Attack on the First Amendment

[Antitrust32]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that this thread was not about radio hosts being censored by the government.

[Antitrust32]

whoever came up with the word "straw man" should be shot.

we're not in Kansas anymore.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

whoever came up with the word "straw man" should be shot.

we're not in Kansas anymore.

I can edit it to "nonsensical, illogical argument," if you'd like?

[Antitrust32]

I have no problem with people who call a womens basketball team nappy headed ho's being fired from his or her EMPLOYER for saying those words.

I do have a problem with a city counsel wasting taxpayers time and money with a resolution that goes against the consitution anyway.

shock jock radio hosts should really concern themselves with political correctness. nobody cares to be entertained anyway.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I have no problem with people who call a womens basketball team nappy headed ho's being fired from his or her EMPLOYER for saying those words.

I do have a problem with a city counsel wasting taxpayers time and money with a resolution that goes against the consitution anyway.

shock jock radio hosts should really concern themselves with political correctness. nobody cares to be entertained anyway.

A law outlawing sexist and racist language? That'd be a big problem, and also against the Constitution.

Thank goodness that's not what happened here!

And while YMMV, if your entertainment relies on "shock" and offense and hurt to other people, then good for you, your entertainment sucks and is incredibly uncreative, IMO. But what do I know, I'm just too sensitive and liberal to understand the sheer joy and entertainment in tearing other people down. Sounds like a ton of fun I'm missing out on.

And more importantly, because this is what you're hung up on, my entire premise is not that Maher, Limbaugh, Stern, or any other run of the mill jackass who relies on hurting other people to succeed should be off the air. It's great that they're on the air. Free Speech: that's what it's for!

But when Maher gets defensive and plays the victim when called out for calling Sarah Palin a "c***," and Limbaugh for his words, and however many other great examples there are of these people complaining about their free speech, everyone gets up in arms defending them for their right to it.

And I'm right there with you, because I also believe in their right to say whatever they want -- but PLEASE let's stop confusing criticism of a person's use of their right to free speech and an urging that they avoid harmful words to an attempt to deny their right of free speech.

[Antitrust32]

people like maher and rush certainly deserve to be criticized by there listeners, non listeners or peers for some of the worthless shi.t they spew.

I'm just saying, it's completely unnecessary and wasteful for a city councel to use taxpayer dime and time to come up with this resolution.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

people like maher and rush certainly deserve to be criticized by there listeners, non listeners or peers for some of the worthless shi.t they spew.

I'm just saying, it's completely unnecessary and wasteful for a city councel to use taxpayer dime and time to come up with this resolution.

Wish you would've just said that in the first place.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that this thread was not about radio hosts being censored by the government.

Glad you realized it now.

If you think a city council passing something that really boils down to, "we'd like it if you would be nicer," with absolutely zero teeth or consequences to it is government censorship, then we have a really fundamental disagreement about exactly what censorship is. I'm really glad the real meaning of government censorship is not your definition of it, because we'd live in an awfully scary place if that were the case.

Enjoy the afternoon!