscene speech is content neutral in that it does not discriminate on what viewpoint or opinion is being expressed in an obscene manner. It is the form of the speech that is restricted, not the meaningful content.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Ley Druid, give me an example of an obscene viewpoint or opinion which is restricted by the FCC. Not an opinion which can be expressed (but not broadcast) in an obscene manner, but one which is inherently obscene, or even indecent or profane.
Freedom of expression. Not freedom of opinions. The FCC doesn't restrict viewpoints or opinions, they restrict their expression.
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
The FCC restriction on the broadcast of obscene speech is content neutral in that it does not discriminate on what viewpoint or opinion is being expressed in an obscene manner.
The FCC does discriminate on what viewpoint or opinion is being expressed. The restrictions are based on the content, not neutral to it. The laws pertain to obscene material not obscene manner.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
So should I take it that you cannot provide an example?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
You should take it that it is irrelevant.
Just because the FCC doesn't restrict opinions doesn't mean they quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
do not, therefore, limit anyone's right to express a viewpoint, idea, or opinion
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
But I don't see why people have gotten their knickers in such a twist over a satire.
Me neither. It is a mystery.
Pres, Scot: I know the discussion has moved on a bit but - given the US definition of free speech\censorship you've described - is it correct to say that free speech legislation would have been completly irrelevant to the JStO controversy had it happened in the US? Since at no point was the state involved or asked to get involved?
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As to King, I fail to see how anything he preached could possibly be at odds with for example the inherent good collected in the Decalogue. And I sincerely doubt that his opponents criticized him using that as argument...
You need to re-read your American civil rights history, then. People opposed to King called him a Communist agitator and a liar, accused him of fomenting discord, race riots, murder of whites, et al, all things ruled against in word or spirit by the Decalogue.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not denying free speech, I'm saying it should be restricted.
Yes, restricted according to the prejudices and opinions of yourself and those few who agree with you.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Unfortunately, you have it in your head that a "restricted freedom" can not be freedom at all.
Nope. What you're saying is you want freedom of speech restricted to the degree it will not offend anyone's religious sensibilities. "You're not allowed to make fun of God" is what you seem to want. That's ludicrous and inane.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So you operate your car under restricted freedom. Nevertheless, you do not whine endlessly about that.
No, I whine endlessly about the totalitarian-inclined who think the red-line on their personal "Offense-O-Meter" determines what I can say or not say, view or not view. The freedom to drive my car in a certain manner or to a certain location has nothing to do with the freedom of speech in expressing ideas and opinions.
Erin, Scot and I have gone on endlessly about that important facet: The right to express one's views, ideas and opinions, and you don't seem to understand that. I don't know if you're simply glossing over everything we say with some bizarre "They don't know what they're talking about" prejudice or if your reading comprehension is poor.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Because you realize that without some rules more people would get hurt. Well, just so with "absolute free speech"...
Ah, I see now. You want the State as your Mommy. Protect you from those nasty bad ol' opinions that upset your tummy, and coincidentally protect everyone else from what *you* don't like. "No more liver and sprouts for anyone! You don't have to eat those anymore! In fact, anyone who serves them will be fined and jailed!"
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, I was actually commenting on something else you wrote - namely, that a religious group should be free to advocate hate killings, slavery and whatever else they wish. Well, no, they shouldn't.
Who died and made you God? Who enshrined your personal sense of offense as the ultimate arbiter of the civil right of free speech? When your sense of offense changes, when the scope of what you consider offensive increases (as is human nature), so will the actionable acts of speech you'll want to control, until finally, logically extending this situation, anyone disagreeing with you is liable for punishment and silencing. "You must be silenced for the good of society and for your own good." Oh, you'll protect people, all right--protect them straight into the grave.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
If some Nazi gasbag advocates a return to the death camps, as abhorrent as I find that philosphy, I find still more abhorrent the idea his speech should be censored.
What can I say? I find your priorities naive at best.
What can I say? I find yours chilling, leading to the grossest of evils while masquerading as good, and utterly caustic to freedom. You should read "1984" sometime, it's got your blueprint in it.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Letting a Goebbels air his words can lead to most devastating consequences.
...and the Klan can make *exactly* the same claim about Martin Luther King, Jr.
"If we didn't let those uppity niggers and their Communist nigger-lovin' white traitors from the North agitate all our niggers, we'd still have peace down here, no race riots in LA or Boston. We shoulda shut them up long time ago for the good o' society."
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
You're free to say I should be killed and boiled down for soup; you're free to urge Glimmer to kill me and boil me down.
You are saying this because of security through obscurity.
Nope, you're wrong again. I'm saying this because I believe it to be true. You're crap at mind-reading, Ingo, I'd drop the act and return the robes and turban to the costume shop.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
You know, I really can't understand American culture. Most porn sites statistically originate in America. Within the law, you can get what you like, (if one is so disposed that is and at least until very recently). This, however, is also the culture that is prudish to the extreme in not saying fuck on TV or which goes ape when Timberlake and Jackson do an innocuous if tasteless breast boogy on MTV. Would someone explain that to me please?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
But I don't see why people have gotten their knickers in such a twist over a satire.
Or why some people think that opposition to the BBC broadcast of JStO portends the demise of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the undoing of democracy and even the end of free society.
I have found the latter to be far more amusing.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
You know, I really can't understand American culture. Most porn sites statistically originate in America. Within the law, you can get what you like, (if one is so disposed that is and at least until very recently). This, however, is also the culture that is prudish to the extreme in not saying fuck on TV or which goes ape when Timberlake and Jackson do an innocuous if tasteless breast boogy on MTV. Would someone explain that to me please?
I'm right there with you, Fr. Gregory. It has me quite flummoxed. Apparently it has something to do with "values"? I suppose we could just accept that the hundreds of millions of Americans might have some considerable variation of opinion themselves.
Oh, and thanks for that commentary Ley Druid. A seemingly unproductive thread in Purgatory isn't really complete without you pronouncing that you've been mentally masturbating over it. It's like a litmus test, except stickier.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
FG and Ley,
The critique of American culture is surely a tangent.
Why not open a thread where we can all jump on the bandwagon?
I'd love the opportunity to tell y'all my gripes about our "culture".
I'm sure I'd have just as many gripes, regardless of whatever culture I happened to be a member of.
It's just the way I am - but i'm ready - bring it on.
Then we can start on other cultures.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not denying free speech, I'm saying it should be restricted.
Yes, restricted according to the prejudices and opinions of yourself and those few who agree with you.
<snip>
What you're saying is you want freedom of speech restricted to the degree it will not offend anyone's religious sensibilities. "You're not allowed to make fun of God" is what you seem to want. That's ludicrous and inane.
<snip>
Erin, Scot and I have gone on endlessly about that important facet: The right to express one's views, ideas and opinions, and you don't seem to understand that. I don't know if you're simply glossing over everything we say with some bizarre "They don't know what they're talking about" prejudice or if your reading comprehension is poor.
<snip>
You want the State as your Mommy. Protect you from those nasty bad ol' opinions that upset your tummy, and coincidentally protect everyone else from what *you* don't like. "No more liver and sprouts for anyone! You don't have to eat those anymore! In fact, anyone who serves them will be fined and jailed!"
<snip>
Who died and made you God? Who enshrined your personal sense of offense as the ultimate arbiter of the civil right of free speech? When your sense of offense changes, when the scope of what you consider offensive increases (as is human nature), so will the actionable acts of speech you'll want to control, until finally, logically extending this situation, anyone disagreeing with you is liable for punishment and silencing. "You must be silenced for the good of society and for your own good." Oh, you'll protect people, all right--protect them straight into the grave.
<snip>
What can I say? I find yours chilling, leading to the grossest of evils while masquerading as good, and utterly caustic to freedom. You should read "1984" sometime, it's got your blueprint in it.
<snip>
You're crap at mind-reading, Ingo, I'd drop the act and return the robes and turban to the costume shop.
Apart from the obvious fact that resorting to juvenille ridicule (no-one would have taken offence, just exasperation and mild amusement) weakens any case you may be trying to make, you seem to have read posts on this thread through your own pre-judged viewpoint. The idea that I and others are evil is laughable; the idea that anyone has proposed a system of restraint based on one person's views is something you have invented; the idea that your society exemplifies the closest achievement to the perfect ideal of free speech is patently absurd.
This is the view that is being put before you - most people agree that free speech is a laudable aim, essential to a civilised society and furthermore the duty of each citizen to protect it, safeguards must somehow exist to ensure that undue harm is not caused by the abuse of the right to free speech. The body which decides and monitors those safeguards must be transparently accountable for that duty. Not only is the Government the only body which is elected, capable and accountable it is a body which exists only through the majority support of those which it governs - it governs by consent.
It can be said with equal conviction as your assertions, that the greatest evil and betrayal of fellow citizens is to wilfully aquiesce by inaction through denial a governmental system which abuses the rights of its electors through censorship and manipulation of free speech.
This is a view legitimately held by many. And a view which has not led to the world outside becoming totalitarian states ruled by the personal whims and prejudices of one person. It has in fact led to a surprisingly large number of countries opting for a workable relationship with each other. The countries which have twisted truth and misled their electors either retreat from the world or try to impose their particular form of government on the rest.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
The idea that I and others are evil is laughable
Yes, but this post was your 666th! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
You know, I really can't understand American culture. Most porn sites statistically originate in America.
Source for this contention? I though most serious porn (like the illegal sort) originates in Russia and much of the former SSRs and also some countries in the Far East.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
Pres, Scot: I know the discussion has moved on a bit but - given the US definition of free speech\censorship you've described - is it correct to say that free speech legislation would have been completly irrelevant to the JStO controversy had it happened in the US? Since at no point was the state involved or asked to get involved?
Not quite. The BBC is a public broadcaster and is effectively an agent of the state.
Gregory, as I pointed out above, some of in the US think that the FCC tends to be excessively prudish. Decency standards are an aspect of American culture which is in continuous flux.
Ley Druid, you are going to have to explain to us how the fact that the FCC doesn't restrict opinions doesn't mean that they don't limit anyone's right to express an opinion. You are making somewhat less sense than usual.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
You know, I really can't understand American culture. Most porn sites statistically originate in America. Within the law, you can get what you like, (if one is so disposed that is and at least until very recently). This, however, is also the culture that is prudish to the extreme in not saying fuck on TV or which goes ape when Timberlake and Jackson do an innocuous if tasteless breast boogy on MTV. Would someone explain that to me please?
It's the triumph of image over substance; the subordination of reason to sound-bite and the subjugation of empathy with instant self-gratification. Ain't it great?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
The idea that I and others are evil is laughable
Yes, but this post was your 666th!
Fantastic!!! I wonder if anyone has ever had a 666th post that was so ironically apposite! God knows just how to stick His finger up to the witchfinders.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
It's the triumph of image over substance; the subordination of reason to sound-bite and the subjugation of empathy with instant self-gratification. Ain't it great?
It's wonderful. It's so wonderful that we can't get enough of it in this country, either.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Laura
I believe I specified "within the law." I think you will find that my observation in this class, stands. It still needs some explanation.
Dear Scot
The "explanation" that quote:
Decency standards are an aspect of American culture which is in continuous flux.
doesn't persuade. Two different but universal media ... the Internet, TV ... both equally accessible or not accessible to minors, (cf., surf safe software and the off button), yet two radically different standards. How come? Surely half of the US population (the prudish half) don't ONLY watch TV and the other (libertine) half don't ONLY surf the Internet? Why aren't the TV viewers storming Capitol Hill for decency on the Web and why aren't Internet surfers campaigning for adult TV / mainstream?
I bring this up (it's not tangential) because it is quite clear now that TV broadcasting standards in the UK (Springer profanity) are considerably more liberal and freedom loving than in the US ... but we can't hope to match you for the sheer number of porn sites. It's the incoherence / incongruence here that makes the freedom of speech defences of Springer difficult to take seriously. It's 'you' indeed that should be catching up with us! Anybody following this tortuous thread might conclude that the US is the bastion of freedom of expression. That is not how it looks to me. We simply aspire to your levels of decency (on TV anyway).
Yes, I couldn't resist a "bit of a dig" but there are serious questions embedded in this post. It's the incongruity that I (genuinely) can't understand and it has not been satisfactorily explained to me yet. Surely the FCC can only act within some sort of public consensus?
[ 16. January 2005, 18:55: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Two different but universal media ... the Internet, TV ... both equally accessible or not accessible to minors, (cf., surf safe software and the off button), yet two radically different standards. How come?
The rationale for regulating broadcast content was that the airwaves had a limited number of frequencies, so there was a limit to the number of broadcasters, and since the public owned the airwaves, the government should step in to represent the public and make sure that the content over the airwaves was not objectionable to the public. That's the theory, anyway.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Ley Druid, you are going to have to explain to us how the fact that the FCC doesn't restrict opinions doesn't mean that they don't limit anyone's right to express an opinion.
The FCC doesn't restrict opinions.
The FCC does limit anyone's right to express obscene opinions; broadcasts are limited to non-obscene opinions. Therefore quote:
the fact that the FCC doesn't restrict opinions doesn't mean that they don't limit anyone's right to express an opinion.
They do limit anyone's right to express an opinion; anyone and everyone are limited to expressing non-obscene opinions in their broadcasts.
[ 16. January 2005, 19:23: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
<snip> the government should step in to represent the public and make sure that the content over the airwaves was not objectionable to the public. That's the theory, anyway.
This flies in the face of many vigorous protests that freedom of speech cannot be determined by the State and that the mere concept of someone finding something 'objectionable' is to be laughed at and placed on a par with a dangerous desire to bring down the fabric of society.
I don't think the government has any say about what can get transmitted in this country. Much to the chagrin of successive governements but the will of the people thankfully rejects that political interferrence. I think it is the Judiciary to which appeals are made regarding objectionable broadcasting, if appeals to the broadcaster fail.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Sorry, Gregory. I didn't realize that you were looking to be persuaded, so I was mostly just acknowledging the incongruity that you had observed. Let me try again.
The difference between broadcast television and the internet (or cable television) is that broadcasters utilize the publicly owned and regulated airwaves. Broadcasts are, therefore, subject to publicly-determined decency standards.
There is a misunderstanding within this thread about what we mean by freedom of speech. Absolute freedom to express offensive or controversial ideas is not the same thing as unfettered freedom to say "fuck". Unless the use of profanity is integral to the idea being expressed, it is not necessarily protected speech. Unprotected speech is, in some cases, subject to restrictions based on contemporary community standards, particularly if the speech in question is being broadcast over publicly-owned airwaves. Opinions vary, and debate rages, about what those cases are.
The thing that we hold as sacrosanct is the absolute freedom to express ideas, opinions, and viewpoints. All of the discussion about dirty words or pictures of people diddling goats is nothing but a bunch of red herrings. It's just simply not what we are talking about.
Ley Druid, you seem to be particularly confused by the difference between a word (form) and an opinion (content). I am still waiting for an example of an "obscene opinion".
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Host hat on
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Oh, and thanks for that commentary Ley Druid. A seemingly unproductive thread in Purgatory isn't really complete without you pronouncing that you've been mentally masturbating over it. It's like a litmus test, except stickier.
Ship's Commandment 3: No personal attacks. You know better.
Host hat off
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Unless the use of profanity is integral to the idea being expressed, it is not necessarily protected speech.
Is this criteria of "unless the use of profanity is integral to the idea being expressed" something that you have invented? Neither the constitution, the courts nor the FCC mentions anything about the use of "profanity that is integral to the idea being expressed."
quote:
The thing that we hold as sacrosanct is the absolute freedom to express ideas, opinions, and viewpoints.
The "we" is not the constitution, the courts, the FCC, or the majority of the American public. To whom are you referring? I mean really, the sacrosanct absolute freedom to express ideas. Where do you find such a delightful idea? Do you have a source or have you fashioned this out of your own imagination?
quote:
Ley Druid, you seem to be particularly confused by the difference between a word (form) and an opinion (content). I am still waiting for an example of an "obscene opinion".
According to the FCC, material is obscene if
1. An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
3. The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The FCC doesn't mention quote:
the difference between a word (form) and an opinion (content).
This is irrelevant to the FCC despite however dear it may be to you.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Scot
I could say on ANY medium (whoever owns it):-
"Mr. George Bush is not to be accepted as a good President."
OR
"F*** George Bush, the politically incompetent c***."
Undoubtedly, the second statement would be obscene but on the level of content, the second is qualitatively different as a political comment.
I can only take the "publically owned airwaves" argument and "content neutral profanity" as special pleading. Why should the American public be told what they can and can't hear and see on TV? Isn't that just as much a freedom of speech issue as expression on any other medium?
BTW, is it still true that in some States scripts can only say:- "I really like you," rather than "I love you" or is that an urban myth?
[ 16. January 2005, 21:49: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
The United States has spent my entire lifetime grappling with this dichotomy between the Constitutional right to freedom of speech and the private mores of the various people who populated the country over the centuries.
What's amazing to me is that it's taken this long for those who never believed in all that puritanical stuff about sex and God to finally revolt against a meaningless public piety and be honest.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I could say on ANY medium (whoever owns it):-
"Mr. George Bush is not to be accepted as a good President."
OR
"F*** George Bush, the politically incompetent c***."
Undoubtedly, the second statement would be obscene but on the level of content, the second is qualitatively different as a political comment.
In fact, I think you can legally say that on TV in the US - on any cable channel, and even on a broadcast channel between the hours of 10 PM and 6 AM.
Here's the Federal Communication Commission's webpage on Obscene, profane, and indecent broadcasts.)
It appears the FCC differentiates between broadcast TV and cable TV, and enforces the restrictions on the former but not the latter. This FCC fact sheet, however, notes that there are federal laws banning transmission of obscene material on cable. The existence of (apparently legal) porn cable channels in the US suggests that they are not considered to be obscene (or perhaps that the "community standards" are interpreted locally and can vary from place to place.)
In light of the three-prong test quoted above, JStO would also probably not be considered obscene. The profanity would presumably limit its airing on broadcast stations to the hours between 10 PM and 6 AM, though I doubt any of the broadcasters would care to do so. It might find a willing sponsor on cable, however, with no restrictions. Perhaps HBO would like to follow up the critical success of Angels in America (also decried by some as blasphemous and profanity-laced.)
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I can only take the "publically owned airwaves" argument and "content neutral profanity" as special pleading. Why should the American public be told what they can and can't hear and see on TV? Isn't that just as much a freedom of speech issue as expression on any other medium?
The distinction drawn was one of scarcity - in broadcast, there's only so much spectrum to go around, so the State licences its use and applies community standards on obscenity. There's no such scarcity in the case of cable or print.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
BTW, is it still true that in some States scripts can only say:- "I really like you," rather than "I love you" or is that an urban myth?
"Still true"? I've never heard such a thing, and don't believe it ever was the case. Where did you pick this up?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Not quite. The BBC is a public broadcaster and is effectively an agent of the state.
Mmm. I'm not entirely sure about that, since in terms of content the BBC should be independent of the state. But I take your point.
But accepting your definition, the controversy was then an attempt by various interest groups to censor an agent of the state, not the other way around. So surely that wouldn't be covered either?
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Ley Druid, you are purely and simply wrong. The Supreme Court has, in fact, held that, while the State can, in certain circumstances, restrict the manner in which offensive views are expressed, the State may not prohibit the expression of the views. I am thinking specifically of Cohen v. California. The Court overturned Mr Cohen's conviction on charges of disturbing the peace by entering a courthouse while wearing a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" printed on it. Justice Harlan wrote:
quote:
Appellant's conviction, then, rests squarely upon his exercise of the freedom of speech protected from arbitrary governmental interference by the Constitution and can be justified, if at all, only as a valid regulation of the manner in which he exercised that freedom, not as a permissible prohibition on the substantive message it conveys.
The Court clearly recognized that the manner of expression is not necessarily the same as the substance of the the opinion expressed. Presleyterian, Laura, or someone else may well be able to offer an even more conclusive reference.
"We" are the people, who once established and now support the Constitution which requires that Congress make no law abridging the freedom of speech. My statements may be unique in form, but they are hardly novel in substance.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Dave
So, where there's channel scarcity there has to be a higher bar to decency? I could see sense in that IF other options (cable etc) didn't provide reasily accessible diversity. I still can't see why the standards cannot be applied uniformly across the baord since media accessibility and diversity I wouldn't have thought was a problem.
It was some time ago but I did see a report on UK TV that such restrictions (on "I love you") did at one time apply here and there if not now. I must admit I did then start to notice how many times in American romantic dramas, the actors were apt to say rather coyly:- "I really like you."
[ 16. January 2005, 22:32: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
But accepting your definition, the controversy was then an attempt by various interest groups to censor an agent of the state, not the other way around. So surely that wouldn't be covered either?
The core of the controversy is whether the state should treat all viewpoints equally, regardless of who doesn't like them. If the state does not, then they are selectively endorsing or discriminating against certain viewpoints. In other words, should Christians (or anti-Christians, or Jerry Springer) get special protections and privileges, or should the same standard be applied to all?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
So, where there's channel scarcity there has to be a higher bar to decency? I could see sense in that IF other options (cable etc) didn't provide reasily accessible diversity. I still can't see why the standards cannot be applied uniformly across the baord since media accessibility and diversity I wouldn't have thought was a problem.
You are missing the point. Broadcast frequencies are publicly owned and broadcast (terrestrial) television is received free of charge by the public. Cable television is privately owned and is generally only available to those who choose pay for it. That's why the two media are treated differently.
As I've said over and over, there are many of us in the US who don't agree with the position that the FCC has taken on decency standards. The ascendency of cable, satellite, and internet broadcasting will eventually force a shakeup in the system. Until then, I'm going to exercise my absolute right to express my opinion on the subject.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
