1st Amendment In Flames

[gr8fuldaniel]

NY Times FRANK RICH The Plot Against Sex in America Published: December 12, 2004 WHEN they start pushing the panic button over "moral values" at the bluest of TV channels, public broadcasting's WNET, in the bluest of cities, New York, you know this country has entered a new cultural twilight zone. Just three weeks after the election, Channel 13 killed a spot for the acclaimed movie "Kinsey," in which Liam Neeson stars as the pioneering Indiana University sex researcher who first let Americans know that nonmarital sex is a national pastime, that women have orgasms too and that masturbation and homosexuality do not lead to insanity. At first WNET said it had killed the spot because it was "too commercial and too provocative" - a tough case to make about a routine pseudo-ad interchangeable with all the other pseudo-ads that run on "commercial-free" PBS. That explanation quickly became inoperative anyway. The "Kinsey" distributor, Fox Searchlight, let the press see an e-mail from a National Public Broadcasting media manager stating that the real problem was "the content of this movie" and "controversial press re: groups speaking out against the movie/subject matter" that might bring "viewer complaints." Maybe in the end Channel 13 got too many complaints about its own cowardice because by last week, in response to my inquiries, it had a new story: that e-mail was all a big mistake - an "unfortunate" miscommunication hatched by some poor unnamed flunky in marketing. This would be funny if it were not so serious - and if it were an anomaly. Yet even as the "Kinsey" spot was barred in New York, a public radio station in North Carolina, WUNC-FM, told an international women's rights organization based in Chapel Hill that it could not use the phrase "reproductive rights" in an on-air announcement. In Los Angeles, five commercial TV channels, fearing indecency penalties, refused to broadcast a public service spot created by Los Angeles county's own public health agency to counteract a rising tide of syphilis. Nationwide, the big three TV networks all banned an ad in which the United Church of Christ heralded the openness of its 6,000 congregations to gay couples.

1) So what does a thought policeman look like?
2) How far will they take this?
3) What if we dont want to play?
4) How do they legislate Official Thought Patterns?
5) Is this: "reproductive rights" on George Carlins list of words you cant say on T.V. ?

[Mr.Vicchio]

1) Maybe the TV Exec's are realizing that there are a lot more "Moral Values" people out there then before, and thier money is valuable too.
2) Take what? This was a money decision, not a govnerment mandate
3) Then don't play, if your TV and movie's make money and succeed you will see them.
4) They don't called paranoia
5) No, but movies about a quack whose research has been heavily questioned over the years is hardly time to start seeing Government Though Police.

Remember that movie Gibson made, that foriegn language film tha the critics and everyone else said wouldn't suceed and ruin him? That I think plays more into why this spot didn't run then anything else. Morals sell, and losing those people to run a spot about a highly contraversial film does not.

Money talks, will you listen or will you miss the real message in your fear of the bogeyman?

[Scribbler1]

I think a good deal of the interest paid to Gibson's film was generated by the overblown "controversy" surrounding the movie. People wanted to see what the fuss was all about and I don't think there are any surveys breaking down the actual reasons a person has for seeing a film.

I believe the same holds true for Michael Moores opus. If the conservatives hadn't made such a huge stink over the movie I honestly doubt the box office would have been even 50% of what it was.

I never saw Farenheit 911. What was it about anyway?

[Starboy]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel 1) So what does a thought policeman look like?

Like a Christian.

2) How far will they take this?

To the gates of heaven and hell.

3) What if we dont want to play?

Then god have mercy on our souls.

4) How do they legislate Official Thought Patterns?

With the bible of course.

5) Is this: "reproductive rights" on George Carlins list of words you cant say on T.V. ?

Heard anyone talking about it lately?

Starboy

[gr8fuldaniel]

Testing, I am having trouble posting in this thread

[Technosoul]

I can recall that all during the 1950s and before none of the movies had any nude shots and a cuss word was rare indeed. Sex was a hush hush topic one radio and tv also. The ice melted when the famous moive "Gone with the wind" had Clark saying "Frankly my dear, I don't give a Damm". The use of the word "Damm" raised a lot of eyeblows. Following that the movies got bolder and bolder and then during the Hippy (anit-establishment) revolution most of the old taboos were finnally scattered, however public TV continued to be conservative with only some mooning by the NYPD late night programming. (because kids are asleeep by 8 o'clock, huh huh).

Up tight, out of site. I am not sure why people fear and/or hate sex so much when you know darn well that is one of the main motivations for having a culture.

But speaking of the right for free speech and expression, what about the right to use shared files on a music downloading web page? Sharing a song you like is how we often express what we really feel or want to say. If a song comes on the radio that expresses your personality you turn up the sound and let it blast out of the car window, that is like saying what you want to say but using music to do your expressing for you. So if you want others to like your songs and you post them on a webpage "shared file" it is like you are expressing something about your self, sort of like expressing a poltical or religious viewpoint, every music fan wants to express thier type of music as a member of that musical style of expression and identificaton. Arresting people for expressing their self through recording artists and pre-recorded music should not be unlawful if we beleive in the liberties offered by our rights in the freedom of expression (freedom of speech).

Technosoul.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Sharing songs on teh web is called stealing and aiding in theft.

Why not share that song by purchasing the CD for your friends?

How would you like it if you invented or created something, and instead of getting paid for it, people just copied it and let anyone take a copy free?

[Lou Minotti]

SOME song sharing on the web is theft. There are many bands that allow taping and song sharing. How would you like it if someone taped your show, copied it for their friends and then, all of the sudden, there are twice as many people at your next show? Oh, wait...that's a good thing. Nevermind...

[RickSp]

There is a bizarre irony in the whole file sharing controversy in that the well established and well documented thieves, the record companys, who chronically under pay or don't pay royalties to artists are claiming the moral high ground.

The current regulatory and legal status of recordings is highly skewed toward the record companies. If current regulations were applied to publications, libraries would have a very difficult time lending books. The current system is technically and statutorially obsolete. I think it is telling that the company that developed the first on-line music store was not a record company but a computer company interested in selling mp3 players.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Sheesh, I have wasted about 3 hours, yesterday and today, trying to respond in this thread. Everytime I click "Go Advanced", I get redirected to the 1st page. I just wanted you guys to know I wasnt ignoring you.

Your virgin ears versus my adult intellectual curiosity. I dont want information spoon fed and strained for me. Did you ever consider that your puritanical guilt trip, may not be mine. And thats OK. I dont want some pinhead from Crawford forcing his mythology down my throat. I dont care How popular it is, I want the right to believe or not believe in my own concept of God.

Something is still wrong with the forum, I just had to delete a huge chunk of text before I could post this. Maybe I am flagged by the thought police?

[SVMc]

Sex, music only the drugs are missing.

I've been living in Canada for the last 10 years. The only reason this is relevant is the relation Canada has to the US media. 10 years ago Canada was for all intensive purposes the US's little brother, we were largely indistinguishable from the US except that our tabloids still follow the latest gossip on the Queen and we have universal health care. There are some other differences, but generally the US was the larger, richer partner of similar heritage. But in the last four years there's been what appears to be an amazing transformation. Mr. V. is quite right to say that none of us suspected how many "moral majoity" types really existed in the states. The expansion of evangalism is nothing short of remarkable, even if I do watch it with a sort of car crash fascination. There's always been a bit of an anti-american streak in Canada, but now it's raging. I have to say that for the first time I am truly scared by the US media.... how silent it is on issues that are huge in most of the rest of the world, how in-ward looking, how self-sensoring. It's interesting that one of the lines in the sand between Canada and the US was how "free" we are. Canada is frequently accused of paying too much allegiance to an old monarchy... but now.... I have to say, I feel much more free on this side of the border.

P.S. I saw Kinsey three weeks ago, excellent film. I also saw Passion of the Christ when it came out (lured in by hype) all I can say is that some special effects make up artist made their career on that flogging scene.

[gr8fuldaniel]

This is what I was trying to copy/paste a quote from a few days ago. I got frustrated and quit. I could have at least given you the link, this is crazy shit..............LINK