2024-11-24, 05:26 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Freedoms being eroded? (Again?)  (Read 14423 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
McDeth
 

Makron
********
Posts: 388

Wildly Inappropriate

« Reply #20 on: 2004-12-08, 01:54 »

Quote from: Footman
1)Particularly disturbing is this little snippet.

2) Oh good. weve had a shortage of anti religious biggots in here lately and its good to see someone has decided to fill the void.

3)Government's job is to secure the rights of the people and protect them, and it operates under the consent of the governed.

4)Even though I felt everything said was completely on topic, since it is the Right Wing that?s trying to censor us.

5)This is where I draw the line. Broadcast television and radio is fine to have some regulation, but cable television is a paid service. While broadcast radio and television are everywhere, nobody's forcing anyone to have cable. It should be left up to the viewers, channel owners, and cable providers to determine what content is and is not acceptible since this is the realm of private commerce. The FCC has no business imposing decency rules on cable, digital satellite radio OR the internet. I also think they should define it clearly as to what is and is not permissible on broadcast, otherwise it's just guesswork.

6)Example: The Women's Channel is on basic cable, in many basic cable plans the Learning Channel is NOT. Not even considering the fact that the men's channel is Premium.
I read this entire thread, and composed this list above. Now to go through it with unsound satire...

1)Yes, democracy at its best.

2)Down boy. Let the nice anti-christ say his peace. Afterall, if we didn't let him, we would be as bad as the FCC.

3)Kind of like how everyone in the United States agreed to submit to the -ahem- "'Patrior' Act"?

4)Malchia, everyone in politics is a doche bag. To go even further, I'd say it is the left more than the right in this case since they are the ones who try to push more government big brother laws on us half the time. The last time I checked (before gay old Bush), the right was more pro-sans-government than the left.

5) Well met bird, I can't agree more.

6) Dude, I get like 4 spanish channels. WTF?
Logged

Beer? I'm down.
Gnam
 
Makron
********
Posts: 346

« Reply #21 on: 2004-12-08, 07:26 »

Quote from: Phoenix

One point I noticed in the links Footman posted is that they can press civil lawsuits for criminal activity.  Civil lawsuits?  I thought an activity was either a criminal matter or a civil matter, but could not be both.  So if they can't convict you on criminal charges or if you choose to fight it in court, they just slap a civil lawsuit ala RIAA, which the individual cannot afford to fight in court since, unlike a criminal trial, the court is not required to provide representation, so people end up paying the fine just to avoid the legal expenses, loss of work, and possibly loss of job, house, and whatever else could result in their lives being ruined.  Doesn't this equate to double-jeopardy, and when do these lawsuits become a convenient form of "tax", similar to how police departments are funded by traffic fines?  Where does it stop?
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but everything I've heard says that court-apointed lawyers are a joke, and anyone with some money would be advised to get their own if they want any chance of winning their case. So while the "double jeopardy" certainly puts a monetary attack on the defendant, I would say it's from having to fight 2 court cases, not from being denied a free lawyer in the civil case (because the free lawyer they give you is so worthless, you don't get real representation in criminal court either, and you're probably going to have to pay anyway.)
Logged
shambler
 
Icon of Sin
**********
Posts: 999

« Reply #22 on: 2004-12-08, 11:22 »

I get the feeling that in the USA TV is a lot stricter than in Europe. Here we got a lot of nudity on telly etc. Am I right?
Logged
Woodsman
Icon of Booze
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 827

« Reply #23 on: 2004-12-08, 14:43 »

cable has alot of nudity. watch showtime at around 3am its nudie paluza.
Logged
Woolie Wool
 
Tank Commander
******
Posts: 161

« Reply #24 on: 2004-12-17, 20:50 »

Quote from: Footman
First of all, check out this ban cooked up by the RIAA and friends:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,...tw=wn_tophead_2

Particularly disturbing is this little snippet:


So technicaly, you could be fined or possibly jailed for skipping the commercials on your DVD.

Also, we have here this article:
http://www.sundayherald.com/45957

Yeah, because Steven Spielburg is destroying our morals with Oscar-winning flims! I think you all can look forward to your children living in a world where they never have to hear a curse word because those who say them will be shot!

What is wrong with these people? And since when is it any of their sporking concern if a company is hiring homosexuals? Maybe if they where only hiring homosexuals(of which they aren't), then it would be a problem. But that's not the case is it?
*makes voodoo dolls representing various RIAA and MPAA executives*

Do you know what the most retarded thing about these laws is? They will never really work. People will ALWAYS find a way around these measures (people frequently pirate Windows and duplicate copy-protected CDs), and they'll just try tightening the noose more and more until the good guys (and eventually the industry companies' bottom lines) are the only ones hurt. Increasing "security" will only yield a greater amount of piracy.It reminds me of what one newspaper said about a government report on the status of Prohibition in the 1920s:

Prohibition is an awful flop
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime
It's filled our land with vice and crime
It don't prohibit worth a dime
Nevertheless we're for it.
« Last Edit: 2004-12-17, 20:58 by Woolie Wool » Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to: