Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the standards have in there something about context in that it has to appeal to the prurient interest or something similar to be indecent/obscene?

Isn't it different if you are talking about this stuff in a clinical or social context, i.e., concerned about STD transmission, as opposed to the context of trying to sexually stimulate someone?

Yes, but Oprah's wasn't in that context.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, but Oprah's wasn't in that context.

What did Oprah say? Is there a transcript somewhere?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
What did Oprah say? Is there a transcript somewhere?

It wasn't Oprah that said it, it was someone on her show that described, in intimate detail, what it means to "toss a salad." From your prior posts my guess is you do not know what this means, but it essentially involves tongues in assholes.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It wasn't Oprah that said it, it was someone on her show that described, in intimate detail, what it means to "toss a salad." From your prior posts my guess is you do not know what this means, but it essentially involves tongues in assholes.

No, I did not know what that meant. Where do they get the "salad" part? Oh, never mind. I am sure I don't want to know.

But wasn't the purpose of Oprah's show to shine a spotlight on what teens are doing for the purpose of educating adults about what teens are doing? She wasn't trying to sexually stimulate people or appeal to their prurient interest kind of stuff, right?

I didn't see that show but I have seen her shows in the past. They aren't like Jerry Springer. They are about examining an issue in a serious way. Part of examining teen sexuality is explaining what the kids are doing.

I see it as a legitimate distinction from what Stern does. Stern is attempting to titillate his audience.

In indecency/obscenity law, there has always been a distinction between the speech occuring in a non-sexual as opposed to a sexual context. On that basis, you can distinguish what Oprah is doing from what Stern is doing with his show.

[Not Me]

Ok, I found the transcript and it does look like they were trying to educate adults about teen sexuality.

WINFREY: Yeah. So you say--let's talk about that secret language, Michelle.

Ms. BURFORD: Yes.

WINFREY: I didn't know any of this.

Ms. BURFORD: I have--yeah, I have--I've gotten a whole new vocabulary, let me tell you.

WINFREY: I did not know any of this. Does this--does this mean I am no longer hip?

REED: ...(Unintelligible).

Ms. BURFORD: Salad-tossing. I'm thinking cucumbers, lettuce, tomatoes. OK? I am definitely not hip.

WINFREY: OK--so--OK, so what is a salad toss?

Ms. BURFORD: OK, a tossed salad is--get ready; hold on to your underwear for this one--oral anal sex. So oral sex to the anus is what tossed salad is. Hi, Mom. OK. A rainbow party is an oral sex party. It's a gathering where oral sex is performed. And a--rainbow comes from--all of the girls put on lipstick and each one puts her mouth around the penis of the gentleman or gentlemen who are there to receive favors and makes a mark in a different place on the penis, hence, the term rainbow. So...

[Not Me]

Now let's compare this to past uses by Howard on his show of the "toss a salad" reference (don't know for sure if this link is accurate, but I have seen/heard Stern and this is totally in line with the stuff on his show - Howard is trying to arrange a sexual encounter between a celebrity and a listener) :

http://www.marksfriggin.com/news03/4-14.htm

Howard told her that she has to leave Sean's hotel room after they bang, if they bang, and not stalk him. Chloe agreed to that and said she'd leave and never bother him again. Howard asked her if she'd give him anal too. She said he'd be the first but if he wanted to, she'd give it up. Howard told Sean if he wanted, he'd set up a bed right there in the studio if he wanted to bang her and leave from there. Sean seemed to be having fun with the whole idea and just laughed. Howard was telling this chick that he was going to give her a Nasty Sanchez, then toss her salad and give her a Pittsburgh Platter among other things. He then put her on hold and told Sean that he owes him, big time.

Howard said they'll check this chick out and if he doesn't like her look, they can get rid of her and take some more phone calls. Sean said they can do that and wish for the best. Howard wrapped up the segment and said they'd see Sean tomorrow.

See the difference between the two?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Now let's compare this to past uses by Howard on his show of the "toss a salad" reference (don't know for sure if this link is accurate, but I have seen/heard Stern and this is totally in line with the stuff on his show - Howard is trying to arrange a sexual encounter between a celebrity and a listener) :

http://www.marksfriggin.com/news03/4-14.htm



See the difference between the two?

I do, and I think the description on oprah was far more graphic. Others are probably more familiar with the rules, but I think for indecency you need to show (a) graphic depiction and (b) purient interest. The depiction on Stern was far less graphic than Oprah. I heard the Oprah clip and it was not as clinical as the transcript suggests. In fact, the audience was filled with ooos and ahhhhs during the explanation in a nervous, embarrased, aroused sort of way.

[edited to add]

and if you don't think Oprah was trying to titilate her audience, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I do, and I think the description on oprah was far more graphic. Others are probably more familiar with the rules, but I think for indecency you need to show (a) graphic depiction and (b) purient interest. The depiction on Stern was far less graphic than Oprah.

I didn't find a transcript of Stern's show, just a summary of what stern said. I have seen/heard Stern and his stuff gets rather graphic.

I just don't think that Oprah's show appeals to the prurient interest whereas Stern's does.

Originally posted by sgtclub
I heard the Oprah clip and it was not as clinical as the transcript suggests. In fact, the audience was filled with ooos and ahhhhs during the explanation in a nervous, embarrased, aroused sort of way.

I am sure it was nervousness and embarrasment, but I doubt it was arousal. And I doubt Oprah's purpose was to sexually arouse anyone.

Originally posted by sgtclub
and if you don't think Oprah was trying to titilate her audience, I have a bridge to sell you.

I don't think she was trying to sexually arouse her audience with tales of teenage sexuality. I think it was an attempt to educate parents about what is going on with their kids. I am sure her audience consistes primarily of suburban moms.

[Not Me]

[joke]Here is a new forum for you, Club:[/joke]

http://www.savehowardstern.net/board/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
While I am for scaling back immigration to the US, I don't see how it helps the Sierra Club's goals. I guess if the SC's goals are only to protect the environment in the US, less people in the US helps that cause. But I thought the SC was more globally oriented? Maybe not.

I believe the Sierra Club does some international stuff. They made a decision not to get involved in immigration issues a few years ago, but there is a faction intent on changing this. According to an e-mail I received from interested parties, one of the current directors (Paul Watson, an animal-rights activist) said: "We're only three directors away from controlling the board. And, once we get three more directors elected...[We'll] change the entire agenda of that organization."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
I just don't think that Oprah's show appeals to the prurient interest whereas Stern's does.

Seems quite the amorphous line, the location of which broadcasters are supposed to . . . what? . . . guess at? While risking a half-a-mil fine?

I suppose criminal law would be easier if we just had one law - thou shalt not do anything unacceptable - and then let people try to guess if they're acting acceptably or not.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I believe the Sierra Club does some international stuff. They made a decision not to get involved in immigration issues a few years ago, but there is a faction intent on changing this. According to an e-mail I received from interested parties, one of the current directors (Paul Watson, an animal-rights activist) said: "We're only three directors away from controlling the board. And, once we get three more directors elected...[We'll] change the entire agenda of that organization."

That's one of the dangers of the pure representational board systems. Orgs based on unchangable trust provisions are at least safer, if you value continuity.

The Republican and Democratic parties have been struggling with this for decades.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I didn't find a transcript of Stern's show, just a summary of what stern said. I have seen/heard Stern and his stuff gets rather graphic.

I just don't think that Oprah's show appeals to the prurient interest whereas Stern's does.

I am sure it was nervousness and embarrasment, but I doubt it was arousal. And I doubt Oprah's purpose was to sexually arouse anyone.

I don't think she was trying to sexually arouse her audience with tales of teenage sexuality. I think it was an attempt to educate parents about what is going on with their kids. I am sure her audience consistes primarily of suburban moms.

You are again proving my point. One person's purient interest is another person's "education."

[sgtclub]

Didn't have sufficient time to answer this until now. If this topic is beeeeeeten to death, please ignore.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't really care what they think. Do you?

Of course I care what the terrorists think, especially if they think (a) that they can influence democratic elections through terror and (b) believe that they can isolate the US from its "allies." This will embolden them even further. Do you not see the difference between the two potential responses? Put aside the basque issues, do you not think it would have been better if the Spanish people would have still elected the party that stood side by side with the US, then reversing course because of the terrorist activities?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy I know it's popular in Republican circles to think that anyone who doesn't support the war in Iraq is pro-terrorist, but all I can say to that is "Whiff".

I don't think that, but I do believe that the war in Iraq and against terror would be easier if we presented a united front at home. I can't imagine what would have happened if my grandparents generation split 55%-45% in WWII.

Incidently, "whiff" always makes me laugh, because it reinforces how uncool people of my generation have become with age. We were once cool, weren't we?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy Start with NATO. NATO officially deployed in Afghanistan, including sizable German support. Next, look around for support from neighbors and from other Islamic countries. Then look at levels of commitment from some of our closest friends, like Canada, Mexico and Australia.

If you're going to argue we have minimal support from other countries in Afghanistan, I'm going to have to start pulling out Administration quotes on the subject. Careful what you ask for...

We have minimal military support from our allies in both places, mainly because none of our allies have much of a military to speak of. This is do to the fact that western europe made a brilliant tactical move and relied on the US to defend it for the 50 years after WWII and instead put money into socialist programs.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Seems quite the amorphous line, the location of which broadcasters are supposed to . . . what? . . . guess at? While risking a half-a-mil fine?

I suppose criminal law would be easier if we just had one law - thou shalt not do anything unacceptable - and then let people try to guess if they're acting acceptably or not.

Are these criminal fines are civil fines?

How is this line any more amorphous than a line as to what constitutes sexual harassment or negligence for legal malpractice? These sorts of not all that well defined lines exist throughout our laws.

I agree if this is a criminal statute in which someone's liberty is at stake, ambiguity is a much bigger deal. But for a civil fine, this doesn't seem like a line that is any more or less ambiguous than many other lines in our civil laws.

Just what is a reasonable person for tort liability? Whatever a jury thinks a reasonable person is. Same is true with the FCC and community standards.