Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Kyran · Feb 28, 2004, 02:14 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Are people really saying that Free Speech means anything can be said or shown anywhere? Pornography and the filthiest words anywhere? That's what's at issue here - not political views or something.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mia, Freedom of Speech means government cannot regulate the speech of anybody. Not on radio, TV, in public, or through some medium such as one's employer.

Any expression that does not infringe on the rights of others is okay with me. Well almost; I don't want to see anyone naked in public, unless I'm at the beach. If a girl's top comes off at the beach on accident, then I am perfectly okay with it. If it wasn't an accident and I had a daughter then I would be assertive with her; and probably take her to a less "wild" environment.

I don't want to regulate the porn industry into the black market either. God knows what it has done for the drug trade.

Burning the flag, wearing KKK uniforms, and other such dissentive expression are abhorrent; but I see no point in prohibiting these things. It makes hateful people hide their hate. I think such elements of society should be well-known not hidden.

However, I will argue against you that words are filthy. Words are neutral man-made components of communication. It is the people behind the words who can be filthy. They make filthy ideas and pass them along this way.

Also understand that I am not suggesting "anywhere" is free speech applicable. Private businesses, forums, organizations, religions, what have you...all have the right to regulate speech and behavior to the benefit or detriment of their institutions. That way people can't get banned from forums and go get the government to force administrators to "unban" them.

I hope that clears it up. Offer suggestions on the Beach thing if you have any. It really doesn't fit into my own philosophy =).

Impenitent · Feb 28, 2004, 02:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Imp, you picked the wrong argument today. Your analogy is a complete malfunction of logic. Free speech is a Right. The government has absolutely no jurisdiction over the content of airwaves, media, or any other form of broadcast. It has no authority to punish or reward anyone for expressing themselves.

:rolleyes: show me you "right" to yell fire in a crowded theatre... show me your "right" broadcast obscene speech... that "right" DOES NOT EXIST

You compare talk to murder? Please, argue with me. I dare you.

:rolleyes: I was comparing free actions regulated by law with other free actions regulated by law...

It's the LAW to not say certain things? What part of the constitution gave government the authority to do that? Is this what George Washington fought for?

:rolleyes: EXACTLY... it is ILLEGAL to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded building when there is no fire... it comes from the same part of the constitution that gave the government the authority to over tax the citizens... it is called the legislature...

"Don't worry men, one day our children will be able to control Howard Stern."

Don't make me laugh. The LAW says government cannot regulate anyone's speech or expression. Maybe we need to jerk some FCC officials off their thrones and toss them in a nice cold AIDS-infested prison cell.

:rolleyes: WRONG! the LAW says government CAN AND DOES regulate speech all the time... and this is not even getting into "campaign finance reform" POLITICAL SPEECH

In case you didn't notice, murderers don't come with a knob that allows you to "not be murderered." Please argue your point though. I'd like to know why you think YOU should have freedom to speak when you, evidently, do NOT believe Howard has that same right.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

:rolleyes: I never said howard didn't have the right to speak, I said that howard doesn't have the right to make clear channel broadcast him.

Mia · Feb 28, 2004, 02:37 am

Sorry, the majority of Americans want TV and radio censured from indecency and do not consider this an abridgement of free speech. free Speech does not mean anything anytime anywhere. We don't want our children turning it on and listening to it/watching it. Cable TV and porn magazines and X rated movies that adults have access to say and do what they want in their own place.

Kyran · Feb 28, 2004, 03:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
1) Please go ahead and prove it instead of ranting some more (it looks like you didn't take the chill-pill reccomendation) and the FCC has always regulated "decency". This is not new nor opposed by most.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Okay, Mia, here you go:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-243249A1.html

In this article, the FCC fined a company. You agree that the FCC has "always regulated decency" so this is not in dispute. There wasn't a need for me to prove anything. You just wanted to be a smartass.

Your view of free speech excludes Speech that is judged by un-elected officials to be "indecent." Vulgarity was not invented in the 20th century. I am of the opinion that the founding fathers would have excluded Indecent Speech if that was what they wanted. Do you have a source of information that suggests otherwise?

Also, if you justify the actions of the FCC to censor broadcasting stations, do you support censoring individuals, media, and this forum? And why?

I never said this was new or who supported it. That's not the issue. It is neither right for One person to control the speech of a man on his (the 2nd person's) property nor for a Million people to do the same.

Under Ronald Reagan, a portion of FCC regulations (The Fairness Doctrine) were overturned that allowed for the uprising of Talk Radio. Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz both celebrated the anniversary of the event some time ago. Both have argued against the FCC action concerning Howard. Both use their free speech.

Start talking. If you've got an opposing position then let's hear it.

Mia · Feb 28, 2004, 03:26 am

I believe I already stated it. Let's talk about your need for aggression against everyone who disagrees with you on anything. Calm down, seriously.

Mia · Feb 28, 2004, 03:33 am

As to your proof. I misunderstood your original statement. I thought you said that the FCC forced Clear Channell to drop Howard Stern.

Kyran · Feb 29, 2004, 09:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
:rolleyes: show me you "right" to yell fire in a crowded theatre... show me your "right" broadcast obscene speech... that "right" DOES NOT EXIST<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Howard Stern yells and curses on his show; which you can turn on and off. Bad comparison and straw man attempt. I never said anyone had the "right" to yell fire. However, I'm going to take your straw man and use it anyway. That way, you'll have some resemblance of an advantage in this argument.

So what if someone yells fire? I'd yell back at him "get the fire extinguisher you pansy and STFU we're watching a movie." What would you do? Run screaming outside to the police? It takes a MAN to do that doesn't it?

I remember when I went to Beavis and Butthead Do America. People were screaming FIRE several times during the movie without incident, and no one wanted anyone arrested.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH includes all speech, unless you can prove that certain types of speech are exempted by the Constitution. Freedom of Religion still covers Satanism. Freedom of the Press still covers The Enquirer and Star. The Right to Bear Arms still covers guns.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
:rolleyes: EXACTLY... it is ILLEGAL to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded building when there is no fire... it comes from the same part of the constitution that gave the government the authority to over tax the citizens... it is called the legislature...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Huhuhuhuhuhuhuhu. Fire! Fire!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
WRONG! the LAW says government CAN AND DOES regulate speech all the time... and this is not even getting into "campaign finance reform" POLITICAL SPEECH<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The government can disarm the citizenry if it decides to. That doesn't make it constitutional. The FCC can censor the airwaves. That doesn't make it constitutional either.

You tell me why people at a Beavis and Butthead movie should be imprisoned for saying the word Fire, and back it up with constitutional authority, and I will agree with you. Otherwise, accept this loophole as the imperfection that it is.

Let's get into CFR political speech control then. I've already wrecked your argument for "indecent" speech control; you better not be pro-CFR.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
:rolleyes: I never said howard didn't have the right to speak, I said that howard doesn't have the right to make clear channel broadcast him.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Keep dodging the issue. You ALSO said that the government CAN censor the airwaves; which I correctly interpret as "Can and Should."

The FCC is the one putting the RULES on Clear Channel. Forget what the actual customers of Clear Channel wanna hear, you're going to TELL them what they can hear. If you want to control the airwaves then get your own station! You go sell your censored speech in the free market and make a fortune. Just don't tell others what THEY can and cannot broadcast.

If you think government has a right to censor "indecent" speech, then liberals will think government has a right to censor "hate" speech. We'll have the fairness doctrine back in a few years and Talk Radio will disappear into 20th century history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Sorry, the majority of Americans want TV and radio censured from indecency and do not consider this an abridgement of free speech. free Speech does not mean anything anytime anywhere. We don't want our children turning it on and listening to it/watching it. Cable TV and porn magazines and X rated movies that adults have access to say and do what they want in their own place.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The majority of Americans want the government to give them social programs too. You aren't suggesting that the number of people backing something justifies it are you? I hope not, because that's illogical.

If you don't want your children turning on a radio station then control your children yourself. I don't want my children being influenced by the catholic church. Should I get the government to create an agency ensuring that churches do not say anything that my children might hear in public? No I shouldn't.

You can think it's apples and oranges, but it aint. I'll prove it.

1. A preacher talks to his congregation and is not regulated. The Bible has profanity in it, and this profanity is used by preachers whenever the scripture is being taught. Nobody is forced to belong to or listen to any specific church or televangelist.

2. A talk radio show host talks to his listeners and IS regulated. Stern's show script has profanity in it. Nobody is forced to listen to Howard's show.

Anyone can go listen to either speaker, yet it's taboo to regulate the speech of a religious preacher? I do not think anyone here intended for religious people to have more rights than others. Am I wrong?

Btw, Mia, if you don't want me to be rude then don't be rude with me. Telling people they need Xanex, a chill-pill, and to calm down when they're having a good time isn't very tactful. If you had an argument you wouldn't need imperative accusations or straw men. I enjoy these discussions even if I lose (which, to date, I have not even once.)

Mia · Feb 29, 2004, 11:22 pm

Just because you keep blustering and people lose interest in responding to you doesn't mean you've won an argument.

Impenitent · Mar 1, 2004, 02:48 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
show me you "right" to yell fire in a crowded theatre... show me your "right" broadcast obscene speech... that "right" DOES NOT EXIST<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Howard Stern yells and curses on his show; which you can turn on and off. Bad comparison and straw man attempt. I never said anyone had the "right" to yell fire.

:rolleyes: yes you did... you said the government could not interfere with speech... this speech is plainly illegal...

However, I'm going to take your straw man and use it anyway. That way, you'll have some resemblance of an advantage in this argument.

:rolleyes: it is not a strawman, it is a relevant counterexample to your universal statement that "It has no authority to punish or reward anyone for expressing themselves."

So what if someone yells fire? I'd yell back at him "get the fire extinguisher you pansy and STFU we're watching a movie."

**** no, you and everyone else in the theater would run screaming to the exit... that's why it's illegal...

FREEDOM OF SPEECH includes all speech, unless you can prove that certain types of speech are exempted by the Constitution. Freedom of Religion still covers Satanism. Freedom of the Press still covers The Enquirer and Star. The Right to Bear Arms still covers guns.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
EXACTLY... it is ILLEGAL to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded building when there is no fire... it comes from the same part of the constitution that gave the government the authority to over tax the citizens... it is called the legislature...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Huhuhuhuhuhuhuhu. Fire! Fire!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
WRONG! the LAW says government CAN AND DOES regulate speech all the time... and this is not even getting into "campaign finance reform" POLITICAL SPEECH<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The government can disarm the citizenry if it decides to. That doesn't make it constitutional. The FCC can censor the airwaves. That doesn't make it constitutional either.

:rolleyes: yes it does...

You tell me why people at a Beavis and Butthead movie should be imprisoned for saying the word Fire, and back it up with constitutional authority, and I will agree with you. Otherwise, accept this loophole as the imperfection that it is.

* if the people at the beavis movie know that the "fire" is false it doesn't apply... every been to rocky horror? same thing applies... but yell "fire" in a movie where no one is expecting it and you break the law...

Let's get into CFR political speech control then. I've already wrecked your argument for "indecent" speech control;

** you've done no such thing... decency has not even been addressed

you better not be pro-CFR.

** or what?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
:rolleyes: I never said howard didn't have the right to speak, I said that howard doesn't have the right to make clear channel broadcast him.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Keep dodging the issue. You ALSO said that the government CAN censor the airwaves;

** which they DO

which I correctly interpret as "Can and Should."

*** no that is ignorance on your part... all I said is they can and they do, should has nothing to do with it... in the case of false incitement to dangerous positions, ie "FIRE" then yes, the government should and DOES watch that

The FCC is the one putting the RULES on Clear Channel.

*** as on ALL stations

Forget what the actual customers of Clear Channel wanna hear, you're going to TELL them what they can hear.

*** no, I am not, the OWNERS of clear station decided

If you want to control the airwaves then get your own station! You go sell your censored speech in the free market and make a fortune. Just don't tell others what THEY can and cannot broadcast.

:rolleyes: I never did... READ what you quoted me saying!

If you think government has a right to censor "indecent" speech,

*** on the public airwaves it does

then liberals will think government has a right to censor "hate" speech.

*** they already think they have the right, why do you think they call it "hate" speech...

We'll have the fairness doctrine back in a few years and Talk Radio will disappear into 20th century history.

*** fairness doctrine? no, the fairness doctrine isn't about "fairness"
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

mlingley · Mar 1, 2004, 03:21 am

The FCC has really been cracking down lately.. ever since that stupid nipple shot of Janet Jackson.

This week Federal Communications Commissioner Kevin Martin said they are looking to see if such stations have to follow "indecency" standards.

Just what we need more government regulation and censorship.

If you don't like what's on the radio or tv TURN THE CHANNEL. If your SO worried about your kids become a parent. It's your responsibility to protect your children, not the governments. I suggest that if you are so scared of exposing your kids to sex and violence and dirty language stop sending them to public schools, because kids do talk.

Mia · Mar 1, 2004, 05:37 am

Kyran, you acted as if what the majority of Americans have said is irrelevant, what a government agency says is irrelevant, and the Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution is irrelevant.

So we are supposed to take your reading of things over all of this? OK, that makes sense.

Free Speech is like any other freedom - it ends where impinging on someone ele's freedom occurs.

This is always difficult to balance. Everyone is doing the best they can. There are a lot bigger things to worry about than whether we have to let Howard Stern say and do everything he wants on the air.

If programmers had their way, there would be nothing but filth on the radio and TV. The 18-34 year old market is who they are after mostly and we, for the most part, don't care and want to see it! So in your world the people who want to watch something decent have to get the cable?

Now this one is just pure opinion. I don't think we can either one say we are right or wrong. But why is this not a case for the majority to win?

That's the only way for democracy to work that I know of - majority rule until it hurts a minority and no one is suffering from Howard Stern not being on clear Channel! You can still find him and listen all you want.

Kyran · Mar 1, 2004, 10:20 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Just because you keep blustering and people lose interest in responding to you doesn't mean you've won an argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Funny, you responded. You just don't want to respond to any of the points I bring up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
yes you did... you said the government could not interfere with speech... this speech is plainly illegal...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Imp, good job. You win 1 brownie point! I agree that you did not make a straw man. See? I can be beaten if you know how...or am I setting you up...?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
no, you and everyone else in the theater would run screaming to the exit... that's why it's illegal...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

LOL. Don't tell me what I'd do. I'll tell YOU what I'll do. Understand? I'm not a sissy. Don't compare me to YOU or others.

Furthermore, when I said I correctly interpreted "Can and Should" you agreed on the fire point, and on the indecency point; yet you still said I was ignorant. I'm curious as to what I'm so ignorant about now. I got you on the money with that call and now you don't wanna admit it?

Sorry bub, but true criminal and civil law require a damaged victim. The way you disagree, yet acknowledge liberals & their "hate" speech, suggest that you are a republican of the neo-conservative type.

I request that you respond to the point I made in my last post:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
1. A preacher talks to his congregation and is not regulated. The Bible has profanity in it, and this profanity is used by preachers whenever the scripture is being taught. Nobody is forced to belong to or listen to any specific church or televangelist.

2. A talk radio show host talks to his listeners and IS regulated. Stern's show script has profanity in it. Nobody is forced to listen to Howard's show.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Here's a trick question.

Does a radio televangelist have any more rights than other radio talk show hosts and why?

Wrong answer:
--Yes. The FCC discriminates against non-religious broadcasting.

Right answer:
--No. The FCC stops preachers from using indecent language.

Dumb answer:
--No. Preachers don't use indecent language.

No matter what your answer is, your position defeats you. I'm jumping ahead, I know, but maybe you can surprise me.

How's this?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Solomon,)
Proverbs 5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If you're willing to say the bible is indecent then you'll maintain your position in the argument, but the christian right isn't gonna like it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mlingley,)
If you don't like what's on the radio or tv TURN THE CHANNEL. If your SO worried about your kids become a parent. It's your responsibility to protect your children, not the governments. I suggest that if you are so scared of exposing your kids to sex and violence and dirty language stop sending them to public schools, because kids do talk.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

I hereby award you with 15 conage points.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Kyran, you acted as if what the majority of Americans have said is irrelevant, what a government agency says is irrelevant, and the Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution is irrelevant.

So we are supposed to take your reading of things over all of this? OK, that makes sense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No Mia. I'm not acting. The majority IS irrelevant. No number of people or people with official hats grants any justification to the regulation of broadcast entertainment and media. You are presenting your position in a way that relies on everything outside the constitution; where our Rights are spelled out.

Don't act so surprised either. I'm not the only American who thinks this way. Every single Libertarian, Conservative, Fusionist, and Radical agrees with me.

I could say "if everyone demanded a law saying to sacrifice their first child to the demigod Kthulu, would the constitution manage to rearrange itself magically to suggest such?" to demonstrate the abuse of Mob Rule. Salem Witch Trials are a better example. Number of people is always irrelevant.

People already have control over the content of the airwaves by the dial in front of them. They do not need government control. I remember Howard making a statement years ago that a large number of his listeners were people who absolutely hated what he'd say. These people can't control themselves enough to change the dial.

The founding fathers were no stranger to profanity or "indecent speech." Any claim for regulating any speech has to be backed up with a clear constitutional exemption from this Amendment.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
If programmers had their way, there would be nothing but filth on the radio and TV<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Don't jump to conclusions. If everyone spreads filth, then it would be common, and clean broadcasting would be in demand. Someone would make a killing that way. Of course, we would be able to see how many people actually value each; and advertisers would have an advantage.

Do you think EIB Network's executives are going to put filth on the same lineup with Rush Limbaugh?

I strongly suggest you see things my way. Imp openly agreed that liberals want to get "hate" speech illegalized, but he won't accept the notion that government should not regulate ANY speech. He's got his own prerogative of what regulations people should have, just like you. My way is you can say what you want; without the required approval of another person, or persons, or persons sitting in government jobs.

I hope you two aren't really republicans. If you are and still disagree with Rush himself on this issue it tells alot about your loyalty.

Impenitent · Mar 1, 2004, 01:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
yes you did... you said the government could not interfere with speech... this speech is plainly illegal...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Imp, good job. You win 1 brownie point! I agree that you did not make a straw man. See? I can be beaten if you know how...or am I setting you up...?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
no, you and everyone else in the theater would run screaming to the exit... that's why it's illegal...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

LOL. Don't tell me what I'd do. I'll tell YOU what I'll do. Understand? I'm not a sissy. Don't compare me to YOU or others.

**** right, stand and burn... you need to understand group psychology

Furthermore, when I said I correctly interpreted "Can and Should" you agreed on the fire point, and on the indecency point; yet you still said I was ignorant. I'm curious as to what I'm so ignorant about now. I got you on the money with that call and now you don't wanna admit it?

:rolleyes: no, you didn't get anything... should is for moralizers and I am anything but a moralizer

Sorry bub, but true criminal and civil law require a damaged victim. The way you disagree, yet acknowledge liberals & their "hate" speech, suggest that you are a republican of the neo-conservative type.

:rolleyes: that is your error... I am republican for fiscal reasons... I am not even close to being conservative

I request that you respond to the point I made in my last post:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
1. A preacher talks to his congregation and is not regulated. The Bible has profanity in it, and this profanity is used by preachers whenever the scripture is being taught. Nobody is forced to belong to or listen to any specific church or televangelist.

2. A talk radio show host talks to his listeners and IS regulated. Stern's show script has profanity in it. Nobody is forced to listen to Howard's show.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Here's a trick question.

Does a radio televangelist have any more rights than other radio talk show hosts and why?

Wrong answer:
--Yes. The FCC discriminates against non-religious broadcasting.

*** yes, Right answer:
--No. The FCC stops preachers from using indecent language.

Dumb answer:
--No. Preachers don't use indecent language.

No matter what your answer is, your position defeats you. I'm jumping ahead, I know, but maybe you can surprise me.

:rolleyes: have you stopped beating your wife?

How's this?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Solomon,)
Proverbs 5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If you're willing to say the bible is indecent then you'll maintain your position in the argument, but the christian right isn't gonna like it.

:rolleyes: yes, the bible is indecent and I don't give a flip about the christian right... you make stupid assumptions

Do you think EIB Network's executives are going to put filth on the same lineup with Rush Limbaugh?

I strongly suggest you see things my way. Imp openly agreed that liberals want to get "hate" speech illegalized, but he won't accept the notion that government should not regulate ANY speech.

:rolleyes: the notion that they SHOULD not regulate is defeated with speech that endangers others... yelling "fire" should be illegal... raising false alarms is illegal... can you pick up the phone, dial 911 and scream "the house is burning! or there is a armed robbery in progress!" why NOT? it is FREE SPEECH ISN'T IT?!?

He's got his own prerogative of what regulations people should have, just like you. My way is you can say what you want; without the required approval of another person, or persons, or persons sitting in government jobs.

I hope you two aren't really republicans. If you are and still disagree with Rush himself on this issue it tells alot about your loyalty.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Paavo · Mar 2, 2004, 11:19 am

OT:

Impenitent, could you make more clear what parts are quotes and what's new stuff from you in your replies? Don't know about others, but I'm having a really hard time sometimes to see what's what.

Mia · Mar 2, 2004, 05:43 pm

Kyran,

The majority being irrelevant is your opinion, one I don't care about. Your example of the Salem witch trials is yet another instance of your poor logic - majority rules until it is HARMING the minority. The witch trials clearly HARMED people. Regulating the airwaves doesn't harm anyone except for egotists like you who feel harmed everytime they don't get their way.

How is "breasts" indecent? I don't know if you've noticed, but quite a lot is allowed on TV and radio. You can say breasts, you can practically show them.

You and I cannot properly argue this particular topic because it's wrapped inside a bigger one we come from different places on. Whether the government should regulate anything.

You can disagree all you want but the "irrelevant majority" is whipping your ass on it - no need for me to prove anything ;-)

Kyran · Mar 3, 2004, 07:09 pm

The point of debate is to prove who is right and who is wrong, not so we can say "Tee hee, we're in power, so who cares?"

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
majority rules until it is harming the minority<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Draw a clear and concise line of what you will consider acceptable harm of the minority, and describe the event where the line is crossed. Furthermore, come up with a universal definition of Harm; one that you do not solely operate as interpreter of.

Your debate tactic is an old dirty trick I like to call the Hijacked Standard. It's where a person "supports" a general rule, excludes specific things from it, and then tries to use it to support their argument. The reason people do this is because the Standard itself opposes their point of view. The inverse form of this is the Appended Standard; where one creates a new rule that includes something the original did not.

Your hijacked standard on free speech is just as valid as the gays appended standard on marriage.

I can use the standard (majority rules until it is harming the minority) to describe how free speech, gun-ownership, and freedom of religion are being infringed upon. My standard has a clear line: 0 laws and regulations. I don't have to redefine Free Speech to include "indecent speech" because it's unnecessary.

Suppose I said "murdering people is wrong." Then I claim that black people aren't people; does this support the argument? No. Why? Because the rule itself does not exclude "black" people. If the rule said "murdering people, not including blacks, is wrong" then my argument would make logical sense.

So don't counter-argue that I must prove how "free speech" includes "indecent speech" under the protection of the constitution. The amendment explicitly says Freedom of Speech, meaning all speech, with absolutely no exclusions.

If you can logically prove that freedom of speech excludes indecent speech, then you will win this argument and I will agree with you. I asked you to do this before, and all you came up with was everything but the constitution itself. What's worse is you brag about all that irrelevant crap, then call ME egotistical. It doesn't work.

Nice personal attack, btw. It's easier to call your opponent some kind of anarchist than to match him intelligently.

------------------------------------------------------------

Imp, don't expect me to respond sooner to your childish outbursts. There are intelligent people I could be arguing with. Learn how to use the board code to do more than making :rollseyes: faces over and over.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
have you stopped beating your wife yet<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Look, I know it hurts to be wrong, but this crap you spew isn't getting you anywhere. Grow up.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
yes, the bible is indecent and I don't give a flip about the christian right... you make stupid assumptions<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I didn't say you DID give a flip about it. You assumed that. I'm just drawing conclusions.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
the notion that they SHOULD not regulate is defeated with speech that endangers others... yelling "fire" should be illegal... raising false alarms is illegal... can you pick up the phone, dial 911 and scream "the house is burning! or there is a armed robbery in progress!" why NOT? it is FREE SPEECH ISN'T IT?!?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Free Speech does not give anyone the right to make false 911 reports any more than it gives telemarketers the right to wake people at 2am who are on the Do Not Call list. If people are wasting the time and energy of our law enforcement, they need to compensate for that. Does there need to be a law against 911 prank callers? No. It's a civil court matter not a criminal court matter. Gee imagine that, the system still works without all those funny rules.

Can a theatre owner sue somebody for starting a panic inside his place of business? Yup! He can make that idiot pay for everything that was broken by the people who ran off. Do we need to prohibit an act that is already punishable by law? No. Maybe you disagree; maybe justice just isn't good enough for you.

Next?

Mia · Mar 3, 2004, 07:16 pm

Apparently you can't read. I'll give you another chance to try. It is pointless to argue this point about free speech as it is predicated on whether it's acceptable to regulate anything. We'd need to argue that first, which I do not care to.

You seem to think that absolutely everything can be proven "right" or "wrong" and coincidently you happen to be right on everything.

Some things are a matter of opinion. We differ on our opinions on this issue (whether regulation is desirable).

I respect your opinion that it is not. My opinion is that it is.

Impenitent · Mar 4, 2004, 02:36 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)

------------------------------------------------------------

Imp, don't expect me to respond sooner to your childish outbursts.

***nice ad hominem

There are intelligent people I could be arguing with. Learn how to use the board code to do more than making :rollseyes: faces over and over.

"No matter what your answer is, your position defeats you. I'm jumping ahead, I know, but maybe you can surprise me."

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
have you stopped beating your wife yet<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Look, I know it hurts to be wrong, but this crap you spew isn't getting you anywhere. Grow up.

*** another nice ad hominem, but you asked the stupid question to begin with...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
yes, the bible is indecent and I don't give a flip about the christian right... you make stupid assumptions<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I didn't say you DID give a flip about it. You assumed that. I'm just drawing conclusions.

*** yes you did say I did... "Furthermore, when I said I correctly interpreted "Can and Should" you agreed on the fire point, and on the indecency point; yet you still said I was ignorant. I'm curious as to what I'm so ignorant about now. I got you on the money with that call and now you don't wanna admit it?"

you "drew" the wrong conclusion which was your stupid assumption

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
the notion that they SHOULD not regulate is defeated with speech that endangers others... yelling "fire" should be illegal... raising false alarms is illegal... can you pick up the phone, dial 911 and scream "the house is burning! or there is a armed robbery in progress!" why NOT? it is FREE SPEECH ISN'T IT?!?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Free Speech does not give anyone the right to make false 911 reports any more than it gives telemarketers the right to wake people at 2am who are on the Do Not Call list.

:rolleyes: "FREEDOM OF SPEECH includes all speech, unless you can prove that certain types of speech are exempted by the Constitution."

If people are wasting the time and energy of our law enforcement, they need to compensate for that. Does there need to be a law against 911 prank callers? No.

good... your house is burning to the ground and you call 911 for the fire department... but no, the fire department is responding to a CRANK CALL and your house burns down completely and you can't do a thing about it... and the free speaker who helped your house burn gets no reprocussions

It's a civil court matter not a criminal court matter. Gee imagine that, the system still works without all those funny rules.

*** yep, works great, your house burns down and the guy who distracted the fire department walks

:rolleyes: YOU said the government CANNOT REGULATE SPEECH... NO LAWS AGAINST SPEECH... THESE ARE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AGAINST SPEECH

Can a theatre owner sue somebody for starting a panic inside his place of business? Yup! He can make that idiot pay for everything that was broken by the people who ran off. Do we need to prohibit an act that is already punishable by law?

:rolleyes: punishable by law? starting a panic by FREELY SPEAKING?!?

No. Maybe you disagree; maybe justice just isn't good enough for you.

Next?

:rolleyes: you are refuted.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mia · Mar 4, 2004, 03:01 am

refuted.

Poetic_Justice · Mar 4, 2004, 03:24 am

he said government cannot regulate speech, that doesn't mean private enterprises cannot, or that laws cannot be implaced... impenitent you have attacked a straw man, your refutation is invalid.

Feb 28, 2004, 02:14 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) Are people really saying that Free Speech means anything can be said or shown anywhere? Pornography and the filthiest words anywhere? That's what's at issue here - not political views or something.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Mia, Freedom of Speech means government cannot regulate the speech of anybody. Not on radio, TV, in public, or through some medium such as one's employer. Any expression that does not infringe on the rights of others is okay with me. Well almost; I don't want to see anyone naked in public, unless I'm at the beach. If a girl's top comes off at the beach on accident, then I am perfectly okay with it. If it wasn't an accident and I had a daughter then I would be assertive with her; and probably take her to a less "wild" environment. I don't want to regulate the porn industry into the black market either. God knows what it has done for the drug trade. Burning the flag, wearing KKK uniforms, and other such dissentive expression are abhorrent; but I see no point in prohibiting these things. It makes hateful people hide their hate. I think such elements of society should be well-known not hidden. However, I will argue against you that words are filthy. Words are neutral man-made components of communication. It is the people behind the words who can be filthy. They make filthy ideas and pass them along this way. Also understand that I am not suggesting "anywhere" is free speech applicable. Private businesses, forums, organizations, religions, what have you...all have the right to regulate speech and behavior to the benefit or detriment of their institutions. That way people can't get banned from forums and go get the government to force administrators to "unban" them. I hope that clears it up. Offer suggestions on the Beach thing if you have any. It really doesn't fit into my own philosophy =).

Feb 28, 2004, 02:24 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Imp, you picked the wrong argument today. Your analogy is a complete malfunction of logic. Free speech is a Right. The government has absolutely no jurisdiction over the content of airwaves, media, or any other form of broadcast. It has no authority to punish or reward anyone for expressing themselves. :rolleyes: show me you "right" to yell fire in a crowded theatre... show me your "right" broadcast obscene speech... that "right" DOES NOT EXIST You compare talk to murder? Please, argue with me. I dare you. :rolleyes: I was comparing free actions regulated by law with other free actions regulated by law... It's the LAW to not say certain things? What part of the constitution gave government the authority to do that? Is this what George Washington fought for? :rolleyes: EXACTLY... it is ILLEGAL to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded building when there is no fire... it comes from the same part of the constitution that gave the government the authority to over tax the citizens... it is called the legislature... "Don't worry men, one day our children will be able to control Howard Stern." Don't make me laugh. The LAW says government cannot regulate anyone's speech or expression. Maybe we need to jerk some FCC officials off their thrones and toss them in a nice cold AIDS-infested prison cell. :rolleyes: WRONG! the LAW says government CAN AND DOES regulate speech all the time... and this is not even getting into "campaign finance reform" POLITICAL SPEECH In case you didn't notice, murderers don't come with a knob that allows you to "not be murderered." Please argue your point though. I'd like to know why you think YOU should have freedom to speak when you, evidently, do NOT believe Howard has that same right.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> :rolleyes: I never said howard didn't have the right to speak, I said that howard doesn't have the right to make clear channel broadcast him. "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 28, 2004, 02:37 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Sorry, the majority of Americans want TV and radio censured from indecency and do not consider this an abridgement of free speech. free Speech does not mean anything anytime anywhere. We don't want our children turning it on and listening to it/watching it. Cable TV and porn magazines and X rated movies that adults have access to say and do what they want in their own place. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 28, 2004, 03:19 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) 1) Please go ahead and prove it instead of ranting some more (it looks like you didn't take the chill-pill reccomendation) and the FCC has always regulated "decency". This is not new nor opposed by most.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Okay, Mia, here you go: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-243249A1.html In this article, the FCC fined a company. You agree that the FCC has "always regulated decency" so this is not in dispute. There wasn't a need for me to prove anything. You just wanted to be a smartass. Your view of free speech excludes Speech that is judged by un-elected officials to be "indecent." Vulgarity was not invented in the 20th century. I am of the opinion that the founding fathers would have excluded Indecent Speech if that was what they wanted. Do you have a source of information that suggests otherwise? Also, if you justify the actions of the FCC to censor broadcasting stations, do you support censoring individuals, media, and this forum? And why? I never said this was new or who supported it. That's not the issue. It is neither right for One person to control the speech of a man on his (the 2nd person's) property nor for a Million people to do the same. Under Ronald Reagan, a portion of FCC regulations (The Fairness Doctrine) were overturned that allowed for the uprising of Talk Radio. Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz both celebrated the anniversary of the event some time ago. Both have argued against the FCC action concerning Howard. Both use their free speech. Start talking. If you've got an opposing position then let's hear it.

Feb 28, 2004, 03:26 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	I believe I already stated it. Let's talk about your need for aggression against everyone who disagrees with you on anything. Calm down, seriously. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 28, 2004, 03:33 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	As to your proof. I misunderstood your original statement. I thought you said that the FCC forced Clear Channell to drop Howard Stern. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 29, 2004, 09:37 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) :rolleyes: show me you "right" to yell fire in a crowded theatre... show me your "right" broadcast obscene speech... that "right" DOES NOT EXIST<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Howard Stern yells and curses on his show; which you can turn on and off. Bad comparison and straw man attempt. I never said anyone had the "right" to yell fire. However, I'm going to take your straw man and use it anyway. That way, you'll have some resemblance of an advantage in this argument. So what if someone yells fire? I'd yell back at him "get the fire extinguisher you pansy and STFU we're watching a movie." What would you do? Run screaming outside to the police? It takes a MAN to do that doesn't it? I remember when I went to Beavis and Butthead Do America. People were screaming FIRE several times during the movie without incident, and no one wanted anyone arrested. FREEDOM OF SPEECH includes all speech, unless you can prove that certain types of speech are exempted by the Constitution. Freedom of Religion still covers Satanism. Freedom of the Press still covers The Enquirer and Star. The Right to Bear Arms still covers guns. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) :rolleyes: EXACTLY... it is ILLEGAL to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded building when there is no fire... it comes from the same part of the constitution that gave the government the authority to over tax the citizens... it is called the legislature...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Huhuhuhuhuhuhuhu. Fire! Fire! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) WRONG! the LAW says government CAN AND DOES regulate speech all the time... and this is not even getting into "campaign finance reform" POLITICAL SPEECH<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The government can disarm the citizenry if it decides to. That doesn't make it constitutional. The FCC can censor the airwaves. That doesn't make it constitutional either. You tell me why people at a Beavis and Butthead movie should be imprisoned for saying the word Fire, and back it up with constitutional authority, and I will agree with you. Otherwise, accept this loophole as the imperfection that it is. Let's get into CFR political speech control then. I've already wrecked your argument for "indecent" speech control; you better not be pro-CFR. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) :rolleyes: I never said howard didn't have the right to speak, I said that howard doesn't have the right to make clear channel broadcast him.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Keep dodging the issue. You ALSO said that the government CAN censor the airwaves; which I correctly interpret as "Can and Should." The FCC is the one putting the RULES on Clear Channel. Forget what the actual customers of Clear Channel wanna hear, you're going to TELL them what they can hear. If you want to control the airwaves then get your own station! You go sell your censored speech in the free market and make a fortune. Just don't tell others what THEY can and cannot broadcast. If you think government has a right to censor "indecent" speech, then liberals will think government has a right to censor "hate" speech. We'll have the fairness doctrine back in a few years and Talk Radio will disappear into 20th century history. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) Sorry, the majority of Americans want TV and radio censured from indecency and do not consider this an abridgement of free speech. free Speech does not mean anything anytime anywhere. We don't want our children turning it on and listening to it/watching it. Cable TV and porn magazines and X rated movies that adults have access to say and do what they want in their own place.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The majority of Americans want the government to give them social programs too. You aren't suggesting that the number of people backing something justifies it are you? I hope not, because that's illogical. If you don't want your children turning on a radio station then control your children yourself. I don't want my children being influenced by the catholic church. Should I get the government to create an agency ensuring that churches do not say anything that my children might hear in public? No I shouldn't. You can think it's apples and oranges, but it aint. I'll prove it. 1. A preacher talks to his congregation and is not regulated. The Bible has profanity in it, and this profanity is used by preachers whenever the scripture is being taught. Nobody is forced to belong to or listen to any specific church or televangelist. 2. A talk radio show host talks to his listeners and IS regulated. Stern's show script has profanity in it. Nobody is forced to listen to Howard's show. Anyone can go listen to either speaker, yet it's taboo to regulate the speech of a religious preacher? I do not think anyone here intended for religious people to have more rights than others. Am I wrong? Btw, Mia, if you don't want me to be rude then don't be rude with me. Telling people they need Xanex, a chill-pill, and to calm down when they're having a good time isn't very tactful. If you had an argument you wouldn't need imperative accusations or straw men. I enjoy these discussions even if I lose (which, to date, I have not even once.)

Feb 29, 2004, 11:22 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Just because you keep blustering and people lose interest in responding to you doesn't mean you've won an argument. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 1, 2004, 02:48 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) show me you "right" to yell fire in a crowded theatre... show me your "right" broadcast obscene speech... that "right" DOES NOT EXIST<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Howard Stern yells and curses on his show; which you can turn on and off. Bad comparison and straw man attempt. I never said anyone had the "right" to yell fire. :rolleyes: yes you did... you said the government could not interfere with speech... this speech is plainly illegal... However, I'm going to take your straw man and use it anyway. That way, you'll have some resemblance of an advantage in this argument. :rolleyes: it is not a strawman, it is a relevant counterexample to your universal statement that "It has no authority to punish or reward anyone for expressing themselves." So what if someone yells fire? I'd yell back at him "get the fire extinguisher you pansy and STFU we're watching a movie." ** no, you and everyone else in the theater would run screaming to the exit... that's why it's illegal... FREEDOM OF SPEECH includes all speech, unless you can prove that certain types of speech are exempted by the Constitution. Freedom of Religion still covers Satanism. Freedom of the Press still covers The Enquirer and Star. The Right to Bear Arms still covers guns. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) EXACTLY... it is ILLEGAL to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded building when there is no fire... it comes from the same part of the constitution that gave the government the authority to over tax the citizens... it is called the legislature...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Huhuhuhuhuhuhuhu. Fire! Fire! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)** WRONG! the LAW says government CAN AND DOES regulate speech all the time... and this is not even getting into "campaign finance reform" POLITICAL SPEECH<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The government can disarm the citizenry if it decides to. That doesn't make it constitutional. The FCC can censor the airwaves. That doesn't make it constitutional either. :rolleyes: yes it does... You tell me why people at a Beavis and Butthead movie should be imprisoned for saying the word Fire, and back it up with constitutional authority, and I will agree with you. Otherwise, accept this loophole as the imperfection that it is. * if the people at the beavis movie know that the "fire" is false it doesn't apply... every been to rocky horror? same thing applies... but yell "fire" in a movie where no one is expecting it and you break the law... Let's get into CFR political speech control then. I've already wrecked your argument for "indecent" speech control; you've done no such thing... decency has not even been addressed you better not be pro-CFR. or what? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) :rolleyes: I never said howard didn't have the right to speak, I said that howard doesn't have the right to make clear channel broadcast him.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Keep dodging the issue. You ALSO said that the government CAN censor the airwaves; which they DO which I correctly interpret as "Can and Should." * no that is ignorance on your part... all I said is they can and they do, should has nothing to do with it... in the case of false incitement to dangerous positions, ie "FIRE" then yes, the government should and DOES watch that The FCC is the one putting the RULES on Clear Channel. * as on ALL stations Forget what the actual customers of Clear Channel wanna hear, you're going to TELL them what they can hear. * no, I am not, the OWNERS of clear station decided If you want to control the airwaves then get your own station! You go sell your censored speech in the free market and make a fortune. Just don't tell others what THEY can and cannot broadcast. :rolleyes: I never did... READ what you quoted me saying! If you think government has a right to censor "indecent" speech, * on the public airwaves it does then liberals will think government has a right to censor "hate" speech. * they already think they have the right, why do you think they call it "hate" speech... We'll have the fairness doctrine back in a few years and Talk Radio will disappear into 20th century history. *** fairness doctrine? no, the fairness doctrine isn't about "fairness" <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 1, 2004, 03:21 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
mlingley Molten Ash Posts: 120	The FCC has really been cracking down lately.. ever since that stupid nipple shot of Janet Jackson. This week Federal Communications Commissioner Kevin Martin said they are looking to see if such stations have to follow "indecency" standards. Just what we need more government regulation and censorship. If you don't like what's on the radio or tv TURN THE CHANNEL. If your SO worried about your kids become a parent. It's your responsibility to protect your children, not the governments. I suggest that if you are so scared of exposing your kids to sex and violence and dirty language stop sending them to public schools, because kids do talk.

Mar 1, 2004, 05:37 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Kyran, you acted as if what the majority of Americans have said is irrelevant, what a government agency says is irrelevant, and the Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution is irrelevant. So we are supposed to take your reading of things over all of this? OK, that makes sense. Free Speech is like any other freedom - it ends where impinging on someone ele's freedom occurs. This is always difficult to balance. Everyone is doing the best they can. There are a lot bigger things to worry about than whether we have to let Howard Stern say and do everything he wants on the air. If programmers had their way, there would be nothing but filth on the radio and TV. The 18-34 year old market is who they are after mostly and we, for the most part, don't care and want to see it! So in your world the people who want to watch something decent have to get the cable? Now this one is just pure opinion. I don't think we can either one say we are right or wrong. But why is this not a case for the majority to win? That's the only way for democracy to work that I know of - majority rule until it hurts a minority and no one is suffering from Howard Stern not being on clear Channel! You can still find him and listen all you want. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 1, 2004, 10:20 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) Just because you keep blustering and people lose interest in responding to you doesn't mean you've won an argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Funny, you responded. You just don't want to respond to any of the points I bring up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) yes you did... you said the government could not interfere with speech... this speech is plainly illegal...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Imp, good job. You win 1 brownie point! I agree that you did not make a straw man. See? I can be beaten if you know how...or am I setting you up...? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) no, you and everyone else in the theater would run screaming to the exit... that's why it's illegal...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> LOL. Don't tell me what I'd do. I'll tell YOU what I'll do. Understand? I'm not a sissy. Don't compare me to YOU or others. Furthermore, when I said I correctly interpreted "Can and Should" you agreed on the fire point, and on the indecency point; yet you still said I was ignorant. I'm curious as to what I'm so ignorant about now. I got you on the money with that call and now you don't wanna admit it? Sorry bub, but true criminal and civil law require a damaged victim. The way you disagree, yet acknowledge liberals & their "hate" speech, suggest that you are a republican of the neo-conservative type. I request that you respond to the point I made in my last post: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) 1. A preacher talks to his congregation and is not regulated. The Bible has profanity in it, and this profanity is used by preachers whenever the scripture is being taught. Nobody is forced to belong to or listen to any specific church or televangelist. 2. A talk radio show host talks to his listeners and IS regulated. Stern's show script has profanity in it. Nobody is forced to listen to Howard's show.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Here's a trick question. Does a radio televangelist have any more rights than other radio talk show hosts and why? Wrong answer: --Yes. The FCC discriminates against non-religious broadcasting. Right answer: --No. The FCC stops preachers from using indecent language. Dumb answer: --No. Preachers don't use indecent language. No matter what your answer is, your position defeats you. I'm jumping ahead, I know, but maybe you can surprise me. How's this? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Solomon,) Proverbs 5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If you're willing to say the bible is indecent then you'll maintain your position in the argument, but the christian right isn't gonna like it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mlingley,) If you don't like what's on the radio or tv TURN THE CHANNEL. If your SO worried about your kids become a parent. It's your responsibility to protect your children, not the governments. I suggest that if you are so scared of exposing your kids to sex and violence and dirty language stop sending them to public schools, because kids do talk.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I hereby award you with 15 conage points. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) Kyran, you acted as if what the majority of Americans have said is irrelevant, what a government agency says is irrelevant, and the Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution is irrelevant. So we are supposed to take your reading of things over all of this? OK, that makes sense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No Mia. I'm not acting. The majority IS irrelevant. No number of people or people with official hats grants any justification to the regulation of broadcast entertainment and media. You are presenting your position in a way that relies on everything outside the constitution; where our Rights are spelled out. Don't act so surprised either. I'm not the only American who thinks this way. Every single Libertarian, Conservative, Fusionist, and Radical agrees with me. I could say "if everyone demanded a law saying to sacrifice their first child to the demigod Kthulu, would the constitution manage to rearrange itself magically to suggest such?" to demonstrate the abuse of Mob Rule. Salem Witch Trials are a better example. Number of people is always irrelevant. People already have control over the content of the airwaves by the dial in front of them. They do not need government control. I remember Howard making a statement years ago that a large number of his listeners were people who absolutely hated what he'd say. These people can't control themselves enough to change the dial. The founding fathers were no stranger to profanity or "indecent speech." Any claim for regulating any speech has to be backed up with a clear constitutional exemption from this Amendment. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) If programmers had their way, there would be nothing but filth on the radio and TV<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Don't jump to conclusions. If everyone spreads filth, then it would be common, and clean broadcasting would be in demand. Someone would make a killing that way. Of course, we would be able to see how many people actually value each; and advertisers would have an advantage. Do you think EIB Network's executives are going to put filth on the same lineup with Rush Limbaugh? I strongly suggest you see things my way. Imp openly agreed that liberals want to get "hate" speech illegalized, but he won't accept the notion that government should not regulate ANY speech. He's got his own prerogative of what regulations people should have, just like you. My way is you can say what you want; without the required approval of another person, or persons, or persons sitting in government jobs. I hope you two aren't really republicans. If you are and still disagree with Rush himself on this issue it tells alot about your loyalty.

Mar 1, 2004, 01:10 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) yes you did... you said the government could not interfere with speech... this speech is plainly illegal...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Imp, good job. You win 1 brownie point! I agree that you did not make a straw man. See? I can be beaten if you know how...or am I setting you up...? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) no, you and everyone else in the theater would run screaming to the exit... that's why it's illegal...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> LOL. Don't tell me what I'd do. I'll tell YOU what I'll do. Understand? I'm not a sissy. Don't compare me to YOU or others. ** right, stand and burn... you need to understand group psychology Furthermore, when I said I correctly interpreted "Can and Should" you agreed on the fire point, and on the indecency point; yet you still said I was ignorant. I'm curious as to what I'm so ignorant about now. I got you on the money with that call and now you don't wanna admit it? :rolleyes: no, you didn't get anything... should is for moralizers and I am anything but a moralizer Sorry bub, but true criminal and civil law require a damaged victim. The way you disagree, yet acknowledge liberals & their "hate" speech, suggest that you are a republican of the neo-conservative type. :rolleyes: that is your error... I am republican for fiscal reasons... I am not even close to being conservative I request that you respond to the point I made in my last post: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) 1. A preacher talks to his congregation and is not regulated. The Bible has profanity in it, and this profanity is used by preachers whenever the scripture is being taught. Nobody is forced to belong to or listen to any specific church or televangelist. 2. A talk radio show host talks to his listeners and IS regulated. Stern's show script has profanity in it. Nobody is forced to listen to Howard's show.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Here's a trick question. Does a radio televangelist have any more rights than other radio talk show hosts and why? Wrong answer: --Yes. The FCC discriminates against non-religious broadcasting. * yes, Right answer: --No. The FCC stops preachers from using indecent language. Dumb answer: --No. Preachers don't use indecent language. No matter what your answer is, your position defeats you. I'm jumping ahead, I know, but maybe you can surprise me. :rolleyes: have you stopped beating your wife? How's this? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Solomon,) Proverbs 5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If you're willing to say the bible is indecent then you'll maintain your position in the argument, but the christian right isn't gonna like it. :rolleyes: yes, the bible is indecent and I don't give a flip about the christian right... you make stupid assumptions Do you think EIB Network's executives are going to put filth on the same lineup with Rush Limbaugh? I strongly suggest you see things my way. Imp openly agreed that liberals want to get "hate" speech illegalized, but he won't accept the notion that government should not regulate ANY speech. :rolleyes: the notion that they SHOULD not regulate is defeated with speech that endangers others... yelling "fire" should be illegal... raising false alarms is illegal... can you pick up the phone, dial 911 and scream "the house is burning! or there is a armed robbery in progress!" why NOT? it is FREE SPEECH ISN'T IT?!? He's got his own prerogative of what regulations people should have, just like you. My way is you can say what you want; without the required approval of another person, or persons, or persons sitting in government jobs. I hope you two aren't really republicans. If you are and still disagree with Rush himself on this issue it tells alot about your loyalty.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 2, 2004, 11:19 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	OT: Impenitent, could you make more clear what parts are quotes and what's new stuff from you in your replies? Don't know about others, but I'm having a really hard time sometimes to see what's what.

Mar 2, 2004, 05:43 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Kyran, The majority being irrelevant is your opinion, one I don't care about. Your example of the Salem witch trials is yet another instance of your poor logic - majority rules until it is HARMING the minority. The witch trials clearly HARMED people. Regulating the airwaves doesn't harm anyone except for egotists like you who feel harmed everytime they don't get their way. How is "breasts" indecent? I don't know if you've noticed, but quite a lot is allowed on TV and radio. You can say breasts, you can practically show them. You and I cannot properly argue this particular topic because it's wrapped inside a bigger one we come from different places on. Whether the government should regulate anything. You can disagree all you want but the "irrelevant majority" is whipping your ass on it - no need for me to prove anything ;-) "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 3, 2004, 07:09 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	The point of debate is to prove who is right and who is wrong, not so we can say "Tee hee, we're in power, so who cares?" </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) majority rules until it is harming the minority<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Draw a clear and concise line of what you will consider acceptable harm of the minority, and describe the event where the line is crossed. Furthermore, come up with a universal definition of Harm; one that you do not solely operate as interpreter of. Your debate tactic is an old dirty trick I like to call the Hijacked Standard. It's where a person "supports" a general rule, excludes specific things from it, and then tries to use it to support their argument. The reason people do this is because the Standard itself opposes their point of view. The inverse form of this is the Appended Standard; where one creates a new rule that includes something the original did not. Your hijacked standard on free speech is just as valid as the gays appended standard on marriage. I can use the standard (majority rules until it is harming the minority) to describe how free speech, gun-ownership, and freedom of religion are being infringed upon. My standard has a clear line: 0 laws and regulations. I don't have to redefine Free Speech to include "indecent speech" because it's unnecessary. Suppose I said "murdering people is wrong." Then I claim that black people aren't people; does this support the argument? No. Why? Because the rule itself does not exclude "black" people. If the rule said "murdering people, not including blacks, is wrong" then my argument would make logical sense. So don't counter-argue that I must prove how "free speech" includes "indecent speech" under the protection of the constitution. The amendment explicitly says Freedom of Speech, meaning all speech, with absolutely no exclusions. If you can logically prove that freedom of speech excludes indecent speech, then you will win this argument and I will agree with you. I asked you to do this before, and all you came up with was everything but the constitution itself. What's worse is you brag about all that irrelevant crap, then call ME egotistical. It doesn't work. Nice personal attack, btw. It's easier to call your opponent some kind of anarchist than to match him intelligently. ------------------------------------------------------------ Imp, don't expect me to respond sooner to your childish outbursts. There are intelligent people I could be arguing with. Learn how to use the board code to do more than making :rollseyes: faces over and over. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) have you stopped beating your wife yet<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Look, I know it hurts to be wrong, but this crap you spew isn't getting you anywhere. Grow up. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) yes, the bible is indecent and I don't give a flip about the christian right... you make stupid assumptions<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I didn't say you DID give a flip about it. You assumed that. I'm just drawing conclusions. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) the notion that they SHOULD not regulate is defeated with speech that endangers others... yelling "fire" should be illegal... raising false alarms is illegal... can you pick up the phone, dial 911 and scream "the house is burning! or there is a armed robbery in progress!" why NOT? it is FREE SPEECH ISN'T IT?!?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Free Speech does not give anyone the right to make false 911 reports any more than it gives telemarketers the right to wake people at 2am who are on the Do Not Call list. If people are wasting the time and energy of our law enforcement, they need to compensate for that. Does there need to be a law against 911 prank callers? No. It's a civil court matter not a criminal court matter. Gee imagine that, the system still works without all those funny rules. Can a theatre owner sue somebody for starting a panic inside his place of business? Yup! He can make that idiot pay for everything that was broken by the people who ran off. Do we need to prohibit an act that is already punishable by law? No. Maybe you disagree; maybe justice just isn't good enough for you. Next?

Mar 3, 2004, 07:16 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Apparently you can't read. I'll give you another chance to try. It is pointless to argue this point about free speech as it is predicated on whether it's acceptable to regulate anything. We'd need to argue that first, which I do not care to. You seem to think that absolutely everything can be proven "right" or "wrong" and coincidently you happen to be right on everything. Some things are a matter of opinion. We differ on our opinions on this issue (whether regulation is desirable). I respect your opinion that it is not. My opinion is that it is. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 4, 2004, 02:36 am	#38 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) ------------------------------------------------------------ Imp, don't expect me to respond sooner to your childish outbursts. *nice ad hominem There are intelligent people I could be arguing with. Learn how to use the board code to do more than making :rollseyes: faces over and over. "No matter what your answer is, your position defeats you. I'm jumping ahead, I know, but maybe you can surprise me." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)** have you stopped beating your wife yet<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Look, I know it hurts to be wrong, but this crap you spew isn't getting you anywhere. Grow up. * another nice ad hominem, but you asked the stupid question to begin with... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)** yes, the bible is indecent and I don't give a flip about the christian right... you make stupid assumptions<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I didn't say you DID give a flip about it. You assumed that. I'm just drawing conclusions. * yes you did say I did... "Furthermore, when I said I correctly interpreted "Can and Should" you agreed on the fire point, and on the indecency point; yet you still said I was ignorant. I'm curious as to what I'm so ignorant about now. I got you on the money with that call and now you don't wanna admit it?" you "drew" the wrong conclusion which was your stupid assumption </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) the notion that they SHOULD not regulate is defeated with speech that endangers others... yelling "fire" should be illegal... raising false alarms is illegal... can you pick up the phone, dial 911 and scream "the house is burning! or there is a armed robbery in progress!" why NOT? it is FREE SPEECH ISN'T IT?!?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Free Speech does not give anyone the right to make false 911 reports any more than it gives telemarketers the right to wake people at 2am who are on the Do Not Call list. :rolleyes: "FREEDOM OF SPEECH includes all speech, unless you can prove that certain types of speech are exempted by the Constitution." If people are wasting the time and energy of our law enforcement, they need to compensate for that. Does there need to be a law against 911 prank callers? No. good... your house is burning to the ground and you call 911 for the fire department... but no, the fire department is responding to a CRANK CALL and your house burns down completely and you can't do a thing about it... and the free speaker who helped your house burn gets no reprocussions It's a civil court matter not a criminal court matter. Gee imagine that, the system still works without all those funny rules. * yep, works great, your house burns down and the guy who distracted the fire department walks :rolleyes: YOU said the government CANNOT REGULATE SPEECH... NO LAWS AGAINST SPEECH... THESE ARE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AGAINST SPEECH Can a theatre owner sue somebody for starting a panic inside his place of business? Yup! He can make that idiot pay for everything that was broken by the people who ran off. Do we need to prohibit an act that is already punishable by law? :rolleyes: punishable by law? starting a panic by FREELY SPEAKING?!? No. Maybe you disagree; maybe justice just isn't good enough for you. Next? :rolleyes: you are refuted. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 4, 2004, 03:01 am	#39 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	refuted. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 4, 2004, 03:24 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	he said government cannot regulate speech, that doesn't mean private enterprises cannot, or that laws cannot be implaced... impenitent you have attacked a straw man, your refutation is invalid.