Subject:
|
Re: Clearly those Canadians are concerned about censorship...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:53:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
343 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
FORTUNE5.htm
| |
And we’re back to Howard Stern--if you don’t like what he has to say (and I
don’t) then for the love of freedom of choice, turn the radio station.
As far as censorship goes--to that old arguement ‘Fire!’ in a crowded
theatre is wrong (unless there really is a fire ;) ) but curtailing the
yelling of ‘fire!’ isn’t censorship, it’s a safety issue and falls out of
the domain of censorship and into the domain of personal fredom and
responsibility--like the right to swing my arm until it contacts your nose.
Janet didn’t harm anyone with her covered nipple, nor does Stern harm anyone
with his daily antics.
|
One knows what to expect on the Howard Stern show. I don’t have a problem
with his show, beyond that I think it is stOOpid. One knows what to expect
at the Super Bowl, and that is certainly not bare breast.
|
You’re forgetting that you were forewarned that the half-time show was being
brought to you by the letters M and TV. Even with that ‘heads up’, you still
sit there and say “I didn’t know the halftime show was going to be tasteless!”?
| |
And you keep saying “covered nipple” - it wasn’t (well, maybe from the side
to some degree).
|
The actual nipple was covered. At least, that’s what I saw in all the pictures.
Her breast was exposed, and the nip was covered by that wannabe throwing star.
And for that brief flash during the actual show--none of this ‘slow motion’ zoom
in things that CNN, et al. had going on, you didn’t have the time to see
nuttin’! (much to the regret of all 17 year old guys watching the Superbowl
that day, but all they had to do was wait 4 hours before the media circus that
ensued to see the ‘bare facts’)
| |
| |
I think it’s silly that people got into a furor over a covered nipple.
Especially in a country that prides itself as freedom loving. If you wish
to read ‘boasting’ into my ‘Hey, isn’t this little thing that Canadians are
doing good ‘nuff for debate?’ then I’ll read ‘hypocritical’ into ‘hey, we
believe in the first ammendment except when we don’t like what we hear or
see’.
|
It’s “public airwaves”, not “pubic”. :-)
| |
Now we fully agree--but what’s this knocking on the door? Oh look, it’s the
FCC. Something about the letter F screams, oh I don’t know, Federal or
something. Sounds like governement intervention to me. And once you play
that card, then you start the ‘big brother’ scenario--if I say this on the
air, I may get fined--therefore I will not say that on the air.’ The gov’t
can sit back and say, “Well, we didn’t censor anything!” but in a way they
did by the thought of the threat. And that’s a very difficult hill to get
over. How can the political debaters feel ‘free’ enough to point out
perceived flaws in the system if they feel the system will punish them? It
starts with the Sterns, et al, but the precident is then made.
|
Radio can’t let Howard Stern say the F word, but The Who can in a song.
Never hear it blipped out or censored. Now there’s hypocrisy.
|
Ahh, one of the 7 words you can’t say on radio. George Carlin was well ahead of
his time.
I know that Alanis has a more colourful use of the english language in some of
her songs. During daytime radio listening hours, the words are bleeped, but
sometimes in the wee hours of the morning, if I’m listening to the same radio
station, the words aren’t bleeped. Eh, that point I could care less about. If
it’s an issue, then we can get into it. I’d have to check to see if that’s a
government oversite thing or the radio station is just operating on their own
interests.
Derringer on Q107 was mentioning a few months back that the programming manager
of Q was leaving the company. Derringer mentioned that the programming director
had an unwritten rule--unless it was related to a current news story, that the
name of the guy who shot John Lennon was never to be mentioned on the air. And
so it never was. That wasn’t an act of censorship, nor was it mandated by the
CRTC (the Canadian counterpart of the FCC). It was just a radio station making
its own rules for itself.
That, for me, is the bottom line. I don’t like rap music, therefore I’m not
going to listen to a rap music station. I don’t like MTV, therefore I’m not
going to watch MTV or things produced by MTV. Now if I happen to be channel
surfing and I hear rap music, or see an MTV video, I’m not going to write to my
MP and call for a ban or a CRTC investigation--I’m going to accept the idea that
stuff like this is out there and if I don’t like it, I can just turn it off.
I abhor horror movies. Yet I still see the commercials on the telly for them.
These commercials run considerably longer than Jacksons exposed boob yet covered
nipple. Yet that’s part of life. Getting the feds involved is inviting in
censorship and abdicating personal responsibility. I’m not willing to do that.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
