|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Nov 21, 2004 19:22:30 GMT -5
One could argue that communication mediums such as television, radio, internet, etc. are all logical extensions of the Press.
And can the "Necessary and Proper Clause" override what is specifically stated in the Constitution? I think that clause is more about giving Congress powers not specifically given to them in the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Raz V5.0 on Nov 21, 2004 19:38:32 GMT -5
But then...that makes freedom of ANYTHING impossible, because in order for it to be totally "free" you would have to eliminate ALL consequences, which is totally unrealistic and impossible. Unless you're living on a desert island by yourself. Then, the only consequences would be your own reactions to your own states. I don't know what you imagine Freedom of Speech to be, Raz, but what you've described so far can only exist in a vacuum. Okay, realistically, even IF all of the FCC's regulations were suspended, that would NEVER happen anyway. Why? Because there is no audience for a Mature Ad during that timeslot! There is no point in advertising a product aimed at 20 year olds to a bunch of 5-year olds! A lot of what determines when programming comes on is the advertising and who the advertising is aimed at. I'm sure this is common sense already, but I just felt compelled to shoot down a bad example. I don't have a vision of Freedom of Speech, because frankly PK, I know there is no such thing in existence. The Bill of Rights is just a control device. Much like anything created by our fore-fathers.
|
|
|
Post by Wag - Now And Forever on Nov 22, 2004 2:02:57 GMT -5
Quick fact with little pertinence:
Shit actually originated around the time of the 16th - 17th century when all shipping was done via ocean going ships. Due to the high volume of methane gas produced by manure when it got wet deep in the holds, it was imperative that sailors store the manure at the top of the hold to prevent iginition of the methane. This acronym "Ship High In Transit" eventually became "Shit". The name has stuck ever since.
|
|
|
Post by Infested Manae on Nov 22, 2004 11:34:40 GMT -5
Wait a second! STONERS?! What the hell is being advertised here...?! <AD> Come on down to Carl's Crack House! We've the finest assortment of rock, roach, meth, and any other illegal drug you could want! Browse our massive selection, or even take a test of it in our many private booths! We'll keep the pipe warm for ya!
|
|
|
Post by Craze on Nov 22, 2004 12:27:11 GMT -5
When I was very little, I loved The Butter Battle Book by Dr. Seuss, the movie. I don't mean just love, I was obsessed. I watched it atleast once every day. The movie was supposed to show how war was bad but my parents saw more that I was liking the war part than the message so they hid it from me and I eventually forgot about it for about 13 years before they reminded me again about it.
But, anyway, if there's cencership, there's always something that challenges it from Ulysses in the 1920s to the film version of A Clockwork Orange in 1972.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Nov 22, 2004 17:45:37 GMT -5
I'm inclined to agree with you, Ai. And don't take this as an attack, but you aren't nearly as anti-censorship as you'd like to think. Remember this? Hey Ellis, remember this? This is from the agreement with Proboards that you agreed to when you signed up on Proboards. That avatar was defamatory, and abusive.
|
|
|
Post by NeoEllis on Nov 23, 2004 17:47:01 GMT -5
Nonsense. First of all, I can't imagine how that avatar would abuse a person (unless my fellows at the Bar are a good deal more insecure than I previously believed).
Secondly, let us take a look at the root word of defamatory, defame:
To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel.
My avatar by no means represented a false or untrue negative history or state of being regarding Christianity. It simply represented my feelings on the religion. Consider this: would it be so much worse if I had simply scribed the meaning of my avatar as "I disagree with modern Christianity in a variety of issues"?
Certainly not.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 23, 2004 23:33:28 GMT -5
I can see where people might go ape over the avatar (even though I agree with Ellis). As the saying goes: "A picture is worth a thousand words."
I'm not for censorship. I think that it hides people from the evils of life, which is the last thing that I think should be done. The more people know about the horrors of humanity, the quicker we can right our wrongs.
|
|