Ha ha, boobies - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-27-2004, 03:21 PM   #31
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I just want to make sure where we stand. Under your scenario, we throw open the airwaves to whatever people want to broadcast (hate, violence, sex, etc.) and our only option to objectionable material is to change the channel.
There still need to be audiences. Someone starting a KKK talk show probably isn't going to last very long(and a station wouldn't be very smart to air them), but yes they have the right and you have the right to change the channel.

There is hate all over the radiowaves I've heard it on Stern and I've heard it on Rush, I've heard it all over.

Whatever it is that offends or frightens people about this speech, why is it that you want it removed? Is it that you are so scared that you may be tempted? Are these people so weak in their morals and standards that they must get rid of all temptation? Is this what we're moving to a country where if we get rid of all temptation then we don't have to test our faith?

If you are that weak then you have other issues.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-27-2004, 03:24 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

Material which incites racial hatred, however, is inherently harmful. Its sole intention is to incite hatred and violence against a particular group of people, it has nothing to do with creativity, freedom of expression or entertainment, it exists purely to spread bigotry and lies.
Exactly-I don't feel there is any defense for just allowing the use of the n word or any racially derogatory term-at what point do people then use and hear it so often that they become numb to it? For me personally, the use of such terms is inexcusable and indefensible. Racism is one of the biggest evils that exists, and I just believe we should do anything and everything possible to control and eradicate it.

I'm not denying that there are politics involved in this, or that people should be given credit for the ability to use their own discretion..but I still believe that certain standards should exist. That's just my opinion that I can't be talked out of I agree somewhat w/ what you said Fizzing about the sexuality related material, but when does it become a slippery slope? What about Larry Flynt and the infamous woman in the meat grinder photo?
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 03:44 PM   #33
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


Exactly-I don't feel there is any defense for just allowing the use of the n word or any racially derogatory term-at what point do people then use and hear it so often that they become numb to it? For me personally, the use of such terms is inexcusable and indefensible. Racism is one of the biggest evils that exists, and I just believe we should do anything and everything possible to control and eradicate it.
What's interesting about this is that at the time Stern is being taken off the air there are rap songs on the top 40 that use the n-word more in a 3 minute airing than a whole 4 hour broadcast of Stern, there are songs thoughout all formats that speak about sex. I did a quick search of the Top 40 and this week you have a song by Eamon with the title F**k It, you have that Nickelback song that talks about "I like the pants around your feet", and "I like the white stains on your dress", and you have country songs that talk about getting drunk and sleeping with your best friends wife and these are all played on Clear Channel stations. So I have a hard time believing that they aren't targeting certain people.

And let me just say I'm not a huge Stern fan, my IQ is a little too high to find his humor funny longer than 5 minutes, but I defend his right to speak.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-27-2004, 03:44 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Whatever it is that offends or frightens people about this speech, why is it that you want it removed? Is it that you are so scared that you may be tempted? Are these people so weak in their morals and standards that they must get rid of all temptation? Is this what we're moving to a country where if we get rid of all temptation then we don't have to test our faith?

If you are that weak then you have other issues.
Nice move, but painting people who object to offensive content as "weak" isn't going to work.

Let's flip the picture. Do you think general commercial broadcast of hate, violence, explicit sex makes for a better world? Think of your own "Root of All Evil" thead. The commercial media is not the root of the problem, but does the commercial media magnify the problem or limit it?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 03:51 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 07:11 AM
Well, I don't consider myself to be "weak". I give myself more credit than that, and I tend to give others more credit as well. There are reasons why people have those beliefs that have nothing to do w/ "weakness".

And I would guess that Clear Channel is targeting Stern because that's easier and more profitable than taking most of the music they play off the air. I'm aware of what is in that music. I believe the CEO of Clear Channel was before Congress re this issue the same day the Stern thing happened, I could be wrong about that.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 03:55 PM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Nice move, but painting people who object to offensive content as "weak" isn't going to work.

Let's flip the picture. Do you think general commercial broadcast of hate, violence, explicit sex makes for a better world? Think of your own "Root of All Evil" thead. The commercial media is not the root of the problem, but does the commercial media magnify the problem or limit it?
No I'm not painting people who object the content as weak, I'm saying the people who want to eliminate this persons free speech are weak.

Does it make for a better world? No. But free speech does.

Well I think evil is inevitable. Does the commercial media have magnify or limit it? I think it does both.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-27-2004, 04:11 PM   #37
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen

And I would guess that Clear Channel is targeting Stern because that's easier and more profitable than taking most of the music they play off the air.
Well here's the ironic thing about this whole issue is that they will be loosing money. One Stern has some of the highest numbers, and two they are breach of contract so they'll still be paying Stern.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-27-2004, 04:21 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 07:11 AM
That's interesting, but is that true compared to what they make off the music/advertising, etc? I'm not questioning what you posted, just curious

I know that Stern is a cash cow, that's for sure. He reaps the benefits in a big way too, but then again supposedly he lost 1/2 in his divorce

Another question-does each local station have a "button person" that edits the content on his show? That's what I thought
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 04:34 PM   #39
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
That's interesting, but is that true compared to what they make off the music/advertising, etc? I'm not questioning what you posted, just curious

Another question-does each local station have a "button person" that edits the content on his show? That's what I thought
I don't know, if they make that much more during music that can make a profit after their losses, I'm not sure.

Yes Stern has his own dump button, plus each station that he syndicates to has their own. So there are two times to catch anything the FCC finds offensive.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-27-2004, 05:57 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The original question was "who will set the standards?" Why should we accept your standard as opposed to the FCC? (I am not opposed to setting of a standard and do not disagree with part of your standard)
I think the idea of a "standard" implies that you're accepting one person's morality over another. Instead of having censors whose "standards" dictate what everyone else may watch and listen to, individuals should be free to choose what they want according to whatever "standard" they consider appropriate.

On the subject of material which incites hatred, I don't believe that advocating that being censored is an expression of my own "standards": I don't know about the US, but here in the UK it's illegal to distribute material intended to incite racial hatred. Given that, there's an obvious case for broadcasters refusing to air material likely to incite racial hatred, regardless of whether a preson finds it personally offensive or not.

Another form of "censorship" which hasn't been mentioned is the way in which the extremely centralised ownership of broadcasters, newspapers and publishing companies prevent artists who aren't viewed as "commercial" from ever having their work published. Maybe that's for another thread but it's something to think about in the context of this discussion.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 06:17 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
On the subject of material which incites hatred, I don't believe that advocating that being censored is an expression of my own "standards": I don't know about the US, but here in the UK it's illegal to distribute material intended to incite racial hatred. Given that, there's an obvious case for broadcasters refusing to air material likely to incite racial hatred, regardless of whether a preson finds it personally offensive or not.
Sounds like your government has already set a standard for you. If it is against the law, it would seem appropriate that broadcasters not violate that law. The law as you described would not work in the US as it is a form of prior constraint.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 07:20 PM   #42
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 12:11 PM
What's worse? The deed itself, or the endless re-hashing of it?
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 07:44 PM   #43
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:11 AM
I was listening to a conservative talk show on my way home from work today and everyone was praising the fact that Stern got kicked off the air in so many areas, but the host was like you people don't get what if the next administration finds Rush talking about affirmative action or Hannity(sp?) talking about gay marriage hate speech, then the shows you agree with will be taken off the air. The FCC is a dinosaur and has no place judging content. The only people who should have a say about content are the advertisers and the listeners, that's it.

And today in an article the president of the FCC are looking into if they should monitor cable and satellite radio. These SOBs are full of themselves.

Did you hear that noise? That was the sound of our free speech flushing down the drain.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-28-2004, 01:14 AM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Thank you, BVS. Seriously, how far is this going to go? Is it going to just stop at TV and radio?

As for hate speech and all that sort, again I say, the only way we can get rid of all the discrimination in this world is to confront it head on. By letting the KKK sit there and say what they have to say, that will show people how ignorant they sound, and will make people not want to associate with such ignorance-those who agree with the KKK would have those feelings whether the KKK said anything or not.

I find hearing people say they don't support homosexuals having the right to marry to be rather mean and discriminatory, but I'm not about to stop them from expressing that opinion.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 12:13 AM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 08:11 AM
The way technology is going, people would be able to program their own TVs. They'll get to choose which shows they want, what kind of news, entertainment, sports, etc. they want to see. I think this is called i-TV, and heard its becoming very popular in Europe, and would soon make its way to the US. By then, FCC standards may be obsolete because the government obviously cannot tell people what their personnal preferences should be. So there's a chance standards won't be necessary.

Although how those programs manage to get promoted for people to notice them would be the question. It might mean the FCC would have to reinvent itself and try to stop certain programs from becoming part of a list people would choose from. I mean, those shows won't be promoted and chosen all by themselves. Something would stand in the way, like a corporation.

Anyway, i-TVs - interactive TVs - are the thing of the future and I think it would be interesting to see what that would mean for FCC standards and censorship.
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com