13 Jan 2014, 4:33 pm
aghogday wrote:
Raptor wrote:
GinBlossoms wrote:
In experience, it's more likely religious groups and people who advocate media censorship on moral issues than non-religious people. Why is there a difference here? I support free speech, but is there any reason why non-religious people will complain about something on television or radio that was "inappropriate"?
Why is there also a double-standard on the free speech issue on the media with liberals and conservatives?
Why is there also a double-standard on the free speech issue on the media with liberals and conservatives?
The right wing religious types in general are most likely want to censor sex, homosexuality, profanity, and violence. Liberals tend to be in favor of censoring political messages not inline with theirs or whatever they consider "hate" and/or "intolerance".
Personally i see no reason why anyone who is secure in their truths about life..should be personAlly worried about any freedom of expression of anyone else...
But..empathy and compassion..does dictate..that people stand UP to the REAL HARM OF OTHERS...
THAT SOME PHILOSOPHIES CAN BRING...
BUT AGAIN..STAND UP ..MEANS DISSENT..NOT CENSORSHIP...
I PERSONALLY THINK IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT..
AND THE GREATEST PART OF MY PERSONAL PATRIOTISM..
AS A US CITIZEN...
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION...
AND YA BETTER BET BABY..I TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THAT IN REAL LIFE..AND DON'T GIVE A f**k WHAT ANYONE ELSE THINKS...
AS DANCE WALKING AIN'T HURTIN ANYONE IN REAL LIFE..ANYWAY..EXCEPT IN FANTASY OF REPRESSION..AND ALL OF THAT....
I DID 23 MILES IN A LOCAL MALL LAST DEC 21ST..UNTIL THE OPERATIONS DIRECTOR CENSORED MY APPROACH..OF MOONWALKING AND ALL OFTHAT...
AS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIS PRIVATE TASTE..IN 'HIS' PRIVATE MALL...
SO I GO ELSEWHERE WHERE I AM NOT CENSORED PER THE PRIVATE RIGHT TO CENSOR...
WHICH IS EVERYWHERE ELSE BUT THAT PLACE..
AS MOST PEOPLE DO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION..AND YES WILL DEFEND IT IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS..
MY EXPERIENCE WITH DANCE WALKING AS ALSO AN ACCOMMODATION UNDER THE ADA FOR SPINAL STENOSIS..SEVERE SPINAL ARTHRITIS..AND OTHER PAIN DISORDERS..
PROVES THIS OUT OVER AND OVER IN THE REAL WORLD..2....
AND PART OF WHY I LIKE MILEY CYRUS..AND HER OUT OF THE 'BOX' EXPRESSIONS OF HER PERSONAL LIBERTY AND FREEDOM...
SHE LETS FREEDOM RING..T&A AND ALL THAT TOO...
SHE COULD BE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY..AND FIT IN QUITE WELL MY FRIEND...
of course just my opinion..
i ain't imposing or censoring my will on anyone...
it would make my skin crawl...
That is all....
Um....wut?
Never mind. I'm sure the explanation would be equally nonsensical.
13 Jan 2014, 4:39 pm
13 Jan 2014, 4:39 pm
13 Jan 2014, 5:33 pm
13 Jan 2014, 5:46 pm
13 Jan 2014, 9:08 pm
13 Jan 2014, 10:10 pm
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
14 Jan 2014, 7:10 am
TheGoggles wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
aghogday wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that the progressive movement wants to make any freedom of expression a crime.
Yeah, there is, they call them "hate speech" laws, and they have been successfully installed in a number of countries lacking our strong free speech protections, notably the commonwealth countries. In this country, they've mostly settled for imposing these on students, which has the long term effect of normalizing this particular form of censorship, which has not stopped them from trying to get these restrictions into law. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has been detailing and fighting this trend for years,
http://thefire.org/ .
Yeah, hate speech laws are never something I've been okay with. In an ideal society, people who use hate speech will be shunned and ostracized into oblivion, which is more or less what America has now. The Duck Dynasty guy was allowed back on after his rants about gays and the virtues of child brides, but that's only because nobody cares about Duck Dynasty except people who spend 20 hours a week in Wal-Mart wearing stained sweatpants and t-shirts over two decades old.
Untrue…
IF it were true, we're talking about a TREMENDOUS number of people spending 20 hours a week in Wal-Mart wearing stained underpants, etc. Heh…or was that your point?
A&E were on the verge of abandoning their viewership. They were under a tremendous load of commercial pressure to change their policy in regards to DD. They made a huge mistake (from a business angle) and corrected it. Duck Commander doesn't NEED A&E. They were independently wealthy before A&E and will continue truckin' on if the show gets canceled and won't even blink if that happens. It's a hugely popular show, and the viewers had A&E by the balls.
With A&E, it's all about the money and no different than any other network. Jericho was an AWESOME show, CBS desperately needed to cancel it, and the fans dumped a few tons of peanuts (literally) at CBS's corporate front door. They brought it back for a final season to wrap up loose ends in the storyline, and that was that. I still hate that they got rid of the show, but whatever… It was a business decision.
The only defense I have for A&E is that as a business they can do whatever they want, enforce whatever policies they want. They want to fire someone in a reality show, fine. They're allowed to do that. I think it would be stupid in this case, but there's no law against stupidity. As a small business man myself, I don't have any employees to fire, but I do have clients who treat me like garbage from time to time. I can get fed up with them at any moment and say, "hey, I don't need your money. Go waste someone else's time." I have the right to do that. If A&E wants to change to Q&L and target that kind of audience, they're free to do that. They obviously like the ratings from DD and want to keep their money. So let 'em. If I were the guys from DuckComm, I wouldn't trust 'em and I'd be looking into taking a brief hiatus after the contract runs out while negotiating some deal with another network. Let the new network rebrand them to avoid copyright/trademark conflicts with A&E, and just keep on going.
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
14 Jan 2014, 7:28 am
14 Jan 2014, 9:01 am
14 Jan 2014, 10:41 am
14 Jan 2014, 2:14 pm
14 Jan 2014, 8:55 pm
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Raptor wrote:
GinBlossoms wrote:
In experience, it's more likely religious groups and people who advocate media censorship on moral issues than non-religious people. Why is there a difference here? I support free speech, but is there any reason why non-religious people will complain about something on television or radio that was "inappropriate"?
Why is there also a double-standard on the free speech issue on the media with liberals and conservatives?
Why is there also a double-standard on the free speech issue on the media with liberals and conservatives?
The right wing religious types in general are most likely want to censor sex, homosexuality, profanity, and violence. Liberals tend to be in favor of censoring political messages not inline with theirs or whatever they consider "hate" and/or "intolerance".
That's the problem with Conservatives:
You're really on a conservative hunt, aren't you? I at least admitted that the right in general is guilty of wanting censorship as well as the left. I could have just shredded the left alone and just let the chips fall where they may.
Quote:
They want to censor what obviously happens, while liberals want to highlight the attrocities to prevent them from happening in real life, or at least minimizing them.
You can't ban violence by banning the stories and images of violence. But you can hide the violence, making people believe it never happens, of will never happen to themselves or their loved ones.
People need to see violence, to show people that violence is bad (and WHY it is bad!)
You can't ban violence by banning the stories and images of violence. But you can hide the violence, making people believe it never happens, of will never happen to themselves or their loved ones.
People need to see violence, to show people that violence is bad (and WHY it is bad!)
Which atrocities and violence? At least define what you think an atrocity is.
Quote:
Liberals want to hide/censor the political messages that calls for violence, hatred and so on. There is a huge difference.
It's still censorship. What makes it okey-dokey with you is that it's liberal approved censorship which makes it hypocrisy. Hatred, by the way, is not an act in itself and not necessarily easy to accurately identify or define.
Quote:
I suspect the real reason Conservatives are in favor of censoring images with violence, is because they want to secretly live out their violence thoughts,
whilst calling for hatred, protecting their hate-speech by the so-called "freedom of speech".
whilst calling for hatred, protecting their hate-speech by the so-called "freedom of speech".
I don't even know where to start with this.....
We had someone like you here a few years ago.
He openly stated that:
- Conservatives are poison and should be kept away from children
- Conservatives need to be locked away in re-education camps
- Conservatives make people want to kill themselves
It's starting to look like you're at least in the same ballpark.
Last edited by Raptor on 15 Jan 2014, 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
14 Jan 2014, 9:48 pm
Raptor wrote:
We had someone like you here a few years ago.
He openly stated that:
- Conservatives are poison and should be kept away from children
- Conservatives need to be locked away in re-education camps
- Conservatives make people want to kill themselves
It's starting to look like you're at least in the same ballpark.
He openly stated that:
- Conservatives are poison and should be kept away from children
- Conservatives need to be locked away in re-education camps
- Conservatives make people want to kill themselves
It's starting to look like you're at least in the same ballpark.
Ahh yes, him.
We have had quite a few unhinged liberals here over the years, haven't we? It certainly seems like all the actual physical threats come from that direction, especially if we include animal rights and anti smoking extremism under the liberal banner.
14 Jan 2014, 10:03 pm
/\
Yep, good old WD. I don't know what ever became of him but he sure bought us a lot of entertainment.
I just remembered this one:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf204727-0-45.html
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Raptor wrote:
For a while there you had become civil and rational but I see that period in time has passed.
I would love to take away your guns. I would love to strap you to a fat tree trunk, with a corn cob shoved up your butt halfway and your eye-lids stapled open, and force you to watch while I destroyed every gun you have. Nothing in the world would so fill me with joy. Not because I think it's dangerous for people to have guns but because I find you and most of the NRA gun freaks I have ever encountered to be incredibly offensive.sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
15 Jan 2014, 7:48 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Support vs substantial support? |
26 Jan 2024, 7:56 am |
| Shy Bladder Support Group |
14 Feb 2024, 4:57 pm |
| question for those with support workers |
10 Mar 2024, 5:27 am |
| Feeling lack of support navigating financial aid |
03 Apr 2024, 6:38 pm |
