Reply With QuoteBush is now featuring in my avatar
I carved it into my arm once.Originally posted by Q Cubed
mtv
then again, and no offense to anybody, but i'm kinda irritated with NIN.
not because of their music, or anything that they did, but all those really annoying fans who'd carve NIN into every **** thing in the world.
and actually, themtv thing isn't just for this, either.
Bush is now featuring in my avatar
Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith
wait, so a boycott isn't expression of free speech?Originally posted by Agathon
I think Aggie is forgetting that these same people claim that free speech includes the ability to criticize actions such as this by corporations.
It doesn't if you are going to get fired or boycotted for simply expressing a political opinion.
Ironically, Americans go on about free speech more than any other nationality, yet they don't tolerate it or in fact really understand what it means.
Except MTV is not an ordinary mainstread political channel, it is a private music channel which has every right to choose what they show and what they don't show, just as you have every right not to watch it.
See.. I was right. You don't really understand free speech, since you are quite prepared to live in a society where no-one tolerates anyone else's political opinion. Your views are compatible with that, and are hence ridiculous.
Only feebs vote.
has anyone mentioned MTV sucks, and always will suck?
And that's how stupid it gets. No one said that any law was being violated, the point is just to show how far away from free speech the current situation is.It's no more a violation of free speech than moderation of this site is a violation of free speech. No one's keeping you from talking; some people aren't letting you use their property to distribute your message.
There's more to free speech than using your own property to express yourself. When a country sucks so much that a) major mediatic interests won't air mainstream political messages for internal reasons or that b) the typical viewers won't accept display of such messages, thus encouraging indirect censorship, well, it sucks. The spirit of the principle of free speech is being violated, and it's pathetic to see it has become yet another case of being reduced to a concept of property.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
wait, so a boycott isn't expression of free speech?
It depends. A society where everyone attempts to economically disrupt someone's livelihood just because they publicly express opinions you disagree with is not a society that really values free expression, since people's actions are attempting to prevent it by any legal means possible.
If Bruce Willis says something I don't like, it is not particularly tolerant of me to try to organize a boycott of his movies, which have nothing to do with his political opinions.
Only feebs vote.
MTV certainly sucks, so I am not too disappointed. Either way, considering their "Rock the Vote" campaign essentially turned into a "Vote for Kerry" campaign, I do not see how this is anything but naked hypocrisy.
But then again, this is the channel that would not let Nirvana play "Rape Me" during the Music Awards, so it is not even the lowest their censorship has gone.
Visit The Frontier for all your geopolitical, historical, sci-fi, and fantasy forum gaming needs.
What are mediatic interests?
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
It's not at all far away from free speech.Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And that's how stupid it gets. No one said that any law was being violated, the point is just to show how far away from free speech the current situation is.
There's more to free speech than using your own property to express yourself.
No there isn't.
The principle is not. It would be a gross violation of free speech for you to be able to force the network to air what YOU want to say - besides which such a situation is absurd. They can't display everyone's views. Moreover, it's not a political channel, for chrissakes. Next you'll complain that MarkG not letting us post political threads in the Civ3 forums is a violation of the spirit of free speechWhen a country sucks so much that a) major mediatic interests won't air mainstream political messages for internal reasons or that b) the typical viewers won't accept display of such messages, thus encouraging indirect censorship, well, it sucks. The spirit of the principle of free speech is being violated, and it's pathetic to see it has become yet another case of being reduced to a concept of property.
A society where everyone looks down on those who pursue legal means of expression to protest someone else's expression isn't really a society that values free expression.Originally posted by Agathon
wait, so a boycott isn't expression of free speech?
It depends. A society where everyone attempts to economically disrupt someone's livelihood just because they publicly express opinions you disagree with is not a society that really values free expression, since people's actions are attempting to prevent it by any legal means possible.
If Bruce Willis says something I don't like, it is not particularly tolerant of me to try to organize a boycott of his movies, which have nothing to do with his political opinions.
Why do you care, anyway? You've stated many times you don't agree with anything remotely recognizeable as free expression.
The principle is not. It would be a gross violation of free speech for you to be able to force the network to air what YOU want to say.
Not really. Broadcasters are required to air certain public service messages. But that's not the point. You keep treating this as a legal issue when it is in fact a social issue. In Britain independent broadcasters aren't required by law to refrain from this sort of censorship. As it happens, they generally do refrain from it because of the public outrage it would cause and because of their own sense of tolerance.
MTV is supposed to be a place where artists express themselves. Corporate censorship of artists is inimical to the function that MTV itself set out to serve.
We have elections to sort out our political differences. There's no good reason to illegitimately extend them into other areas of the economy and all sorts of reasons not to.
Only feebs vote.
A society where everyone looks down on those who pursue legal means of expression to protest someone else's expression isn't really a society that values free expression.
Boycotts like that are an attempt to stifle expression. Free expression which doesn't attempt to stifle that of others is always preferable to that which does because it respects the value of the other person's right.
As I said, Americans don't really understand that free speech is really a social and not a legal issue.
Only feebs vote.
Not really. Broadcasters are required to air certain public service messages.
1) MTV isn't a broadcaster.
2) The rules are different for a scarce resource such as radio frequencies.
3) Public service messages aren't expression, they're OMG TEH HURRICANE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES.
But that's not the point. You keep treating this as a legal issue when it is in fact a social issue.
The government cannot and should not bend society to its pleasure. Society is the people. In a democratic state, it's simply not possible for there to be some legal recourse against society not being a certain way.
MTV is supposed to be a place where artists express themselves. Corporate censorship of artists is inimical to the function that MTV itself set out to serve.
You're truly deluded about the function of MTV, aren't you?
MTV is an entertainment channel. It happens to specialize in entertainment provided by musical artists. As such, it would be counterproductive from any point of view for MTV to show something that is not only not going to entertain its viewers, but actually offend half of them.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.Originally posted by Agathon
A society where everyone looks down on those who pursue legal means of expression to protest someone else's expression isn't really a society that values free expression.
Boycotts like that are an attempt to stifle expression. Free expression which doesn't attempt to stifle that of others is always preferable to that which does because it respects the value of the other person's right.
Kiwis don't understand that social issues are irrelevent since politics' only sphere of action is legislation.As I said, Americans don't really understand that free speech is really a social and not a legal issue.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Kiwis don't understand that social issues are irrelevent since politics' only sphere of action is legislation.
Of course it's relevant. It makes a huge difference to the quality of public debate. You might as well ignore the actual issue, since you don't have anything substantial to contribute as an objection.
MTV is an entertainment channel. It happens to specialize in entertainment provided by musical artists. As such, it would be counterproductive from any point of view for MTV to show something that is not only not going to entertain its viewers, but actually offend half of them.
Lord knows that the media should never feel obliged to broadcast anything that might offend people.
It's not counterproductive if your audience weren't slavering, intolerant morons and if you had any guts. So much for free expression....
Only feebs vote.
What are you going to do about it. The only recourse is a) playing their game with the boycotts (which would be morally inconsistent) or b) some sort of legal recourse.Originally posted by Agathon
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Of course it's relevant. It makes a huge difference to the quality of public debate. You might as well ignore the actual issue, since you don't have anything substantial to contribute as an objection.
MTV is an entertainment channel. It happens to specialize in entertainment provided by musical artists. As such, it would be counterproductive from any point of view for MTV to show something that is not only not going to entertain its viewers, but actually offend half of them.
Lord knows that the media should never feel obliged to broadcast anything that might offend people.
The entertainment media, no, at least if it's trying to entertain a wide range of people. Try to read more closely, will you?
I agree. We should get rid of all of those people who are intolerant of hate speech and put neonazis and homophobes on the air 24/7.It's not counterproductive if your audience weren't slavering, intolerant morons and if you had any guts. So much for free expression....
What are you going to do about it. The only recourse is a) playing their game with the boycotts (which would be morally inconsistent) or b) some sort of legal recourse.
Or for the people who have the most power in the situation (i.e. the broadcasters) to show a bit of spine. That's what happens elsewhere. You really need to spend some time in a free country.
As for the entertainment media, is there anything else in your country these days? I think not.
Only feebs vote.
Hey Agathon, are you allowed to go post a partisan rant in the Civ3 forum here in Apolyton?
Here's a hint: NO.
I guess all Apolytoners are slavering intolerant morons and the administration is illegally supressing their right of freedom of speech.
I think in all your supposed liberal rhetoric you really have no f*ucking clue what freedom of speech is and the limits to it. MTV has the liberty to choose what it wants to express and it definitely goes above your right to express your crap through their channels since they pay for their time on air and have every right to choose what to transmit.
Instead of whining non-sensically, why don't you get your own cable channel and ask NIN to perform in it?
A true ally stabs you in the front.
Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)
How would the broadcasters (actually, MTV is a cable channel) showing spine help YOU, since you are opposed to them.Originally posted by Agathon
What are you going to do about it. The only recourse is a) playing their game with the boycotts (which would be morally inconsistent) or b) some sort of legal recourse.
Or for the people who have the most power in the situation (i.e. the broadcasters) to show a bit of spine. That's what happens elsewhere. You really need to spend some time in a free country.
Not only is this untrue, but it doesn't have anything to do with my point. The purpose of an entertainment network is one thing, in a capitalist or communist or feudalist society: entertain. Not to serve as a forum for political expression. The entertainment value of something, in fact, is often decreased when political expresion, especially controversial political expression, is mixed in. Keeping said expression out of an entertainment network in no way precludes the views from being aired.As for the entertainment media, is there anything else in your country these days? I think not.
And I'm still waiting for yourin response to:
I agree. We should get rid of all of those people who are intolerant of hate speech and put neonazis and homophobes on the air 24/7.
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The principle is not. It would be a gross violation of free speech for you to be able to force the network to air what YOU want to say - besides which such a situation is absurd. They can't display everyone's views. Moreover, it's not a political channel, for chrissakes. Next you'll complain that MarkG not letting us post political threads in the Civ3 forums is a violation of the spirit of free speech
I agree -- and well said.
This is where an awesome Mark Twain quote would be, but Apolyton says it would be too many lines. :(
Originally posted by Agathon
It's not counterproductive if your audience weren't slavering, intolerant morons and if you had any guts. So much for free expression....It would seem that you are lacking in the tolerance area yourself.Originally posted by Agathon
As I said, Americans don't really understand that free speech is really a social and not a legal issue.
asleepathewheel: he doesn't even believe in the free speech he's talking about - he's argued against it many times before. He doesn't actually believe in anything that could remotely resemble free expression.
Oh, no, I understand that this is all mental masturbation for him.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
asleepathewheel: he doesn't even believe in the free speech he's talking about - he's argued against it many times before. He doesn't actually believe in anything that could remotely resemble free expression.
Free expression, so long as you are anti-windows, anti-US, anti-Bush, anti-religion, anti-etc.
Guess? I thought that was the received wisdom.Originally posted by Master Zen
I guess all Apolytoners are slavering intolerant morons
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks