W.W.J.K.: Who Would Jesus Kill?

I agree with D'art's original point. The airwaves are regulated because they are government property.

Through other mediums people can say what they want.

Graffiti on public property can result in a fine. This is also not a matter of free speech.

It's a huge political mistake whether one agrees or not about being compared once again to Hitler, in this case his ordering of the destruction of newspaper offices speaking out against him.

The first ten amendments were part of twelve proposed amendments sent to the states in September, 1789, by the First Congress, over the signature of Augustus Muhlenberg, then the Speaker of the House. The first two amendments proposed were that there be one representative for each 50,000 citizens, which has never been ratified; and the second proposed amendment, which reads: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.--was ratified May 7, 1992, more than two hundred years later. The first amendment ratified, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.--was the third proposed amendment.

These proposed amendments were promulgated by the members of the First Congress. If any of them were members of the constitutional convention, that is simply coincidence; it is simple coincidence that the above cited amendment is the first amendment. It is a common error to ascribe the "bill of rights" to the Founding Fathers. In fact, many members of the constitutional convention opposed ratification of the constitution; most of them, with George Mason being the most prominent of them, because it contained no bill of rights.

Not beating up on you, Fed, just setting the record straight.

HBO isn't government property but this administratin because of shows like Bill Maher are trying to find ways to regulate that. This is neo-conservatism -- regulate, regulate, regulate.

Don't forget the new tax-and-spend aspect of the neo-cons--they're just picking different pockets in their effort.

I wasn't born, I was ejected.

Oh, dear -- I hope you didn't feel ejected.

That woman was mentally slipping before, but its starting to turn into a landslide now...

I'll keep hoping that she winds up falling in love with some liberal who's a member of the NAACP with skin as black as midnight, and they get married and start makin' babies at a frantic pace.

The collective head explosion from her obedient, brain diseased followers would be quite a sight.

On the night I was born Lord
I swear the moon turned a fire red
The night I was born
I swear the moon turned a fire red
well my poor mother cried out well the gypsy was right
and she fell down right there

'Cause I'm a voodoo child
Lord knows, I'm a voodoo child . . .

Thanks for the correction Set, I am a nut for trying to keep facts accurate. Thanks for doing the research.

Your proof?
"I understand Mattel is replacing the Ken doll with the Coulter doll --

she also has no balls."

Prove it!!!

No thanks.

Yes, you are right. But the reason that graffiti results in a fine is not because of its content but just because it is trashing public property. It would result in a fine even if it was a good message wouldn't it? If so, I don't think using graffiti on public property argument can apply to regulating public airways since in the latter case we are discussing content.

Ann Coulter writes graffiti.

The graffiti example illustrates that regardless of content the venue chosen determines what is and is not free speech more so than the content does.

Radio waves are public domain. This is not a free speech issue.

For example, broadcast television operates under different restrictions than cable.

On cable the tit flash could be followed up by a graphic orgy. The reason is because it is not on public domain and people have a way to block those channels.

On public airwaves that can't be blocked it is a different story.

Venue is paramount when alleging an infringement on free speech. The complainst about free speech here might sound good because of the general notion of what constitutes free speech to you, but in a legal definition it doesn't hold water at all.

Craven



Forgive me but I believe that you are comparing apples and oranges, both of them are fruit but they are different.

On the airways and public tv the content of speech does determine what is allowed and not allowed to be aired or shown, on public property the content does not matter. Its pretty simple really.

I am not saying that some censoring shouldn't be applied on TV and other places, in fact I believe that normal reasonable censoring should be applied. In other words it would totally inappropriate for a graphic love scene or violence to be aired on any disney show or nickelonian. (and they better not mess with my grandchild's barney show ) But I think that they are going overboard in taking Howard Stern off the air and the Janet Jackson incident was way overblown. Also I think the road in censoring is a recipe for extremist religionist to start deciding what we can watch and listen to.

The other morning or night I was watching the news and there was this rap singer or someone protesting what is being done to rap singers in some city. They are profiling rap artist because of their lyrics in their songs. The person doing the interviewing was saying stuff like, "well, the songs do incite violence and encourage gangsters..." and I thought how hypercritical. What about all those Mob shows like the Godfather and the Sopranos. Are they profiling those actors for acting like they are mobsters, in effect glorifying mobsters?

What I am trying to get at is that it is a thing that could easily get out of hand and chances are it wouldn't be fair. Just my opinion.