Author Topic: More limits on free speech by the P.C police  (Read 6207 times)

glockfan.45

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #25 on: May 17, 2007, 12:46:41 PM »
Nevermind, I thought the people here would understand the concept. We now return to your regularly scheduled conservative chest thumping. Enjoy Limbaugh, O'Rielly, ect for now while you can. I look forward to hearing you all whine when their time comes.
A new place to disuss all things firearms related
http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #26 on: May 17, 2007, 12:50:27 PM »
OK.  Come back when you want to discuss real threats to free speech.  Like the Fairness Doctrine.  That is about the only thing with the potential to hurt Rush Limbaugh.  If they can pass it. 

Who wants pancakes? 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

mtnbkr

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,388
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #27 on: May 17, 2007, 02:36:43 PM »
Had pancakes for dinner, thank you very much (met the wife and kid at Ihop).

Chris

TF_FH

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2007, 02:42:48 PM »
I think that the point that Glockfan is trying to make is that we have all these little special interest groups that scream and shout about things that they don't like and get their way because its "offensive" or "dangerous".  Although you might not agree with things that O&A and Imus said, the fact is that you have these groups that are throwing a big stink about things and because everyone keeps trying to be politically correct, they yank the programming.  It's just like the people who throw a big shitfit about 'assault weapon features' and all the politicians hear/listen to are the ones complaining about things that don't really matter.

Quote
Imus and these other two nobodies broadcast reprehensible content, and deserve to lose their jobs.
There are quite a few people who find gunowners reprehensible, and if they were in a management position, would it be right for them to fire people under them because they found out they were gunowners?  What if we applied it to religion?  Fire people because because they don't believe in the same gods/goddesses, etc because you find it reprehensible that they would want to do that?  --  Please don't imply it's different because its religion or guns, people are offended by everything, its just in a different form there.

Also those two nobodies may have said something that offeneded people, but it was only when a re-run of their broadcast was done in the wake of the whole Imus incident, that they were fired.  It's not like they went back on the air and did it again, they just happen to have a re-run of the broatcast go on and then the *expletive deleted*it hit the fan for them.


Quote
I'd rather live in Glockfan's world, where hosts can talk freely about raping women, shooting all the darkies, or just sexually molesting the children of their audience members.  And since it doesn't really hurt anybody, the ones who pay the bills just have to like it.
      They should be able to talk about whatever they want, and if people didn't want to hear the *expletive deleted*it, they wouldn't be listening to it.  (Just like when Rosie O'Donnel shows up on TV, I CHANGE THE FREAKING STATION)  However, there have been mass cancellations because of this incident, meaning the ones who pay the bills want to hear the programming offered on the O&A show.  There's a reason its on the channel that constantly has a warning of explicit language on the breaks.

And Mike, O&A actually didn't broadcast sex on the air during that contest, and they weren't fired for it.  The phrase that the FCC decided was offensive was "the balloon knot" which was some kind of reference to anal sex.  How it makes any sense? I have no freaking clue.  But last I checked Infinity broadcasting refused to pay the fine as "the balloon knot"  is hardly offensive and barely makes any sense when you compare what the definition was.  They were just taken off the air and sat around until their contract was up, being off the air and getting paid for it.

What I'm trying to say is, letting all these little special interest groups get their way all the time to the point where companies are scared of them without even a threat uttered, is a very bad thing.  Things just seem to be going downhill with all these little groups in control of everything.  All of this crap in the name of "political correctness".

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #29 on: May 17, 2007, 02:55:05 PM »
I think a business should be able to fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. That's not censorship, that's freedom.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Moondoggie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 523
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #30 on: May 17, 2007, 02:57:38 PM »
O & A were not expressing a "View" in the incident in question.  They were spewing filth about public persons who did nothing to deserve having that sort of filth linked with their names.  There's no need for a PC police force to determine that sometimes some folks just go too far.  There is such a thing as "Too disgusting".

They went too far, their leash got yanked.  I'm sure their Mommas are proud.

You will never hear Limbaugh (I'm not a fan) or O'Reilly (I do agree with most of his positions) talking that sort of smack about public figures.   I have to admit that I really don't know what Limbaugh says, as I haven't listened to 2 syllables from him since the early 90's.

Imus, Stern and their ilk have pushed the envelope beyond the point that most folks are willing to tolerate.

XM owns the equipment, and they're free to make a business decision to pull the plug on O & A anytime they want.  (They can also consider the legal settlement ramifications as a part of that business decision.)

Subscribers can cancel their subscriptions anytime they want, too.

See, it really is a free country!

Known from coast to coast, almost!

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #31 on: May 17, 2007, 03:01:40 PM »
I think a business should be able to fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. That's not censorship, that's freedom.

And angels sing.  That is correct. 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #32 on: May 17, 2007, 03:37:28 PM »
PC?  No, that little catch-phrase won't work on me.  If this stuff had been aired forty years ago, before PC was the craze, the consequences would have been even more severe.  Let's look at them.

Imus was talking about a bunch of young women about which he knew nothing, and he called them whores.  Prostitutes.  That is enough reason for outrage and his employers/sponsors felt the heat. 

Tweedledum and Tweedledee were airing jokes about raping the Queen of England, a former First Lady and the Sec. of State.  I don't care if you're Gloria Steinem or Jeff Cooper, that there ain't funny. 

Oh, but no one really heard it until somebody got all upset and told everybody, blah, blah, blah.  Big deal.  It's about time XM and whoever it is that used to shovel Imus's crap paid the price for the slime they sell. 

But you can change the channel, you say.  Well, that's nice.  XM can change their channel, by hiring some new talent that doesn't joke about raping people.  And O+A's fans can go listen to Stern or whatever.  If you want to listen to Opie and Anthony, or watch porn, or listen to Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken, or a show about guns, someone's got to put in the plumbing.  When you're paying the bill, you can call the shots.   
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #33 on: May 17, 2007, 03:40:16 PM »
Sorry, I can't stop. 

You don't like the fact that your favorite XM channel doesn't have Opie and Dopie anymore.  CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!

If you want to listen to Opie and Dopie, you can change the channel to wherever they are.  Oh, you say no one will hire them, because everybody's uptight like me?  Boo-%&*#-hoo. 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 45,902
  • I Am Inimical
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #34 on: May 17, 2007, 03:47:20 PM »
Trekkie,

Wrong.

On several counts, actually.

Count 1:

O&A were fired WELL before the FCC arrived at any findings in their investigation.

The incident happened on August 15, 2002.

O&A were fired on August 23, 2002.

The FCC opened its investigation into the incident on, IIRC, August 21, 2002, and didn't conclude the investigation, or fine WNEW, for several months at least, or well after O&A had been dropped.


Count 2:

O&A broadcast the entire incident LIVE.

You can listen to it HERE: http://radio.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/opieanthony1.html

The reference to balloon knot and the security guy coming up occurs at approximately 1:35.


Interestingly enough, there's one of the clowns at the Cathedral whining about his "constitutional rights."

There's only about a dozen things wrong with that assessment.


I just finished listening to the clip.

Yep, it happened exactly as I remembered it -- O&A's official escort describing the couple having sex in the Cathedral.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #35 on: May 17, 2007, 03:53:01 PM »
Quote
Please don't imply it's different because its religion or guns, people are offended by everything, its just in a different form there.

If your religion causes you to joke about raping people - real, living people, or slanderously, frivolously calling them whores for a large audience- you're fired.  Making jokes like that is most certainly different from having guns or following the teachings of the Buddha or Scientology, etc.  Please don't imply that my religion or my gun ownership is equivalent to that sort of bilge.  And if my guns or my Bible-thumping does cause a problem for my employer, then I would certainly expect to be suspended or fired.  Wouldn't you? 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

TF_FH

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #36 on: May 17, 2007, 05:43:01 PM »

Transcript of the sex for sam incident - starts on page 7
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-225637A2.pdf

Quote from: Mike Irwin
Interestingly enough, there's one of the clowns at the Cathedral whining about his "constitutional rights."
There's only about a dozen things wrong with that assessment.
I really do have to agree on that point, even though he's arguing about the guard telling him to be quiet, the property is owned by the church, so if you say/do something they don't like, the church gets to give you the boot.  If he had just shut up and left there probably wouldn't have even been an arrest as the shouting and ranting about priests was taking that too far.

Quote from: Mike Irwin
Yep, it happened exactly as I remembered it -- O&A's official escort describing the couple having sex in the Cathedral.
How is "We're in St Pat's and he's doing the balloon knot (inaudible) and a security guy is coming up to us right now" describing the couple describing sex?  I'm still confused on how the balloon knot even fits as a synonym for that act.

Quote from: Scapegoat
And if my guns or my Bible-thumping does cause a problem for my employer, then I would certainly expect to be suspended or fired.  Wouldn't you?
Thing is, this situation did not cause a problem for the employer, as it is expected to be heard on that channel and there was no outrage about it unlike the Imus incident. (Which I really don't want to get into right now as thats a whole different can of worms)

Quote from: Scapegoat
Tweedledum and Tweedledee were airing jokes about raping the Queen of England, a former First Lady and the Sec. of State.  I don't care if you're Gloria Steinem or Jeff Cooper, that there ain't funny.
They brought a homeless guy into the studio, he said his jokes about raping people, and then XM got pissed and O&A apologized.  I never said it had to be funny, but their target audience isn't exactly people who get offended by hearing these things.

Quote from: Balog
I think a business should be able to fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. That's not censorship, that's freedom.
I agree, but in this case, these are the kind of things that are expected from their show by the company.  They are shock jocks, so who would guess that you show would have something shocking on it.  It's like getting fired from a company for doing your job.

glockfan.45

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #37 on: May 17, 2007, 06:04:38 PM »
Quote
How is "We're in St Pat's and he's doing the balloon knot (inaudible) and a security guy is coming up to us right now" describing the couple describing sex?  I'm still confused on how the balloon knot even fits as a synonym for that act.

Without getting too lewd in detail balloon knot is slang for anus, as the anus somewhat resembles the knot tied in the end of an inflated balloon.
A new place to disuss all things firearms related
http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/

RadioFreeSeaLab

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,200
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #38 on: May 17, 2007, 07:19:44 PM »
Okay, the First Amendment...(reaching across the bench for the copy of the Constitution kept there)...It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of  the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress f grievances."

Where's the violation?  A private employer punished these employees for an action they took. 
No Government action.  No problems.

As for media types firing these people because of advertising/public pressure, well that's the nature of the beast.
Ding ding ding! Someone who understands the First Amendment.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 45,902
  • I Am Inimical
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #39 on: May 18, 2007, 03:24:51 AM »
"How is "We're in St Pat's and he's doing the balloon knot (inaudible) and a security guy is coming up to us right now" describing the couple describing sex?  I'm still confused on how the balloon knot even fits as a synonym for that act."

You're joking, right?

Balloon knot was a well known, and repeatedly used, description for the anus on O&A's show. It had been for some time. I first heard the term used in April 2001 when staying in Northern New Jersey, months before O&A came to Washington, DC (they're back on in DC now, by the way).

The event in which the couple was participating was titled "Sex for Sam 3."

Couples were awarded points (that concept is also freely discussed during the show on the day in question and in the weeks leading up to the show) for completing sex acts at or inside various public locations. Page two of the transcript has Opie or Anthony (it just says host) awarding the points to the couple, plus bonus points.

Finally, on the last page of the transcript, O&A try to "spin" the situation, doing so in a way that makes it very clear that yes, the intent was for the couple to have sex in the cathedral, and that O&A are fully cognizant that they did have sex in the Cathedral as reported by Paul, their official spotter.

Oh, by the way...

There's a reference to "Ken" near the end of the transcript. That's Ken Stevens (or Stephens). He was the station manager at WNEW, and had been the station manager at WJFK in DC prior. There was a program manager named, IIRC, Jeremy or something like that. Both Ken and Jeremy approved O&A's Sex for Sam show, and both were fired around the same time as O&A.

I wonder if by firing Ken & Jeremy, who were only very very seldom on the air, their First Amendment rights were violated...
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #40 on: May 18, 2007, 05:19:38 AM »
Thing is, this situation did not cause a problem for the employer...

Really?  As glockfan asked, "Who are you to judge?"  If it didn't cause them a problem, then why did they suspend one of their big cash cows, for THIRTY days?  Sounds to me as if the employer saw a problem in the situation.


Quote
I agree, but in this case, these are the kind of things that are expected from their show by the company.  They are shock jocks, so who would guess that you show would have something shocking on it.  It's like getting fired from a company for doing your job.
No, it's like getting fired for doing your job in the wrong way.  Someone pointed out that they had done worse things in the past.  I hear that Imus had done worse things, too.  But, apparently, people aren't quite as willing to hear that sort of thing lately.  Or maybe they really both did cross some new line, and just went too far.  Either way, it's hard to see how it is a bad thing for businesses to stop sponsoring such worthless trash programming.  And maybe it's time that more of us outgrew this childish shock-jock trash.  If you have XM, aren't there some kickin' music channels to listen to, anyway? 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

Phantom Warrior

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 926
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #41 on: May 18, 2007, 08:19:59 AM »
Alright, for the record, I don't support any of these shock jock idiots.  That said, don't give me crap about censorship.  All this programming was pulled by the station preemptively because they were worried they'd offend someone.  I'm not sure if the FCC would have made them pull the stations anyway or not.  But we'll never know because the STATION and the people that run it caved in to protest. 

If you want to talk about the First Amendment and free speech, find a radio station that will say "Shut up, screw you, First Amendment" to everyone who objects to their content.  And then takes it to the court to fight it all they way out.  But don't complain about First Amendment rights being violated if the company doesn't even have the guts to stand up for the offensive content they are broadcasting.


Once again, those O&A are offensive and good riddance.  It's nice to know people still get offended over something.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2007, 09:52:49 AM »
They're on XM, so I don't think the FCC has anything to say about it.
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

ilbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,546
    • Bob's blog
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2007, 02:57:59 PM »
I don't personally care who XM fires or suspends, or why. If XM stood to make more money by keeping them on the air, they probably would still be on the air.

Boring speech will get you kicked off the air too. Do you think that should be somehow protected as well?

BTW, ever hear of podcasting? You can start your very own broadcasting empire for almost nothing and spew out whatever you want. Of course if you want advertisers or listeners, you do have to give them what they want.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2007, 03:14:02 PM »
But remember, if you let someone do a podcast for you, you have to let them say whatever they want.   smiley
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

SteveS

  • The Voice of Reason
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,224
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #45 on: May 18, 2007, 04:16:28 PM »
Strangely enough, I hear Rush defending O & A today when I was driving home from work.  Basically, he said that it seems that we are moving in a direction that we may not like.  Like the whole thing with the Dixie Chicks, it has noting to do with censorship or the first amendment.  I am not all that familiar with O & A, but is what they said a big surprise for them? 
Profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate mother****er.

gaston_45

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #46 on: May 19, 2007, 09:00:55 AM »
"Uncensored comedy including the outrageous, uninhibited talk duo, Opie & Anthony"

That is what XM is advertising right now.
http://xmro.xmradio.com/xstream/index.jsp

If they are advertising it and taking people's money with the expectation that they will provide uncensored O&A then they need to provide  uncensored O&A!  That's part of the contract too.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 45,902
  • I Am Inimical
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #47 on: May 19, 2007, 11:13:59 AM »
I suggest that you immediately file a class-action lawsuit seeking psychological damages for their 'false advertising.'

I wonder, though....

What is XM running in place of O&A while they're on *censorship* hiatus...

Are they running old shows like many OTA radio stations do when a popular DJ is out?

If so, then they're still providing uncensored O&A...

whatever.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #48 on: May 19, 2007, 11:44:32 AM »
"Uncensored comedy including the outrageous, uninhibited talk duo, Opie & Anthony"

That is what XM is advertising right now.
http://xmro.xmradio.com/xstream/index.jsp

If they are advertising it and taking people's money with the expectation that they will provide uncensored O&A then they need to provide  uncensored O&A!  That's part of the contract too.

Then sue them.  That's the libertarian solution to a breach of contract.  Not complaining about them making decisions about who they choose to air on their station.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: More limits on free speech by the P.C police
« Reply #49 on: May 19, 2007, 12:02:23 PM »
This is why XM sucks and Sirius rocks!
And Sirius has Bubba the Love Sponge!
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”