LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY eiredrake)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/busine
Censorship is a pet peeve of mine. Especially when:
The orders are in response to more than 300,000 consumer complaints about programming that viewers found indecent, profane or obscene. Many complaints are lodged in large numbers by organized groups and not by independent viewers.
Basically, it's yet another political maneuver by our right wing Masters.
Sign on San Diego TV Ratings Guide says that Without a Trace gets a viewership of 20.1 million people. 20.1 MILLION. Yet 300,000 people, an apparently small but vocal minority can decide what the remaining 19,800,000 are permitted to watch? Yes, 300,000 is a lot of people and yes there needs to be some sort of standard for regular broadcast Tv. But this whole batch of nonsense is to protect kids and protect uppity sensibilities in adults. It would be more effective if these people claiming to be protecting their kids would actually be PARENTS and keep track of what Junior is watching instead of forcibly limiting other people's choices.
Personally I find shows like Fear Factor to be utterly repugnant and vile ( especially when they start eating roaches ). But just because I don't like it doesn't mean someone else shouldn't be able to watch it.
I hate to use the phrase 'vast Right wing conpiracy' ( since the vast left wing conspiracy is a favorite Republican/Conservative buzzword ) but this censorship nonsense is one facet of that very thing. Not necessarilly dark Christians ( though I'm willing to bet it's primarilly them ) but definately the type of right-wingers that want to live everyones lives for them. Changing how people express themselves isn't easy. But if you limit what they get to see and hear... and limit their avenues of expression you can affect their minds, behavior and so forth. 1984, anyone?
I wonder if we could possibly cost guys like Pat Robertson money if we all started writing into the FCC about how his comments and hypocrisy are morally indecent and should be stricken from the air. Naturally it'll never happen, since he's a core dominionist type but it'd be interesting to see what might happen. Anyone up for a letter writing campaign?
Not directly relevant to my proposal and argument but this ticked me off anyways...
"We absolutely are elated by the rulings handed down by the F.C.C.," Mr. Winter said. "Where they could fine a broadcaster for breaking the law, they did so. We think this sends a very powerful signal that those who violate the law will be punished."
Yeah... unless of course you're President.
Page Summary
May 2008
|
Fines for indecency
Woman who killed adopted son sought discipline advice from Evangelicals
LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY mirandaflynn) A quote and a definition
LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell) Jeremy Learming, writing at the blog, Wall of Separation, tells the story of the Raskin's testimony (which was covered by The Baltimore Sun) at a hearing in the Maryland legislature on proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Raskin, a professor of Constitutional Law at American University had been asked to testify by Equality Maryland, a marriage equality organization. More dramatic than his tesitimony was his exchange with Republican State Senator Nancy Jacobs who said, "As I read biblical principles, marriage is intended, ordained and started by God - that is my belief, ... For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principles." That quote is now on our front page, in the Wiki, and should be spread far and wide, because it is the quote which will take the Dominionist view of the law out of the picture, properly used. Clarkson goes on to define Dominionism: In a recent issue of The Public Eye, I noted that dominionism is a term used by outside observers to understand a complex yet vitally important trend. For people trying to figure out if a conservative politician, organization, or religious leader is a "dominionist," I noted three characteristics to listen for: To that last, it should be noted that dominionists believe that the Bible as an absolute, infallible source of God's word, and elevate it above even Christ and God. They worship the Bible. This is a critical difference, and when examining religious groups, their mission statements (or creeds) should always be checked to see where the Bible falls in their regard. If the Bible is first, then you are dealing with dominionists. Every change in the law they wish to force upon our government is driven by Scripture. Go read the article. And its links. It's quite interesting. Georgia House Bill Supporting "Conscience Clauses" Fails
LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY britzkrieg) Thank you for helping protect Georgia's women access to emergency contraception (EC or the 'morning-after' pill)! Because an overwhelming number of activists responded to Friday's urgent alert, the Georgia House did NOT pass HB1445!If you look at the Georgia General Assembly site, though, the situation looks more complex. To me, it looks like the House passed the bill, then voted to reconsider it, then voted to table it. WTF? I hate politicians... I'd keep an eye on dominionist media...
LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY exotic_princess) Missouri aims for "forced pregnancy", particularly for the poor
LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY wyldraven) |