LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 89
0 members and 89 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-26-2004, 03:53 AM   #2311
pretermitted_child
Underpants Gnomes!
 
pretermitted_child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 302
Bushedelic

I ran across this:



and figured that it would be something that a card-carrying member of the Log Cabin Republicans would sport as a bumper sticker.
pretermitted_child is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 03:57 AM   #2312
Atticus Grinch
Hello, Dum-Dum.
 
Atticus Grinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,117
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
I actually think your argument has merit. When the government advocates censorship and the FCC licensees are so afraid of losing their licenses or being fined that they act pre-emptively by censoring content, you may be able to say that this constructively is the government censoring this.
So what if it is? This is broadcast, people --- the least protected of all possible forms of First Amendment protected speech, with the possible exception of commercial speech (though for different reasons). The FCC itself probably could have fined Stern for talking with Solomon about doing anal.

Saying it's censorship doesn't end the issue any more than saying the First Amendment does not sanction the shouting of "fire" in a crowded theater. There's a reason people still practice law in this area; they'd be out of business in a heartbeat if the First Amendment actually ever meant what it said.
Atticus Grinch is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 04:59 AM   #2313
Not Me
Too Lazy to Google
 
Not Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,460
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So what if it is? This is broadcast, people --- the least protected of all possible forms of First Amendment protected speech, with the possible exception of commercial speech (though for different reasons). The FCC itself probably could have fined Stern for talking with Solomon about doing anal.

Saying it's censorship doesn't end the issue any more than saying the First Amendment does not sanction the shouting of "fire" in a crowded theater. There's a reason people still practice law in this area; they'd be out of business in a heartbeat if the First Amendment actually ever meant what it said.
You are getting all fucking "technical" and "legal" on me and it is killing my buzz. So this is your area of law, eh? Well have it AG, boy.*

*I only said that because I think you are white. If you are black, let me know and I will take it back. I will call you "man" instead of "boy" if you are black instead of white. Just let me know. TIA.
__________________
IRL I'm Charming.

Last edited by Not Me; 02-26-2004 at 05:13 AM..
Not Me is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 09:17 AM   #2314
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,149
next cont. amendment

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s_040221104404

Art student makes Mickey mouse flying plane into WTC






the best part of the exhibit isn't even the WTC- some guy filmed a mouse's last moments dying from poison:

The film of the poisoned mouse, by student Jock Mooney, is exhibited next to a statement explaining the circumstances, following complaints from animal rights activists.


In it, Mooney said the mouse had already been poisoned when he found it outside his flat and that his film was intended to show the effects of the methods used to get rid of rodents.


"I am fully aware that rodent-friendly methods of removal exist. Are there methods used by the general public? I think not," he wrote.


that is the kind of message that could be used on Fashion to help some of the meaner posters learn not to be so nasty to new posters, maybe seeing the last few moments of anguish before Mr. Ebola changed his sock to Dave would help people grow.

Last edited by Hank Chinaski; 02-26-2004 at 10:02 AM..
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 10:04 AM   #2315
Secret_Agent_Man
Classified
 
Secret_Agent_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: You Never Know . . .
Posts: 4,266
This one's DOA

Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I bet Bush drops this mess like a hot potato.

Here's the newest polling data on the issue.


(Opposed - 47% For - 41% Trend - to Opposed)
I hope not.

Or, at least, I hope that the wingnuts make a huge stink if he does, and decide to stay home and pray in November (much as many did in 2000).

S_A_M
__________________
"Courage is the price that life extracts for granting peace."

Voted Second Most Helpful Poster on the Politics Board.
Secret_Agent_Man is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 11:00 AM   #2316
andViolins
(Moderator) oHIo
 
andViolins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: there
Posts: 1,049
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
You surely realize that Clear Channel is the homogenizing, purifying devil. That said, I can't stand Howard Stern so I'm just as happy he's gone.
Huh. I thought that was why God, I mean Fred, invented the off button.

aV
andViolins is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 11:32 AM   #2317
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So what if it is? This is broadcast, people --- the least protected of all possible forms of First Amendment protected speech, with the possible exception of commercial speech (though for different reasons). The FCC itself probably could have fined Stern for talking with Solomon about doing anal.

Saying it's censorship doesn't end the issue any more than saying the First Amendment does not sanction the shouting of "fire" in a crowded theater. There's a reason people still practice law in this area; they'd be out of business in a heartbeat if the First Amendment actually ever meant what it said.
What is the rational for broadcast being less regulated than, let's say, print?
sgtclub is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 11:38 AM   #2318
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,532
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
What is the rational for broadcast being less regulated than, let's say, print?
Scarce resource allocated by the government. Read Red Lion. Then scroll back to last week to discussion of why Red Lion rationale no longer applies, given new "broadcast" technologies.
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 12:01 PM   #2319
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Scarce resource allocated by the government. Read Red Lion. Then scroll back to last week to discussion of why Red Lion rationale no longer applies, given new "broadcast" technologies.
Without reading the case, I don't understand how the scarcity of the resource, even if true, is a justification for treating print and broadcast differently.
sgtclub is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 12:07 PM   #2320
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,532
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Without reading the case
Um, please do. But because it's a scarce resource, it's considered to be subject to more government regulation than the press, where it's assumed anyone can print up a handbill. Put differently, the golden rule applies: because the gov't doles out the spectrum, it retains greater power to dictate content, or preclude certain content.
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 12:09 PM   #2321
Sidd Finch
I am beyond a rank!
 
Sidd Finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 11,873
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Somebody has to have the balls to challenge this under the 1st Amendment.*

*I realize this was a business decision by a private party, but the policy was put in place to head off possible FCC fines and penalties.
Yes, Howard Stern was taken off air to avoid FCC penalties because he violated some obscenity rules. I guess parents who let their children listen to Howard Stern have a right to be protected from the effects of their own shitty parenting, or something like that.

Howard Stern should be taken off radio stations because he's so godawful un-funny, still doing the same shtick he did ten+ years ago only now at a much slower, deadly dull and plodding pace.
Sidd Finch is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 12:14 PM   #2322
Sidd Finch
I am beyond a rank!
 
Sidd Finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 11,873
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Um, please do. But because it's a scarce resource, it's considered to be subject to more government regulation than the press, where it's assumed anyone can print up a handbill. Put differently, the golden rule applies: because the gov't doles out the spectrum, it retains greater power to dictate content, or preclude certain content.

Of course, the existence of micro-stations contradicts that argument. Which may be why the FCC goes to such lengths to eliminate them.
Sidd Finch is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 12:48 PM   #2323
Not Me
Too Lazy to Google
 
Not Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,460
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Howard Stern should be taken off radio stations because he's so godawful un-funny, still doing the same shtick he did ten+ years ago only now at a much slower, deadly dull and plodding pace.
Howard is incredibly unfunny. I do not understand his appeal, but then again, I am not an 18 year old construction worker living in Queens who spends his off hours in strip bars and thinks farting is funny and/or slave.

I noticed that he seems to have less of the top celebs coming on his E! show. I would guess if being on his show would help their careers, they would be on his show. So for some reason, they must feel it won't help their careers to be on his show.

I have heard that Howard is somewhat of a hermit, and I think it may be because he hates the low-lifes who are his fans. So he doesn't like going out in public where he will be confronted by them in person. That reminds him of who it is that listens to his show.

He used to live a fairly normal life off the air with his wife and kids. It is my understanding that she left him, not the other way around.
__________________
IRL I'm Charming.

Last edited by Not Me; 02-26-2004 at 01:25 PM..
Not Me is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 01:27 PM   #2324
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,532
Oops, I must correct myself

Evidently, it's the US, not North Korea, that's making peace there, and dismantling of the NK nukes program impossible.

linky

Our hardline stance that we won't provide aid or security to NK until after they've started to dismantle has been and continues to be the problem.

I will send an immediate apology to Kim Jong Il.
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 01:27 PM   #2325
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,532
Clear Channel Pulls Howard

Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me

It is my understanding that she left him, not the other way around.
Let that be a lesson to you. If you don't do the anal, you'll eventually have to leave.
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline  
Closed Thread


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

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:19 PM.