*must get master the slippers, then slit masters throat, then burn masters body, then dance naked around the fire*
Printable View
*must get master the slippers, then slit masters throat, then burn masters body, then dance naked around the fire*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
WORD!
don't get me started agreeing with you Ya_know. Might be the end of sanity as we know it. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer
Someone once said give me liberty or give me death then some fool shot him and said I rule. You die.
Not really but if we had more like you he would have.
It is a ****ing radio shock jock that has been on and off of ****ing radio stations his entire ****ing career, jesus ****ing christ on a ****ing trycycle with ****ing monkeys flying out of his buttQuote:
Originally Posted by ShadowDragon
We each judge a situation on its merits as observed by our own view point and our own set of personnel constructs no two people are ever in the same camps at the same instant in time that is what makes us unique and able to freely air our views.
This said we live in a civilised society and in this society we must have compasion and understanding for our neibours set of values weather we agree or not so to say it breeches the freedom of speech in this case is an absurd and hypocritical statement to make in any sense of true values.
He has clearly and intentionally "gone outside the box" with many of his broadcasts so has ultimatly brought it upon himself to be up for dismissal from any contracts that may be between his company and those of the broadcasters.
And your point is??Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowDragon
Uhm.. Since your so against it, i won't sally this thread more with explanations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
If you want one. pm me.
Say WHAT?!? I say I don't think he's funny and that gets me this!?! :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowDragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straight_Shooter
There you go with your personal attacks again trying to stir up trouble.
Like I said before, no rule is perfect for every situation. You don't seem to grasp that concept. You are offended that I look at every situation individually and base my opinions off what I observe from each situation?
Like I said before, this site is not a democracy. You can whine and attack all you want, but this site still won't be a democracy.
Last time I checked, our country IS supposed to be a democracy. When the government starts putting pressure on businesses to conform to the minority (who happen to hold powerful positions), that's when I have a problem. Our government is no longer for the people, it's for the people who have tons of money. How many people do you run into in the course of a day that hold the opinion that Howard Stern needs to be taken off the air? Unless you hang out with out of touch politicians, I'd guess the answer would be zero.
Did you read anything I wrote? Notice that I don't need to stoop to your level of personal attacks? I have my opinions about you based off my observations of your posts. I can only hope that they ban your new name as well. You are annoying and constantly trying to stir up trouble. I can do without it.
Representative Republic actually. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by imaeditedbysowulo
Let's every one get this straight once and for all... This is a prime example of free market and democracy. If the people want to hear Howard then he will be on the air.... If they can make more $$$ by not having him on the air and getting some publicity by taking him off then they will do it. It's all about $$$ and nothing to do with if he proves to be offensive to some. Hey when he started in New York the people who listened the longest where the people who hated him the MOST. This has nothing to with free speech it all about the $$$.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Klarg
I am in the cities, but I have heard Bob and Tom a few times before (visiting family in southern minnesota)
Normally I would be mad, but the presence of that smiley makes me all warm and fuzzy instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by meatwad
Potato potato...the point is nobody has a RIGHT to post here.
No prob. :D I actually agreed with some of what you said in there. It's the main reason affirmative action pisses me off so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by imaeditedbysowulo
Actually, I think that the majority of the country hates Howard Stern. So...Wat'cu talkin'bout Willis???Quote:
Originally Posted by imaeditedbysowulo
I disagree, but if that is the case then those people have every right to not listen to him. It's not that hard, just change the channel or turn the radio off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Do you feel the same way about NAMBLA and their website?Quote:
I disagree, but if that is the case then those people have every right to not listen to him. It's not that hard, just change the channel or turn the radio off.
I refer you then to post #36 in this thread http://forums.windrivers.com/showpos...7&postcount=36Quote:
Originally Posted by imaeditedbysowulo
Bob and Tom Rocks!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Camaro80z
WAR Jim Rome!!! :thumbs2:
Rome is burning!
People hate something when they don't understand it or afraid of it. Howard Stern tells it like it is. People are afraid of that. People in this country are afraid to hear truths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Btw,.. thanks for summing up the bottom line of this whole thing (a few posts up) Escape_Driver. Nicely put.
It's a bunch of greedy suits in their glass towers thinking up ways to sacrifice one persons 1st amendment right, so they can make more $$$. Imo,.. that's more offensive than anything Howard Stern has ever done or said.
Howard Stern tells it like he sees it. Just because he's Howard Stern, don't assume that everything that comes out of his mouth is truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
Not sure how to answer that one. From what I know of NAMBLA, they advocate having sex with young boys. Last time I checked that's not socially, morally, or legally acceptable, nor is pedophilia covered under our constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by silencio
As for ya know's post, I saw the survivor episode you refer to and I too think that guy should have been arrested for assault or something. That was just wrong.
I guess I just don't trust our government or the FCC and that's why I have such a problem with all this. They didn't have a problem with Stern over the last 3 years when he was a big Bush supporter. Now in the last 3 months Stern has been anti-Bush and hasn't been afraid to say it on the air and all of a sudden he's off 6 of the biggest markets in states that will play a big part in this year's election and I'm supposed to believe that it's because they don't want my kids to hear penis jokes? I just don't buy it.
That's the bottom line! :thumbs: Not only is what he says not true, or useless banter, it isn't even entertaining. I loved his movie...I think his show is the biggest waste of time. I most certainly don't fear a thing he has to say!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by meatwad
When he talks about jerking off, beating women, treating women like sluts (grant it some of the ones guest on his show are!), and other perverted, twisted sick sh!t, he needs not be on public air during the day.
I say put him on between zero hour and 0200 local time. There is less chance a kid is going to hear him, and the scumbags that like him are usually up that late anyway... :p
Hear, hear. He came along and was admired for his outragiousness. His show was whacked, different and wayyyy out there, and, lets admit it: that sells, in many outlets. That being said, he is NOT a word of reason, nor is his choice of content! Admittedly, sometimes, being anti-establishment, he does ring a chord with some, but he is NOT political for the most part, but apolitical and, really, anti-political. While that is not bad, being anti-political does not have to be (as it seems to be so often with him): anarchist!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
But, is this thread about Stern, or freedom of speech, or....what???? They are not mutually exclusive. Are they? If you are going to stand up for Stern, does that mean you stand for freedom of speech? Or, vice-versa? Or not? Where does freedom of speech begin and end? Does it end with NOT liking someone? Or, is that where it should begin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straight_Shooter
Right. I should've titled this thread, "The Beginning of the end of freedom of speech". The whole point of me starting this topic is because I think it's jacked that some corporate jerk can pull the plug on someone just because they don't like what they hear on the radio. Just because Stern is their employee doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. Stern did not violate ANY of the FCC's rules when they pulled the plug on him. Clear Channel is a highly conservative right-wing organization that is heavily influenced by the FCC. I just don't understand why the government thinks they need to blind-fold people to the truth all the time. It's all a big game of money and politics and it needs to end.
That's a good question Shooter, and thus part of the problem. People like to pick and choose, and never be consistant. You want to see some of the worse attempts to silence somebody, start a thread on religion, abortion, politics, or gun control. Oh wait, we have threads like that. :p
The point is, if you read through some of those, if somebody makes a comment that goes against the PC way of thinking, or a specific set of beliefs, they are flamed up the wazoo. No so much on WD, but on other boards I have been on. Here are some examples.
It is not PC to discriminate, but it is PC to bash Christians.
It is not PC to sterotype, but it is PC to refer Christians as "Bible Bangers."
It is not PC to deny a person a drivers liscense because they can't speak english. But it is PC to give them that liscense even though that can't speak english while ignoring the fact that 100% of the street signs are in, what language? English.
One can't speak out against the actions of an individual of a minority without fear of being called a racists. Look at the Micheal Jackson case. The racial card is already being heavily played on.
But I guess I am rambling. :eek:
Anyways, a person can not speak their mind without the fear of public backlash.
But is there speech, specifically, explaining how to seduce young boys, protected under the first amemdment?Quote:
Originally Posted by imaeditedbysowulo
Quote:
Originally Posted by silencio
Heheh. This is one of those perplexing questions. How far does free speach go. This is an excellent example.
In America, there are already a few things you can not say. Threating bodily harm the President of the United States with get you a knock knock on your door form the Secret Service. One also can not yell FIRE inside a crowded room.
While these examples make sence to some of us or maybe all of us here on WD, it make very well be complete BS to someone else. I mean saying and doing are 2 different things right? While I agree that explaining how to seduce young boys should not be a hot topic to discuss, I do not think that it is my right to tell someone what they can and can't say. Government does that enough for us.
If that's the type of stuff that is on their website, I guess it is protected otherwise it wouldn't be there. Personally I find it disturbing, and since having sex with little boys is illegal in every state that I know of, it's not quite the same as someone on the radio using foul language.Quote:
Originally Posted by silencio
I agree with you that it is disturbing. But while the act of having sex with little boys is illegal, talking about it is not. That's where the freedom of speech part of this can be complicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by imaeditedbysowulo
Exactly. The question now isn't so much about stern (who really cares?) but the free speech issue itself. Is it legal to instruct someone how to build a dirty bomb or make anthrax? Is it possible to draw a line in speech between a terrorist instructing someone how to make anthrax vs a professor teaching a student how to make anthrax who may create a vaccine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jediab
Interesting questions, the other free speech thread turned into a UN debate :(, maybe we can find some solid 'free speech' arguments in this one.
The way I see it, the first problem is that there is no means for accounting for the context of speech. In the anthrax example you could have the same words being tossed about but the intentions of the people involved could range from mass murder to human savior. As the world is today you might not know until it's too late.
The second problem is that of privacy. I can't say how much money is spent on surveillance by the various intelligence communities of the world but how many people under surveillance have completely innocent intentions and how many have evil intentions? Is it right to monitor everyone in search of evil?
I have a utopian notion that if there were no privacy and everyone was to be held accountable for their speech, it's context, and their intentions (as well as their actions), a great deal of the worlds evil might just disappear. ...probably fool hardy and I have only a semplance of an idea how to implement it but it's possibilities are intriguing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diver01
Didn't Bob andTom stomp the pi$$ out of stern when he tried to get into the market here?
It goes right to the 'end' - if you have 'free speech' you have of course got to accept that sometimes folks will say stuff that nobody wants to hear (or stuff that folks 'shouldn't hear'), it carries a 'price' ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jediab
Right, and thus it is important to know that sometimes people say things that they don't mean when blowing off some steam. Are they guilty of a crime then?Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
Its when they 'mean' what they say that it 'hurts' ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jediab
Here's an example
To briefly explain :- this 'character' is an Egyptian Muslim who says we are all infidels & 'deserve' to die & terrorists are 'fantastic' as they will make the world what Allah wants (bullsh!t ! that's besides the point here however) - Now if I said 'similar' as a 'white' person I'd get locked up for Inciting Racial Hatred ..
But no, here we have free speech, so until the legal wheels move a bit faster I have to pay his unemployment benefit (Via my taxes) & like it ! :(
You are thinking of Tom Bernard at KQRS. Bob and Tom are in southern minnesota.Quote:
Originally Posted by firemonkey
Actually, you don't have to like it. :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
People should learn what freedom of speech means before starting a thread on it. If you have thought speech has been truly free since the acceptance of the Constitution then you have truly missed the point. Go back to highschool history class and try again.
See here's the thing, if you don't like TV or Radio and the things they program, don't watch/listen. Don't let your kids watch/listen if the content offends you. No one is forcing you to have media streamed into your home and you have a choice to turn it off. If this was a public street and you wanted to have a seminar on lesbian but-******* who like to play with big floppy ******* and goats, then we have a problem as I can’t protect minors or whoever from viewing by simply passing by. In this case you have the option to not listen or simply don’t have a radio/TV.
The FCC is a non elected body that can control your license to broadcast and levy fines. They can and have fined up to millions of $$$ and recently (opie and Anthony) threatened to pull the license. If you don’t have a license, you don’t broadcast. This government body can put pressure on any station or group of stations to a degree where they are forced to drop their talent in favor of keeping their license. It is censorship, it’s not a body of our peers denoting what is moral or immoral or generally acceptable. Given that TV/radio is not a venue you are forced to watch this is unconstitutional. Few if any fight it though as they are pretty much run the risk of having their entire station shut down if they do.
Also, the fines and penalties are not standardized in any way. Everything is at the discretion of the FCC and that’s just not fair and radio stations/TV knowing this has always been more apt to censor immediately. One little old grumpy lady can complain and fines may be levied without any proof whatsoever that the item did air at all. You could be fined or have your license pulled with absolutely no evidence that you even broadcasted what someone said you did.
This is censorship. FCC should control the availability of communications so one thing does not interfere with another and should not have any control over the content of the communications. That is for the audience. Don’t like it, don’t buy a TV or a radio.