OT - HOWARD STERN SILENCED

Three cheers for you, Dad! Good job.

In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Everette"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> My family and I live in a racially mixed neighborhood (Hopewell, VA).
>Everyone gets along great with no racial overtones (at least not that we've
>encountered).
> My daughter refers to black people as brown people because as a 5 year
>old, that's how she views it. We stopped at a small convenience store last
>May. There was an SUV parked in front of the store with no one in it and it
>was blaring "gangster rap". The song that was playing was clearly echoing
>the "N" word every second. My daughter, curious and having been talking
>clearly since 2, asked me what the "N" word meant. I explained that it was
>JUST a word that bad people call brown people. I played it DOWN because I
>didn't want to encourage further curiosity about the matter. A five minute
>answer would have provoked a day of thought on the subject and 20 more
>questions. More knowledge than I care to place on a 5 year old mind.
> I started fuming that my daughter had been put in a situation to hear
>this against MY will. I proceeded to go into the store and ask who owned the
>Ford Expedition outside. A young black man (accompanied by an older black
>woman that I assumed was his mother) acknowledged that it was his. I told
>him my daughter had a question for him and proceeded to let her ask HIM what
>that word meant. His attitude quickly turned to anger as he heard her
>question. He looked at me and started (notice I said started) to go into a
>racially charged rant and puff his chest at me. His mother was just as
>shocked that the "N" word just came from my daughter's mouth. I simply held
>up a finger to pause him for a second, and asked my daughter to tell him
>where she heard that word, to which she replied "a song". I then asked her
>where she heard that song, and she pointed to his vehicle "right there". He
>looked confused but his mother's face turned to anger as she turned towards
>him. I then sarcastically thanked him for educating my daughter on the
>subject and started walking away.
> The MOTHER, not the young man, followed us out to the car and stopped
>me. She apologized to my daughter for it and asked me why I did that
>[confronted the young man]. I replied that I thought it was my
>responsibility as a parent and person to point out to the young man the
>consequences of that song (playing aloud) and that I have NO problem with
>the music, only that it should be heard by adults exclusively. I also
>expressed my belief that music like that (and Eminem, David Allan Coe et al)
>only serves to degrade young minds and goes against all that I am TRYING to
>teach my daughter. I told her once that door is open, it's hard to close. I
>can't unteach my daughter about that word. I have no problem with sound
>minded adults listening to it privately in an atmosphere of adults. She said
>that made perfect since and apologized to me and walked away. As we were
>leaving, I could hear her rant at her son as a CASE of CD's was flying from
>her side of his SUV. The last thing I could hear was him yelling a sentence
>that contained the word bitch. I can only assume that he was calling her (or
>my daughter) that word. I can also assume that he provided further proof to
>her of the validity of the point that I was making.
>
>Do you think HE learned anything from was had just occurred?
>Do you really think that the First Amendment was designed to protect
>vulgarities?
>

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

Bravo, Bill. Well done.

--
It's probably time to change my sig line, eh?

was shopping for WW books - Bill Hylton's router book in fact - tucked
> behind the WW books - I find an explicit book of erotic, lesbian
> photography. While it didn't bother me (ex-Navy guy), I wondered "Cripes!
> What if some kid found this?"
>


OK - I'll bite - SO F**Kin WHAT? Do you think it will corrupt the kid?
Chances are it will be a source of giggles depending on the age of the
*child*. It's the stupid adults who take this crap seriously - most of the
kids just laugh or are embarrassed. I've forgotten the statistics but there
were studies that showed that a goodly percentage of children had a
*harmless* homosexual experience early on in life. More the "exploring" each
other thing rather than any sexual intent.

I'll say it again and it is MHO but we adults take this stuff too damn
seriously under the popular (today) pretext of protecting our children.

Vic

This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the First Amendment.
A company deciding that their customers don't like what
their DJ is doing and pulling the plug is not censorship. It's called
good business. If Howard wants to get his message out,
(heh, heh, yeah, he's freakin' brilliant!) he can buy his own string
of radio stations. Why should Clear Channel feel obligated to
air his garbage? If you say that they are just buckling under
pressure from the FCC, I believe the FCC is just reacting to
public complaints. Enough people have complained about his
and other peoples over-the-airwaves crap so they're stepping
up. But mostly, I think that Clear Channel is just practicing
what they believe to be good business.
Speaking of offensive words coming from cars, I have 5 and
8 year old kids. It sucks when a car pulls up next to us at a light
with his/her megawatt stereo blasting the nastiest gangsta rap so
loud that no rolled up windows will stop the sound... "Daddy?
What's a Mutha F**ka?" The law stops me from blowing
his worthless head off but it doesn't stop him from polluting my
kids' heads with garbage. Well, there are some never-enforced
noise laws but that doesn't stop them. Yeah, that's a great
example of freedom of speech.

Bruce
Redding, Ca.

"searcher1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hold on now, "but if you
> > want it, you should have to seek it " you said this. And you also
said you
> shouldn't have to listen to it at some stoplight. Now you want
people to
> roll up thier windows when approaching another stopped vehicle?
> I personally do not listen to Howard, But back in the day I did
listen to
> Greaseman on DC 101. I liked him then and to this day I remember
some of his
> bits. We should all be able to speak our mind, Hmmm there should be
a law
> about that, people should be allowed to say what they feel! I think
it's the
> first amendment! I also have kids and I don't want him sitting
around
> watching a foul mouthed movie at 2 years old. So I monitor what he
watches.
> Yes I even filter out the cartoons that I think is not appropriate.
But see
> that my choice and I HAVE THAT CHOICE, if I want to watch cartoon
figures
> put guns to thier head and pull the trigger then I can Bu t I am not
going
> to let my son watch it. I make the decisons for me not let some old
> battleaxe do it.
>
> Searcher 1
>
> >
> "BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Interesting OT - What's happening in
> > that arena made me think. He's got
> > a right to present his shtik, but if you
> > want it, you should have to seek it
> > out. You shouldn't have to listen to it
> > when you're walking into some retail
> > store or next to somebody at a
> > stoplight with kids in your car.
>
>

This I believe is the more germane topic. Forget about censorship, forget
about the FCC and its fines and regulation and what the government does and
does not say you can or can't do. Let's look at ourselves as a population.
Let's talk about how we conduct ourselves as a whole. You cannot dispute
the fact that there is little sense of decorum in our society, that there is
little sense of personal limits or personal responsibility. We are supposed
to be a nation of self determination. Everyone needs to stop looking to the
government to solve problems. We all need to look around ourselves, and
more importantly AT ourselves and ask how we affect the world around us. WE
make the world that WE ALL live in.

I am sure that most of the people reading this do not go around blaring foul
language out of the windows of their cars, or walk through the store
cussing, so this is probably aimed at the wrong audience. However, for
those that are reading this and are offended by these behaviors, do not look
to the government to solve the problem. Instead, let's talk about ways that
we can fix it ourselves. I do not know the answer to that. I only know that
you cannot legislate a sense of decency and politeness.

SteveP.

"Bill Everette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Funny thing is, we decided to home school her to reduce that amount of
> exposure she has to the current culture in public schools. Then lo and
> behold, I stop to get us a Dr. Pepper and Pringles and look what happens!
> I also find myself getting more intolerant of our culture (anything
> goes) the older I get (35 now). If this had happened in the past, I would
> have just kept on walking and not thought twice. But I find that we are
> bombarded with this everywhere we go. Sex, drugs and crime are being
> glorified. I had to explain the word SLUT because of Nickelodeon, and
> explain why the afternoon host of Nickelodeon was taking his pants off and
> getting "nude". Yes, they used that word as he was taking them off. I
can't
> watch ANY channel without an ad for Avlimil advertising that you can
> increase your sexual libido. Movies can't just show a couple going into a
> bedroom and closing the door, they have to show everything EXPLICITLY. I'm
> smart enough to understand what they are going to do, You don't have to
show
> me pictures! I can get porn channels for that and Janet Jackson's breasts
> aren't so impressive that the whole world needs to know. Besides, I can
buy
> a pair just like them! I'm afraid to take my daughter to see Scooby Doo 2
> tonight because the rating says "Language". Come on guys, this is Scooby
> Doo! I think we can have a Scooby movie without profanity! Disney has Gay
> Days without notifying other visitors. I don't want my daughter to see
> heterosexuals fondling, mush less homosexuals. I don't want to have to
> explain that to my daughters. The most they need to see is their mother
and
> father hugging and giving a lip kiss. That's not an attitude towards gays,
I
> don't like to see the teens walking around the mall in a lip lock with
their
> hands on each others rear. It's improper public conduct. And to think, I
> used to be liberal, life turned me conservative!
>
> Rant Over!
>
> Roh Kay Raggie
>
> --
> ********************************************************************
> I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
> softness of head.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
> The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level
with
> the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
> The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is
the
> most brutal wrongdoer.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
> > Three cheers for you, Dad! Good job.
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Everette"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > My family and I live in a racially mixed neighborhood (Hopewell,
VA).
> > >Everyone gets along great with no racial overtones (at least not that
> we've
> > >encountered).
> > > My daughter refers to black people as brown people because as a 5
> year
> > >old, that's how she views it. We stopped at a small convenience store
> last
> > >May. There was an SUV parked in front of the store with no one in it
and
> it
> > >was blaring "gangster rap". The song that was playing was clearly
echoing
> > >the "N" word every second. My daughter, curious and having been talking
> > >clearly since 2, asked me what the "N" word meant. I explained that it
> was
> > >JUST a word that bad people call brown people. I played it DOWN because
I
> > >didn't want to encourage further curiosity about the matter. A five
> minute
> > >answer would have provoked a day of thought on the subject and 20 more
> > >questions. More knowledge than I care to place on a 5 year old mind.
> > > I started fuming that my daughter had been put in a situation to
hear
> > >this against MY will. I proceeded to go into the store and ask who
owned
> the
> > >Ford Expedition outside. A young black man (accompanied by an older
black
> > >woman that I assumed was his mother) acknowledged that it was his. I
told
> > >him my daughter had a question for him and proceeded to let her ask HIM
> what
> > >that word meant. His attitude quickly turned to anger as he heard her
> > >question. He looked at me and started (notice I said started) to go
into
> a
> > >racially charged rant and puff his chest at me. His mother was just as
> > >shocked that the "N" word just came from my daughter's mouth. I simply
> held
> > >up a finger to pause him for a second, and asked my daughter to tell
him
> > >where she heard that word, to which she replied "a song". I then asked
> her
> > >where she heard that song, and she pointed to his vehicle "right
there".
> He
> > >looked confused but his mother's face turned to anger as she turned
> towards
> > >him. I then sarcastically thanked him for educating my daughter on the
> > >subject and started walking away.
> > > The MOTHER, not the young man, followed us out to the car and
stopped
> > >me. She apologized to my daughter for it and asked me why I did that
> > >[confronted the young man]. I replied that I thought it was my
> > >responsibility as a parent and person to point out to the young man the
> > >consequences of that song (playing aloud) and that I have NO problem
with
> > >the music, only that it should be heard by adults exclusively. I
also
> > >expressed my belief that music like that (and Eminem, David Allan Coe
et
> al)
> > >only serves to degrade young minds and goes against all that I am
TRYING
> to
> > >teach my daughter. I told her once that door is open, it's hard to
close.
> I
> > >can't unteach my daughter about that word. I have no problem with sound
> > >minded adults listening to it privately in an atmosphere of adults. She
> said
> > >that made perfect since and apologized to me and walked away. As we
were
> > >leaving, I could hear her rant at her son as a CASE of CD's was flying
> from
> > >her side of his SUV. The last thing I could hear was him yelling a
> sentence
> > >that contained the word bitch. I can only assume that he was calling
her
> (or
> > >my daughter) that word. I can also assume that he provided further
proof
> to
> > >her of the validity of the point that I was making.
> > >
> > >Do you think HE learned anything from was had just occurred?
> > >Do you really think that the First Amendment was designed to protect
> > >vulgarities?
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
> >
> > For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> > send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> >
> >
>
>

Bill Everette wrote:
...
> him my daughter had a question for him and proceeded to let her ask HIM what
> that word meant. His attitude quickly turned to anger as he heard her
...

Bloody well done.

If you are using this as a segue to argue the for\against the interpretation
of the 2nd amendment. Feel free, but your point is lost on me.

"> Are you so sure it was inadvertent? "
Am I sure it was inadvertent? Absolutely! Taking the context of the
amendment, as well as the history and circumstances of the writers -
ensuring "free speech" of contemporary filth was the farthest from their
mind. They wanted folks of future generations to have the Constitutionally
protected power to speak, print, and gather against government.

"> Yes."
Jesus - ok... If you think the Founding Fathers would condone and protect
via "Free Speech" most of what's on the radio, hehe - cripes - You win. I
can't argue with that logic.

I'm a pretty basic fellow. Pretty shallow in about every area of life. So, I
don't have the wisdom or heady ideals to argue such things... I guess for
that reason, it seems pretty cut and dried to me. So some of your stuff is
over my head.

"You have your idea of what does and doesn't qualify and so do most others.
That is precisely why the First Amendment was written as an absolute."

You say the 1st is an "absolute?" Yet you also argue, "the Supreme Court
ruled" on this 30 yrs ago. If something is an absolute, why rule or
interpret? Absolute is absolute. Right? Are you saying there should be no
question as to "Free Speech?" It's all relative, right?

But again, my point isn't morality. 1st amendment is about anti-government
speech, print, etc - or at least in intent.

If you want to add one to allow Howard Stern to say anything he wants - feel
free. Honestly, I don't care.

*And as to the "turn off the TV," or "watch your kids" arguments. That's
pretty stupid - Yea, we all get the point, and agree - with "Change the
channel," but please concede that it isn't that easy. About 3 months ago, I
was shopping for WW books - Bill Hylton's router book in fact - tucked
behind the WW books - I find an explicit book of erotic, lesbian
photography. While it didn't bother me (ex-Navy guy), I wondered "Cripes!
What if some kid found this?"

-jbd, Denver

Interesting OT - What's happening in
that arena made me think. He's got
a right to present his shtik, but if you
want it, you should have to seek it
out. You shouldn't have to listen to it
when you're walking into some retail
store or next to somebody at a
stoplight with kids in your car.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> "Trent©"
>

Had him killfiled, for good reason it appears.

... snip
> > Again...try to find that Boston Public episode. It really discusses
> > the problems in using the word 'nigger'. And I think you'll find that
> > your dialog is expressed by at least one of the characters in that
> > episode.
>
> So I should educate my daughters by quoting fictional characters created by
> the same industry that is at least partly responsible for the degradation of
> our society that we are current having to endure?
>

Yep, when you are the writer, you get to set the stage, you get to
arrange the characters, and you get to give voice to the people whom you
choose. If you have a particular bias, you can make the people who
support your position seem well-educated, deeply thoughtful and
insightful while you can make the people who oppose your particular bias
appear to be crude, uneducated, bigoted cretins who can't string two
coherent sentences together. Or, more insidiously, make them appear as
just slightly less educated and needing some "enlightenment" to see the
error of their ways. Just one of the reasons I don't even bother to view
modern-day prime-time programming anymore.

you wrote-

This is where the First Amendment is being violated. The FCC is
knuckling uder to a small group of complainers and is levying fines to
get some speech restricted. I am hopeful (but not holding my breath)
that the broadcasters, or more likely, the dj's (since the bulk of the
fines are aimed at them) will take these new restrictions to court and
win back some sensibility

(Cut and pasted from my other post under different thread)

Let's check the verbiage shall we?

"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. "

This amendment is the one we get "freedom of religion", "separation of
church and state", "freedom of speech", "freedom of the press", "the right
to assemble" and "the right to petition". Agreed?

The same amendment you claim gives constitutionally protected speech also
gives the right to petition the government to redress (or remedy)
grievances. That is what is happening. The FCC, which by the way isn't
congress and can enact any legislation it chooses until a suit is filed and
the supreme court rules either for or against, is reacting to the petitions
of those who have exercised their right to petition. You have the right to
petition against this and if you are successfully able to get enough support
for your cause can in fact determine the outcome without any fear from the
government restricting your ability to do so.

So not only is the 1st amendment not being violated but it is essentially
being used exactly as it was intended.

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:06:30 -0700, "John Dykes" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If the Founding Fathers had any idea of the trash, pornography, and poison
>that they had _inadvertently_ protected under the first amemendment, they
>would have never considered it.

John,
Do you honestly believe there wasn't trash, pornography & poison back
then? What you see today has always been a part of society; just the
means of production and efficiency of propagating it has changed.
The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing.
IMO they were a lot smarter than you think they were.<G>

Kiyu

As the "owner" of the airwaves, which are leased to the stations, the FCC
can make what conditions it cares to make for use. First says you're free
to speak, it does not say you may do it without consequence. You know
certain "hate" words are banned, don't you?

<Secret> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perhaps, but the FCC does not have the authority to determine what is or
> is not indecent. That is an issue for the courts. The FCC is supposed to
> deal with licensing and technical issues only.
>

Actually, if you were not full of yourself, but information, you would know
that the issue of obscenity is a local issue. And this case of lessors of
the public airways is a perfect example. Locals enter their comments in the
stations' FCC license files as they will, and if that isn't letting local
standards decide, I don't know what is.

Supreme Court is a place where people with bad manners or dictatorial
pretensions take their case when they find it's against the common standard.

<Secret> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NO, it can't. The FCC like every other goverment agency has a charter
> which dictates what it can and can not do. The FCC was created to
> regulate licensing and technical issues. They have somehow now become the
> arbiters of what is and is not indecent in broadcasting. The problem is
> that they do not have that authority. The issue of indecency (which was
> already decided by the Supreme Court more than 30 years ago) is one for
> the courts not for a regulatory agency.

Greetings and Salutations...

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:11:17 GMT, "Bill Everette" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
*snip*

>3) The number ONE source of lead available children is pencils, the same
>ones they chew. Yet pencils can be found everywhere. In fact, we make them
>even bigger with more lead for children. You know what number two is, dirt.
>Can I sue the company that made the pie tin that my daughter ate that mud
>pie out of? After all, there was no warning?

*snip*.

While I am not really interested in joining the contest, I
have to point out one glaring factual error here. There is no lead
in a "lead" pencil. The core is graphite, with a binder (Clay of
some sort, I seem to recall...ah yes...here is a link:
http://www.officemuseum.com/pencil_history.htm) There may have
been lead in the paint on the outside of the pencil, at one TIME,
but, not for years.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:06:30 -0700, "John Dykes" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If the Founding Fathers had any idea of the trash, pornography, and poison
>that they had _inadvertently_ protected under the first amemendment, t

Who decides what's trash?

If nobody wanted too hear it, it wouldn't sell. But it does...

What is credited as the biggest reason for growth in cable TV, VCR's,
Polaroid cameras, and the Internet when they were still considered
emerging technologies. That's right, porn! <G>

Barry

I am not arguing with you trust me! As an ex boom car owner and now being
"ALL GROWN UP" I cannot stand the thump that comes from the cars. Nowadays
the music is crap. Back in the day we had more boom then foul language. I
don't listen to HS BUT, Clear channel hired him to do a job and that was to
get ratings, he has indubitely done this. Tremendous ratings if am am
correct. Now because Janet Jackass pulls a stunt on NAtl TV, HS has to
suffer. Why. Again not listening to him I cannot say how bad (foul) he
really is.He is only doing the job he was hired to do. Radio customers have
the choice to listen of change the channel. I don't think Howard Stern
sounds any better at 120 DBs so Pumping up the vloume on him probably would
ba a mute point. Hence, you would here him from another cars radio.
What if internet rulerman came and said that he is forming a watch group
to filter out everything that they find objectionable. And everything that
you type has to clear channels first? Think of it that way.
I am just playing devils advocate here. I too have kids adn I filter what
they watch. But if someone else did the filtering woudl I be happy. I like
to choose my own direction. If I want to watch Wile E Coyote blow Roadrunner
up with a cannon then great. I don't let my son see this though. It appalls
me to see cartoon charactors putting gun to thier head and pulling the
trigger. With guns in my house (locked up of course) I don't want my son
seeing this stuff. SO I FILTER.

Searcher1

"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the First Amendment.
> A company deciding that their customers don't like what
> their DJ is doing and pulling the plug is not censorship. It's called
> good business. If Howard wants to get his message out,
> (heh, heh, yeah, he's freakin' brilliant!) he can buy his own string
> of radio stations. Why should Clear Channel feel obligated to
> air his garbage? If you say that they are just buckling under
> pressure from the FCC, I believe the FCC is just reacting to
> public complaints. Enough people have complained about his
> and other peoples over-the-airwaves crap so they're stepping
> up. But mostly, I think that Clear Channel is just practicing
> what they believe to be good business.
> Speaking of offensive words coming from cars, I have 5 and
> 8 year old kids. It sucks when a car pulls up next to us at a light
> with his/her megawatt stereo blasting the nastiest gangsta rap so
> loud that no rolled up windows will stop the sound... "Daddy?
> What's a Mutha F**ka?" The law stops me from blowing
> his worthless head off but it doesn't stop him from polluting my
> kids' heads with garbage. Well, there are some never-enforced
> noise laws but that doesn't stop them. Yeah, that's a great
> example of freedom of speech.
>
> Bruce
> Redding, Ca.
>
> "searcher1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hold on now, "but if you
> > > want it, you should have to seek it " you said this. And you also
> said you
> > shouldn't have to listen to it at some stoplight. Now you want
> people to
> > roll up thier windows when approaching another stopped vehicle?
> > I personally do not listen to Howard, But back in the day I did
> listen to
> > Greaseman on DC 101. I liked him then and to this day I remember
> some of his
> > bits. We should all be able to speak our mind, Hmmm there should be
> a law
> > about that, people should be allowed to say what they feel! I think
> it's the
> > first amendment! I also have kids and I don't want him sitting
> around
> > watching a foul mouthed movie at 2 years old. So I monitor what he
> watches.
> > Yes I even filter out the cartoons that I think is not appropriate.
> But see
> > that my choice and I HAVE THAT CHOICE, if I want to watch cartoon
> figures
> > put guns to thier head and pull the trigger then I can Bu t I am not
> going
> > to let my son watch it. I make the decisons for me not let some old
> > battleaxe do it.
> >
> > Searcher 1
> >
> > >
> > "BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Interesting OT - What's happening in
> > > that arena made me think. He's got
> > > a right to present his shtik, but if you
> > > want it, you should have to seek it
> > > out. You shouldn't have to listen to it
> > > when you're walking into some retail
> > > store or next to somebody at a
> > > stoplight with kids in your car.
> >
> >
>
>

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:26:29 GMT, "Bill Everette" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> My family and I live in a racially mixed neighborhood (Hopewell, VA).
>Everyone gets along great with no racial overtones (at least not that we've
>encountered).
> My daughter refers to black people as brown people because as a 5 year
>old, that's how she views it. We stopped at a small convenience store last
>May. There was an SUV parked in front of the store with no one in it and it
>was blaring "gangster rap". The song that was playing was clearly echoing
>the "N" word every second. My daughter, curious and having been talking
>clearly since 2, asked me what the "N" word meant. I explained that it was
>JUST a word that bad people call brown people.

The 'N' word? Are you talkin' about 'nigger'?

I live in a racially mixed neighborhood, too...and I hear that word
all the time, too.

And it isn't always a 'JUST a word that bad people call brown people'.
Often, its used as a term of endearment...used to greet friends.

Sadly, I think you simply invoked your prejudice into your daughter's
education.

>I played it DOWN because I
>didn't want to encourage further curiosity about the matter. A five minute
>answer would have provoked a day of thought on the subject and 20 more
>questions. More knowledge than I care to place on a 5 year old mind.

One day, in the near future, you should take the time. There was a
very interesting episode a while back on 'Boston Public'...where the
whites and blacks discussed the use of the word 'nigger'. You should
try to get a copy of that episode...very enlightening.

>His mother was just as
>shocked that the "N" word just came from my daughter's mouth.

...who, because of what you just taught her, will now go on thinking
that this is always a 'bad' word.

>I simply held
>up a finger to pause him for a second, and asked my daughter to tell him
>where she heard that word, to which she replied "a song". I then asked her
>where she heard that song, and she pointed to his vehicle "right there". He
>looked confused but his mother's face turned to anger as she turned towards
>him. I then sarcastically thanked him for educating my daughter on the
>subject and started walking away.

I find it hard to believe that they both hadn't listened to the cd as
they traveled to the store. After all, you said it was still
playing...as they were in shopping.

> The MOTHER, not the young man, followed us out to the car and stopped
>me. She apologized to my daughter for it and asked me why I did that
>[confronted the young man]. I replied that I thought it was my
>responsibility as a parent and person to point out to the young man the
>consequences of that song (playing aloud) and that I have NO problem with
>the music, only that it should be heard by adults exclusively.

Why? lol I guess I don't understand.

> I
>can't unteach my daughter about that word.

Why?...for heaven's sake.

>Do you think HE learned anything from was had just occurred?

Of COURSE he did. We ALL learn new lessons about life. But I don't
think its the same lesson that YOU think he learned.

>Do you really think that the First Amendment was designed to protect
>vulgarities?

It was designed to protect against the people who would DEFINE
vulgarities.

Again...try to find that Boston Public episode. It really discusses
the problems in using the word 'nigger'. And I think you'll find that
your dialog is expressed by at least one of the characters in that
episode.


Have a nice week...

Trent

What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.

> If the Founding Fathers had any idea of the trash, pornography, and poison
> that they had _inadvertently_ protected under the first amemendment, they
> would have never considered it.

So you don't like trash, pronography and poison. So I LIKE trash,
pornography and poison. Why should I be penalized for your opinions? I
happen to think that Jerry Falwell is a complete ass but he has a right to
spew his trash, holier than thou attitude etc and much as Al Sharpson
(sp?).


> The whole point of freedom of speech and the intent of the first amendment
> was exhibited vividly during the struggle for civil rights in the 60's.
THIS
> was the intent of the first amendment - We the people are free to speak
> against the government, print against the government, and assemble
peaceably
> and demonstrate against the government to REDRESS GRIEVANCES!


Oh GIVE ME A BREAK for crissake! Do you really believe that crap? That is
just ONE FACET of freedom of speech. The 'trash' as you call it is justr
another side of the same freedom.

FWIW, I can't stand Howard Stern - I find his brand of humor distasteful and
demeaning to women. BUT he has every right in the world to do his thing.

With the state of the world today, try talking too loudly against the
government - especially if you're an Arab American. Tell me about freedom of
speech then or does speaking against the government only work for certain
people.

Just because Janet Jackson flashed a boob in primetime - every politico is
jumping on the smut bandwagon. "We gotta protect our kids from this kind of
stuff"! Where in the hell were all these do gooders 60 years ago when it
wasn't as popular to protect our kids.

It's freedom of speech - not freedom of publicly accepted speech.

Just MHO,

Vic

As I said before, I do not have the answer to that question. Perhaps it is
poor of me to make the assertions that I did without being able to answer
all of the questions. However, I firmly believe that if anything is to
change the good men and women among us must be the ones to change it. If
those people do nothing but throw their hands in the air in a plaintive cry
of 'what am I to do' and then surrender, then the nature of the society in
which we live will be determined by the base elements among us.

SteveP.

"Bill Everette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So should I just knock the crap out of anyone who cusses or shows a
breast?
>
> Aside from the government, who do I call to enforce decency?
>
> Although I agree with most of what you say, I disagree with the notion
that
> we cannot legislate decency. Certainly we have laws concerning public
> decency\indecency, this is just an extension of the same laws. We CAN
> legislate ANYTHING we choose. The problems is finding someone in the
> government with the *alls to stand up to a liberal media machine that
> insists that ANY laws governing such things as unconstitutional. They've
> even defended NAMBLA. In my city, public profanity is against the law.
THAT
> IS legislating morality. Now when they tell me I can't watch x-rated
> material in my HOME, then THAT is unconstitutional. No one can say the "N"
> word in public, because that is hate speech. Yet, music videos and movies
> can SAY or DO anything with no consequences. To long have we allowed the
> minority to decide what the majority can say or do. When the tobacco
> companies were being sued (I'm a smoker), my father agreed with them. I
told
> him that long ago that when you start to restrict or fine companies
selling
> a legal product that is used voluntarily, that it won't belong before
fatty
> foods or cholesterol laden foods are going to be fined or out lawed. We
now
> see that happening. As you say, personal responsibility is out the door.
> With such a simple thing as tort reform and what I call "anti-stupidity"
> laws, you can fix so many things, including healthcare in this country.
Last
> I read, frivolous law suits cost the medical industry (or cost us you can
> say) over $250 Billion PER YEAR. WE wind up paying that. That's just one
> example.
>
>
>
> --
> ********************************************************************
> I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
> softness of head.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
> The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level
with
> the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
> The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is
the
> most brutal wrongdoer.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
>
> "Steven P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This I believe is the more germane topic. Forget about censorship,
forget
> > about the FCC and its fines and regulation and what the government does
> and
> > does not say you can or can't do. Let's look at ourselves as a
> population.
> > Let's talk about how we conduct ourselves as a whole. You cannot
dispute
> > the fact that there is little sense of decorum in our society, that
there
> is
> > little sense of personal limits or personal responsibility. We are
> supposed
> > to be a nation of self determination. Everyone needs to stop looking to
> the
> > government to solve problems. We all need to look around ourselves, and
> > more importantly AT ourselves and ask how we affect the world around us.
> WE
> > make the world that WE ALL live in.
> >
> > I am sure that most of the people reading this do not go around blaring
> foul
> > language out of the windows of their cars, or walk through the store
> > cussing, so this is probably aimed at the wrong audience. However, for
> > those that are reading this and are offended by these behaviors, do not
> look
> > to the government to solve the problem. Instead, let's talk about ways
> that
> > we can fix it ourselves. I do not know the answer to that. I only know
> that
> > you cannot legislate a sense of decency and politeness.
> >
> > SteveP.
> >
> > "Bill Everette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Funny thing is, we decided to home school her to reduce that amount of
> > > exposure she has to the current culture in public schools. Then lo and
> > > behold, I stop to get us a Dr. Pepper and Pringles and look what
> happens!
> > > I also find myself getting more intolerant of our culture
(anything
> > > goes) the older I get (35 now). If this had happened in the past, I
> would
> > > have just kept on walking and not thought twice. But I find that we
are
> > > bombarded with this everywhere we go. Sex, drugs and crime are being
> > > glorified. I had to explain the word SLUT because of Nickelodeon, and
> > > explain why the afternoon host of Nickelodeon was taking his pants off
> and
> > > getting "nude". Yes, they used that word as he was taking them off. I
> > can't
> > > watch ANY channel without an ad for Avlimil advertising that you can
> > > increase your sexual libido. Movies can't just show a couple going
into
> a
> > > bedroom and closing the door, they have to show everything EXPLICITLY.
> I'm
> > > smart enough to understand what they are going to do, You don't have
to
> > show
> > > me pictures! I can get porn channels for that and Janet Jackson's
> breasts
> > > aren't so impressive that the whole world needs to know. Besides, I
can
> > buy
> > > a pair just like them! I'm afraid to take my daughter to see Scooby
Doo
> 2
> > > tonight because the rating says "Language". Come on guys, this is
Scooby
> > > Doo! I think we can have a Scooby movie without profanity! Disney has
> Gay
> > > Days without notifying other visitors. I don't want my daughter to see
> > > heterosexuals fondling, mush less homosexuals. I don't want to have to
> > > explain that to my daughters. The most they need to see is their
mother
> > and
> > > father hugging and giving a lip kiss. That's not an attitude towards
> gays,
> > I
> > > don't like to see the teens walking around the mall in a lip lock with
> > their
> > > hands on each others rear. It's improper public conduct. And to think,
I
> > > used to be liberal, life turned me conservative!
> > >
> > > Rant Over!
> > >
> > > Roh Kay Raggie
> > >
> > > --
> > > ********************************************************************
> > > I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and
that
> is
> > > softness of head.
> > > Theodore Roosevelt
> > >
> > > The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level
> > with
> > > the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
> > > Theodore Roosevelt
> > >
> > > The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as
is
> > the
> > > most brutal wrongdoer.
> > > Theodore Roosevelt
> > >
> > >
> > > "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:%[email protected]...
> > > > Three cheers for you, Dad! Good job.
> > > >
> > > > In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Everette"
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > My family and I live in a racially mixed neighborhood
(Hopewell,
> > VA).
> > > > >Everyone gets along great with no racial overtones (at least not
that
> > > we've
> > > > >encountered).
> > > > > My daughter refers to black people as brown people because as a
5
> > > year
> > > > >old, that's how she views it. We stopped at a small convenience
store
> > > last
> > > > >May. There was an SUV parked in front of the store with no one in
it
> > and
> > > it
> > > > >was blaring "gangster rap". The song that was playing was clearly
> > echoing
> > > > >the "N" word every second. My daughter, curious and having been
> talking
> > > > >clearly since 2, asked me what the "N" word meant. I explained that
> it
> > > was
> > > > >JUST a word that bad people call brown people. I played it DOWN
> because
> > I
> > > > >didn't want to encourage further curiosity about the matter. A five
> > > minute
> > > > >answer would have provoked a day of thought on the subject and 20
> more
> > > > >questions. More knowledge than I care to place on a 5 year old
mind.
> > > > > I started fuming that my daughter had been put in a situation
to
> > hear
> > > > >this against MY will. I proceeded to go into the store and ask who
> > owned
> > > the
> > > > >Ford Expedition outside. A young black man (accompanied by an older
> > black
> > > > >woman that I assumed was his mother) acknowledged that it was his.
I
> > told
> > > > >him my daughter had a question for him and proceeded to let her ask
> HIM
> > > what
> > > > >that word meant. His attitude quickly turned to anger as he heard
her
> > > > >question. He looked at me and started (notice I said started) to go
> > into
> > > a
> > > > >racially charged rant and puff his chest at me. His mother was just
> as
> > > > >shocked that the "N" word just came from my daughter's mouth. I
> simply
> > > held
> > > > >up a finger to pause him for a second, and asked my daughter to
tell
> > him
> > > > >where she heard that word, to which she replied "a song". I then
> asked
> > > her
> > > > >where she heard that song, and she pointed to his vehicle "right
> > there".
> > > He
> > > > >looked confused but his mother's face turned to anger as she turned
> > > towards
> > > > >him. I then sarcastically thanked him for educating my daughter on
> the
> > > > >subject and started walking away.
> > > > > The MOTHER, not the young man, followed us out to the car and
> > stopped
> > > > >me. She apologized to my daughter for it and asked me why I did
that
> > > > >[confronted the young man]. I replied that I thought it was my
> > > > >responsibility as a parent and person to point out to the young man
> the
> > > > >consequences of that song (playing aloud) and that I have NO
problem
> > with
> > > > >the music, only that it should be heard by adults exclusively.
I
> > also
> > > > >expressed my belief that music like that (and Eminem, David Allan
Coe
> > et
> > > al)
> > > > >only serves to degrade young minds and goes against all that I am
> > TRYING
> > > to
> > > > >teach my daughter. I told her once that door is open, it's hard to
> > close.
> > > I
> > > > >can't unteach my daughter about that word. I have no problem with
> sound
> > > > >minded adults listening to it privately in an atmosphere of adults.
> She
> > > said
> > > > >that made perfect since and apologized to me and walked away. As we
> > were
> > > > >leaving, I could hear her rant at her son as a CASE of CD's was
> flying
> > > from
> > > > >her side of his SUV. The last thing I could hear was him yelling a
> > > sentence
> > > > >that contained the word bitch. I can only assume that he was
calling
> > her
> > > (or
> > > > >my daughter) that word. I can also assume that he provided further
> > proof
> > > to
> > > > >her of the validity of the point that I was making.
> > > > >
> > > > >Do you think HE learned anything from was had just occurred?
> > > > >Do you really think that the First Amendment was designed to
protect
> > > > >vulgarities?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
> > > >
> > > > For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> > > > send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

My family and I live in a racially mixed neighborhood (Hopewell, VA).
Everyone gets along great with no racial overtones (at least not that we've
encountered).
My daughter refers to black people as brown people because as a 5 year
old, that's how she views it. We stopped at a small convenience store last
May. There was an SUV parked in front of the store with no one in it and it
was blaring "gangster rap". The song that was playing was clearly echoing
the "N" word every second. My daughter, curious and having been talking
clearly since 2, asked me what the "N" word meant. I explained that it was
JUST a word that bad people call brown people. I played it DOWN because I
didn't want to encourage further curiosity about the matter. A five minute
answer would have provoked a day of thought on the subject and 20 more
questions. More knowledge than I care to place on a 5 year old mind.
I started fuming that my daughter had been put in a situation to hear
this against MY will. I proceeded to go into the store and ask who owned the
Ford Expedition outside. A young black man (accompanied by an older black
woman that I assumed was his mother) acknowledged that it was his. I told
him my daughter had a question for him and proceeded to let her ask HIM what
that word meant. His attitude quickly turned to anger as he heard her
question. He looked at me and started (notice I said started) to go into a
racially charged rant and puff his chest at me. His mother was just as
shocked that the "N" word just came from my daughter's mouth. I simply held
up a finger to pause him for a second, and asked my daughter to tell him
where she heard that word, to which she replied "a song". I then asked her
where she heard that song, and she pointed to his vehicle "right there". He
looked confused but his mother's face turned to anger as she turned towards
him. I then sarcastically thanked him for educating my daughter on the
subject and started walking away.
The MOTHER, not the young man, followed us out to the car and stopped
me. She apologized to my daughter for it and asked me why I did that
[confronted the young man]. I replied that I thought it was my
responsibility as a parent and person to point out to the young man the
consequences of that song (playing aloud) and that I have NO problem with
the music, only that it should be heard by adults exclusively. I also
expressed my belief that music like that (and Eminem, David Allan Coe et al)
only serves to degrade young minds and goes against all that I am TRYING to
teach my daughter. I told her once that door is open, it's hard to close. I
can't unteach my daughter about that word. I have no problem with sound
minded adults listening to it privately in an atmosphere of adults. She said
that made perfect since and apologized to me and walked away. As we were
leaving, I could hear her rant at her son as a CASE of CD's was flying from
her side of his SUV. The last thing I could hear was him yelling a sentence
that contained the word bitch. I can only assume that he was calling her (or
my daughter) that word. I can also assume that he provided further proof to
her of the validity of the point that I was making.

Do you think HE learned anything from was had just occurred?
Do you really think that the First Amendment was designed to protect
vulgarities?

--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt


"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> As the "owner" of the airwaves, which are leased to the stations, the FCC
> can make what conditions it cares to make for use. First says you're free
> to speak, it does not say you may do it without consequence. You know
> certain "hate" words are banned, don't you?
>
> <Secret> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Perhaps, but the FCC does not have the authority to determine what is or
> > is not indecent. That is an issue for the courts. The FCC is supposed to
> > deal with licensing and technical issues only.
> >
>
>

<Secret> wrote
>
> While I agree in principle with most of what you have to say you missed
> on most of the points. Comments intermixed with original post.
>
> > So should I just knock the crap out of anyone who cusses or shows a
> > breast?
> >
> > Aside from the government, who do I call to enforce decency?
> >
> > Although I agree with most of what you say, I disagree with the notion
> > that we cannot legislate decency. Certainly we have laws concerning
> > public decency\indecency, this is just an extension of the same laws.
> > We CAN legislate ANYTHING we choose.
>
> Almost true. We can legislate anything that is not constitutionally
> protected. To legislate anything that IS constitutionally protected takes
> a constituional amendment which is far bigger undertaking.
>

My point still stands, we the people can change anything we want. That's why
we have the contitutional right to make contitutional ammendments. The
contitution can evolve to the will of the people.



>
> The problems is finding someone
> > in the government with the *alls to stand up to a liberal media
> > machine that insists that ANY laws governing such things as
> > unconstitutional.
>
> Also untrue. The courts determine what is and is not constituional. We
> have one of the most conservative Supreme courts in history sitting right
> now.
>
> They've even defended NAMBLA.
>
> Everyone is entitled to a defense no matter how reprehensible they may
> be. There goes that pesky constitution again
>

Again my point still stands, we elect politicians who in turn appoint
Justices.


>
> In my city, public
> > profanity is against the law. THAT IS legislating morality. Now when
> > they tell me I can't watch x-rated material in my HOME, then THAT is
> > unconstitutional. No one can say the "N" word in public, because that
> > is hate speech.
>
> Also not true. While distasteful and offensive, not illegal.

Again my point still stands. Read the first sentence: "In my city, public
profanity is against the law." Come HERE and call an officer any name you
wish, I'll post your bail. Or, utter a racial word (say "cracker") while
doing it, it then becomes a "Hate Crime" and allows for stiffer penalties.
MOST states have Hate Crime Enhancements ( inline with 28 U.S.C 994) now
that include being called any name refering to race, religion, ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, biased motivation and more.

>
>
> Yet, music videos and movies can SAY or DO anything
> > with no consequences. To long have we allowed the minority to decide
> > what the majority can say or do. When the tobacco companies were being
> > sued (I'm a smoker), my father agreed with them. I told him that long
> > ago that when you start to restrict or fine companies selling a legal
> > product that is used voluntarily, that it won't belong before fatty
> > foods or cholesterol laden foods are going to be fined or out lawed.
>
>
> Missing the point again. First off the tobacco companies knew their
> product was harmful but they knowingly lied to the public about it.
> Second they manipulated the product to make it more addictive.
> I've never heard claim of a food manufacturer telling anyone that high
> cholesterol foods are good for you.

My point still stands and was not missed.
A valid argument for legal liability can be made for ANYTHING on earth.
ANYTHING.
1) Hopewell City KNOWS that concrete can cause a skull to fracture and that
people occasionally fall, yet all of our sidewalks are concrete with
absolutely no signs or disclaimer warning me of the potential danger of
using these public walkways.
2) My daughter can choke on a penny, yet the government has not even
attempted to put a whole in the middle of coins to prevent that from
happening.
3) The number ONE source of lead available children is pencils, the same
ones they chew. Yet pencils can be found everywhere. In fact, we make them
even bigger with more lead for children. You know what number two is, dirt.
Can I sue the company that made the pie tin that my daughter ate that mud
pie out of? After all, there was no warning?
4) Nabisco KNOWS fat is harmful when they add it to products to add flavor.
5) Ford KNOWS that 100 MPH is unsafe and illegal, yet the continue to
produce vehicles that will go that speed.
6) Coke and Pepsi KNOW caffeine and cancer causing sweeteners can be harmful
and addictive, yet add more of it to products.
7) Achohol distillers KNOW that their product is addictive, kills it's
users, other drivers unlucky enough to be near a drunk driver and it
destroys families. Yet it is legal in spite of the affects of it being FAR
worse than smoking.
8) I have NEVER been told by Phillip-Morris that their cigarettes were good
for me and\or not addictive. And I'd like to meet the idiot that thought
smoking wasn't harmful. It's amazing how ignorant people become when the
possiblity $$$ is flashed before them.

Much to the same point:
9) Bell Helmet (I'm a motorcylist) was sued because one of their helmets
cracked during an accident.What is the stupid part? The man SURVIVED an
accident where his HEAD was run over by the rear wheels of a tandem truck.
He's alive, and he sues the company who produced the product that
undoubtedly saved his life. But HE (a rocket scientist I'm sure) didn't
think the helmet should have cracked!


You and I have a choice. Who in here thinks Oreos are good for you? 100 Mph?
Alchohol? Cigarettes?

Are these valid law suits? I assume you think so.


********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt

Funny thing is, we decided to home school her to reduce that amount of
exposure she has to the current culture in public schools. Then lo and
behold, I stop to get us a Dr. Pepper and Pringles and look what happens!
I also find myself getting more intolerant of our culture (anything
goes) the older I get (35 now). If this had happened in the past, I would
have just kept on walking and not thought twice. But I find that we are
bombarded with this everywhere we go. Sex, drugs and crime are being
glorified. I had to explain the word SLUT because of Nickelodeon, and
explain why the afternoon host of Nickelodeon was taking his pants off and
getting "nude". Yes, they used that word as he was taking them off. I can't
watch ANY channel without an ad for Avlimil advertising that you can
increase your sexual libido. Movies can't just show a couple going into a
bedroom and closing the door, they have to show everything EXPLICITLY. I'm
smart enough to understand what they are going to do, You don't have to show
me pictures! I can get porn channels for that and Janet Jackson's breasts
aren't so impressive that the whole world needs to know. Besides, I can buy
a pair just like them! I'm afraid to take my daughter to see Scooby Doo 2
tonight because the rating says "Language". Come on guys, this is Scooby
Doo! I think we can have a Scooby movie without profanity! Disney has Gay
Days without notifying other visitors. I don't want my daughter to see
heterosexuals fondling, mush less homosexuals. I don't want to have to
explain that to my daughters. The most they need to see is their mother and
father hugging and giving a lip kiss. That's not an attitude towards gays, I
don't like to see the teens walking around the mall in a lip lock with their
hands on each others rear. It's improper public conduct. And to think, I
used to be liberal, life turned me conservative!

Rant Over!

Roh Kay Raggie

--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt


"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> Three cheers for you, Dad! Good job.
>
> In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Everette"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My family and I live in a racially mixed neighborhood (Hopewell, VA).
> >Everyone gets along great with no racial overtones (at least not that
we've
> >encountered).
> > My daughter refers to black people as brown people because as a 5
year
> >old, that's how she views it. We stopped at a small convenience store
last
> >May. There was an SUV parked in front of the store with no one in it and
it
> >was blaring "gangster rap". The song that was playing was clearly echoing
> >the "N" word every second. My daughter, curious and having been talking
> >clearly since 2, asked me what the "N" word meant. I explained that it
was
> >JUST a word that bad people call brown people. I played it DOWN because I
> >didn't want to encourage further curiosity about the matter. A five
minute
> >answer would have provoked a day of thought on the subject and 20 more
> >questions. More knowledge than I care to place on a 5 year old mind.
> > I started fuming that my daughter had been put in a situation to hear
> >this against MY will. I proceeded to go into the store and ask who owned
the
> >Ford Expedition outside. A young black man (accompanied by an older black
> >woman that I assumed was his mother) acknowledged that it was his. I told
> >him my daughter had a question for him and proceeded to let her ask HIM
what
> >that word meant. His attitude quickly turned to anger as he heard her
> >question. He looked at me and started (notice I said started) to go into
a
> >racially charged rant and puff his chest at me. His mother was just as
> >shocked that the "N" word just came from my daughter's mouth. I simply
held
> >up a finger to pause him for a second, and asked my daughter to tell him
> >where she heard that word, to which she replied "a song". I then asked
her
> >where she heard that song, and she pointed to his vehicle "right there".
He
> >looked confused but his mother's face turned to anger as she turned
towards
> >him. I then sarcastically thanked him for educating my daughter on the
> >subject and started walking away.
> > The MOTHER, not the young man, followed us out to the car and stopped
> >me. She apologized to my daughter for it and asked me why I did that
> >[confronted the young man]. I replied that I thought it was my
> >responsibility as a parent and person to point out to the young man the
> >consequences of that song (playing aloud) and that I have NO problem with
> >the music, only that it should be heard by adults exclusively. I also
> >expressed my belief that music like that (and Eminem, David Allan Coe et
al)
> >only serves to degrade young minds and goes against all that I am TRYING
to
> >teach my daughter. I told her once that door is open, it's hard to close.
I
> >can't unteach my daughter about that word. I have no problem with sound
> >minded adults listening to it privately in an atmosphere of adults. She
said
> >that made perfect since and apologized to me and walked away. As we were
> >leaving, I could hear her rant at her son as a CASE of CD's was flying
from
> >her side of his SUV. The last thing I could hear was him yelling a
sentence
> >that contained the word bitch. I can only assume that he was calling her
(or
> >my daughter) that word. I can also assume that he provided further proof
to
> >her of the validity of the point that I was making.
> >
> >Do you think HE learned anything from was had just occurred?
> >Do you really think that the First Amendment was designed to protect
> >vulgarities?
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>
>

BTW, for the first twenty-five years of my life I was a stutterer. A Porky
Pig Stutterer. LOL!

I still get offended to hear someone laugh at a stutterer. Even in jest. Two
months ago I verbally insulted a fellow customer in line at Sears when he
told the stuttering clerk to "come on, spit it out". Until you've felt the
affects of a lifetime of being insulted for something you have no control
over, you can never understand. I've been called stupid, retarded, moron and
worse. And those were adults. Years ago, A customer I was talking to on the
phone asked me if I was "drunk or just plain stupid!"

I was a 4.0 student who was suspended for not wanting to recite Beowulf in
front of the same classmates who had teased me for years. It was not fair,
but I endured. Keep in mind that it was, of course, adults who were ignorant
enough to suspend me for a WEEK.

Now, if someone calls me "Porky Pig" when I stutter, should I take
offense?The difference is that "Porky Pig" in a cartoon character, "Nigger"
was never intended to entertain or endear.


I hope this may add perspective to your view. If you think the word "nigger"
is OK to be used just because it is said in jest or for endearment, I truly
hope time will correct your view.

--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt


"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:26:29 GMT, "Bill Everette" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > My family and I live in a racially mixed neighborhood (Hopewell, VA).
> >Everyone gets along great with no racial overtones (at least not that
we've
> >encountered).
> > My daughter refers to black people as brown people because as a 5
year
> >old, that's how she views it. We stopped at a small convenience store
last
> >May. There was an SUV parked in front of the store with no one in it and
it
> >was blaring "gangster rap". The song that was playing was clearly echoing
> >the "N" word every second. My daughter, curious and having been talking
> >clearly since 2, asked me what the "N" word meant. I explained that it
was
> >JUST a word that bad people call brown people.
>
> The 'N' word? Are you talkin' about 'nigger'?
>
> I live in a racially mixed neighborhood, too...and I hear that word
> all the time, too.
>
> And it isn't always a 'JUST a word that bad people call brown people'.
> Often, its used as a term of endearment...used to greet friends.
>
> Sadly, I think you simply invoked your prejudice into your daughter's
> education.
>
> >I played it DOWN because I
> >didn't want to encourage further curiosity about the matter. A five
minute
> >answer would have provoked a day of thought on the subject and 20 more
> >questions. More knowledge than I care to place on a 5 year old mind.
>
> One day, in the near future, you should take the time. There was a
> very interesting episode a while back on 'Boston Public'...where the
> whites and blacks discussed the use of the word 'nigger'. You should
> try to get a copy of that episode...very enlightening.
>
> >His mother was just as
> >shocked that the "N" word just came from my daughter's mouth.
>
> ...who, because of what you just taught her, will now go on thinking
> that this is always a 'bad' word.
>
> >I simply held
> >up a finger to pause him for a second, and asked my daughter to tell him
> >where she heard that word, to which she replied "a song". I then asked
her
> >where she heard that song, and she pointed to his vehicle "right there".
He
> >looked confused but his mother's face turned to anger as she turned
towards
> >him. I then sarcastically thanked him for educating my daughter on the
> >subject and started walking away.
>
> I find it hard to believe that they both hadn't listened to the cd as
> they traveled to the store. After all, you said it was still
> playing...as they were in shopping.
>
> > The MOTHER, not the young man, followed us out to the car and stopped
> >me. She apologized to my daughter for it and asked me why I did that
> >[confronted the young man]. I replied that I thought it was my
> >responsibility as a parent and person to point out to the young man the
> >consequences of that song (playing aloud) and that I have NO problem with
> >the music, only that it should be heard by adults exclusively.
>
> Why? lol I guess I don't understand.
>
> > I
> >can't unteach my daughter about that word.
>
> Why?...for heaven's sake.
>
> >Do you think HE learned anything from was had just occurred?
>
> Of COURSE he did. We ALL learn new lessons about life. But I don't
> think its the same lesson that YOU think he learned.
>
> >Do you really think that the First Amendment was designed to protect
> >vulgarities?
>
> It was designed to protect against the people who would DEFINE
> vulgarities.
>
> Again...try to find that Boston Public episode. It really discusses
> the problems in using the word 'nigger'. And I think you'll find that
> your dialog is expressed by at least one of the characters in that
> episode.
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
> What do you call a smart blonde?
> A golden retriever.

<Secret> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> It isn't and that's what allows for gun control legislation.

Not true. There is a "perception" that their isn't an absolute (based on
the "collective" argument and the Miller case - and that's a modern thing).
Gun control groups place all their 2nd amendment arguments in that one
basket. There is very little precedent or case law for any gun control
legislation (It exists but has not been tested up to the supreme court).
And that which is there (Emerson - at the federal appellate level) puts gun
control legislation on tenuous ground (In effect clairifying that the Miller
case may limit non military weapons (In that case a sawed of shotgun) - but
allowing anything the military would use. Including automatic weapons) -
placing the argument against gun control based on the collective rights
argument on slippery ground. Just for clarification.

So in sum. Gun legislation either tries to skirt second amendment issues or
is based on the sole supreme court case of Miller. In other words - until a
Second Amendment case is presented to the supreme court on gun control
merits - it is still an absolute right, and the well regulated milita clause
is still a predicated clause.

> This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the First Amendment.

Well, yes and no.

> A company deciding that their customers don't like what
> their DJ is doing and pulling the plug is not censorship. It's called
> good business.

You're right on the money there. Except that for ten years it has been
good business to have Howard spew his sophomoric brand of comedy. All of
a sudden, he's obscene? I think the FCC fines had more to do with the
"business" decision that any concern for the tender ears of their
customers.

> Why should Clear Channel feel obligated to air his garbage?

They shouldn't.

> If you say that they are just buckling under
> pressure from the FCC, I believe the FCC is just reacting to
> public complaints.

This is where the First Amendment is being violated. The FCC is
knuckling uder to a small group of complainers and is levying fines to
get some speech restricted. I am hopeful (but not holding my breath)
that the broadcasters, or more likely, the dj's (since the bulk of the
fines are aimed at them) will take these new restrictions to court and
win back some sensibility.


--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"

"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in news:106oibdq6uh4134
@corp.supernews.com:

> This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the First Amendment.
> A company deciding that their customers don't like what
> their DJ is doing and pulling the plug is not censorship. It's called
> good business.

It's called good business if his ratings or his ability to sel adertising
are in question. Stern's show is consistantly the highest rated on
virtually every station it airs on. So if I understand you correctly,
ditching a highly rated and very profitable show for one less so is a
good business decision?

If Howard wants to get his message out,
> (heh, heh, yeah, he's freakin' brilliant!) he can buy his own string
> of radio stations. Why should Clear Channel feel obligated to
> air his garbage?

Because they have an obligation to their shareholders as well as most
likely a contract with either Stern or his syndication company.


If you say that they are just buckling under
> pressure from the FCC, I believe the FCC is just reacting to
> public complaints.

Perhaps, but the FCC does not have the authority to determine what is or
is not indecent. That is an issue for the courts. The FCC is supposed to
deal with licensing and technical issues only.


Enough people have complained about his
> and other peoples over-the-airwaves crap so they're stepping
> up. But mostly, I think that Clear Channel is just practicing
> what they believe to be good business.

Once again.. good business.. How do you feel about investing in companies
who could clearly be more profitable, but are not simply because of
management decisions?


> Speaking of offensive words coming from cars, I have 5 and
> 8 year old kids. It sucks when a car pulls up next to us at a light
> with his/her megawatt stereo blasting the nastiest gangsta rap so
> loud that no rolled up windows will stop the sound... "Daddy?
> What's a Mutha F**ka?" The law stops me from blowing
> his worthless head off but it doesn't stop him from polluting my
> kids' heads with garbage.

Actually it does. Every municipality has a noise ordinance. It is seldom
enforced, but there are already laws on the books to handle this
situation.


Well, there are some never-enforced
> noise laws but that doesn't stop them. Yeah, that's a great
> example of freedom of speech.
>
> Bruce
> Redding, Ca.
>
> "searcher1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Hold on now, "but if you
>> > want it, you should have to seek it " you said this. And you also
> said you
>> shouldn't have to listen to it at some stoplight. Now you want
> people to
>> roll up thier windows when approaching another stopped vehicle?
>> I personally do not listen to Howard, But back in the day I did
> listen to
>> Greaseman on DC 101. I liked him then and to this day I remember
> some of his
>> bits. We should all be able to speak our mind, Hmmm there should be
> a law
>> about that, people should be allowed to say what they feel! I think
> it's the
>> first amendment! I also have kids and I don't want him sitting
> around
>> watching a foul mouthed movie at 2 years old. So I monitor what he
> watches.
>> Yes I even filter out the cartoons that I think is not appropriate.
> But see
>> that my choice and I HAVE THAT CHOICE, if I want to watch cartoon
> figures
>> put guns to thier head and pull the trigger then I can Bu t I am not
> going
>> to let my son watch it. I make the decisons for me not let some old
>> battleaxe do it.
>>
>> Searcher 1
>>
>> >
>> "BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Interesting OT - What's happening in
>> > that arena made me think. He's got
>> > a right to present his shtik, but if you
>> > want it, you should have to seek it
>> > out. You shouldn't have to listen to it
>> > when you're walking into some retail
>> > store or next to somebody at a
>> > stoplight with kids in your car.
>>
>>
>
>

"John Dykes" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> If the Founding Fathers had any idea of the trash, pornography, and
> poison that they had _inadvertently_ protected under the first
> amemendment, they would have never considered it.


Are you so sure it was inadvertant? The first amendmant is an absolute.
"Congress shall make no law" that is NO law. Compare that to the second
amendment " A well regulated ...." One clearly allows for a certain
amount of govermnent regulation, one was absolute. I sincerely doubt that
this was an accident.



Can we honestly
> think that they would sit on the Supreme Court (those who determine
> the intent and application of the Constitution) and believe they would
> condone the actions of those who came before them looking for 1st
> amendment protection?


Yes. The Supreme court ruled on indecency in broadcasting 30 years ago.
Those standards have not changed, and none of what anyone is upset about
violates those standards.



>
> pfft!
>
> The whole point of freedom of speech and the intent of the first
> amendment was exhibited vividly during the struggle for civil rights
> in the 60's. THIS was the intent of the first amendment - We the
> people are free to speak against the government, print against the
> government, and assemble peaceably and demonstrate against the
> government to REDRESS GRIEVANCES!
>
> That was on the mind of the Founding Fathers. That is what THEY dealt
> with, and that is what they were PROTECTING against. And guess, what,
> it worked well in the 60s... as designed.
>
> You can make a case for flag burning under freedom of speech (which I
> personally abhor), but dry humping a sign post in town square is
> different...


No.. it isn't and that's the point. You have your idea of what does and
doesn't qualify and so do most others. That is precisely why the First
Amnement was written as an absolute.

>
> "Freedom of Speech" - what a complete mockery.
>
> Regards,
> jbd - Denver
>
>
>

"Eric Scantlebury" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> <Secret> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "John Dykes" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > If the Founding Fathers had any idea of the trash, pornography, and
>> > poison that they had _inadvertently_ protected under the first
>> > amemendment, they would have never considered it.
>>
>>
>> Are you so sure it was inadvertant? The first amendmant is an
>> absolute. "Congress shall make no law" that is NO law. Compare that
>> to the second amendment " A well regulated ...." One clearly allows
>> for a certain amount of govermnent regulation, one was absolute. I
>> sincerely doubt that this was an accident.
>
> Not to split hairs. I see the point your trying to make - and agree.
> But the second amendment is an absolute. The predicated part is a
> stated reason why the absolute non predicated part exists "shall not
> be infringed" - which is an absolute.
>
> In other words the governemnt may regulate a militia so since that may
> someday need to happen - each citizent, to be ready for that day, has
> an absolute right to keep and bear arms. A right not to be infringed
> apon.
>
>
>

It isn't and that's what allows for gun control legislation. I'm a gun
rights advocate so please dont misunderstand me but the phrase "well
regulated" implies regulation. The phrase "Congress shall pass NO law" is
much more absolute.

"John Dykes" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> If you are using this as a segue to argue the for\against the
> interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Feel free, but your point is lost
> on me.
>
> "> Are you so sure it was inadvertent? "
> Am I sure it was inadvertent? Absolutely! Taking the context of the
> amendment, as well as the history and circumstances of the writers -
> ensuring "free speech" of contemporary filth was the farthest from
> their mind. They wanted folks of future generations to have the
> Constitutionally protected power to speak, print, and gather against
> government.
>
> "> Yes."
> Jesus - ok... If you think the Founding Fathers would condone and
> protect via "Free Speech" most of what's on the radio, hehe - cripes -
> You win. I can't argue with that logic.
>
> I'm a pretty basic fellow. Pretty shallow in about every area of life.
> So, I don't have the wisdom or heady ideals to argue such things... I
> guess for that reason, it seems pretty cut and dried to me. So some of
> your stuff is over my head.
>
> "You have your idea of what does and doesn't qualify and so do most
> others. That is precisely why the First Amendment was written as an
> absolute."
>
> You say the 1st is an "absolute?" Yet you also argue, "the Supreme
> Court ruled" on this 30 yrs ago. If something is an absolute, why rule
> or interpret? Absolute is absolute. Right? Are you saying there should
> be no question as to "Free Speech?" It's all relative, right?

Because certain types of speech, as determined by the Supreme court are
entitled to greater or lesser amounts of first amendment protection.
Broadcast speech because of the nature of broadcasting is somewhat more
restricted. However the Supreme court in US V Pacifica determined what
was allowable and what was deemed indecent.
>
>

"George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> As the "owner" of the airwaves, which are leased to the stations, the
> FCC can make what conditions it cares to make for use. First says
> you're free to speak, it does not say you may do it without
> consequence. You know certain "hate" words are banned, don't you?
>
> <Secret> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Perhaps, but the FCC does not have the authority to determine what is
>> or is not indecent. That is an issue for the courts. The FCC is
>> supposed to deal with licensing and technical issues only.
>>
>
>
>

NO, it can't. The FCC like every other goverment agency has a charter
which dictates what it can and can not do. The FCC was created to
regulate licensing and technical issues. They have somehow now become the
arbiters of what is and is not indecent in broadcasting. The problem is
that they do not have that authority. The issue of indecency (which was
already decided by the Supreme Court more than 30 years ago) is one for
the courts not for a regulatory agency.

"George" <george@least> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Actually, if you were not full of yourself, but information, you would
> know that the issue of obscenity is a local issue.

I'm quite well aware of that. I'm also aware that obscenity and indecency
are not the same thing, nor are they regulated in the same manner. This
issue concerns indecency. And no one, including me wants indeceny
broadcast over the public airwaves. The point I was making, which you
clearly failed to grasp is that the issue of indecency was settled by the
Supreme Court. The FCC has the authority to enforce that ruling. They do
not have the authority to create a new definition for indecency.



And this case of
> lessors of the public airways is a perfect example. Locals enter
> their comments in the stations' FCC license files as they will, and if
> that isn't letting local standards decide, I don't know what is.
>
> Supreme Court is a place where people with bad manners or dictatorial
> pretensions take their case when they find it's against the common
> standard.
>
You're joking right? Now you know better than the Supreme court? Oh and
by the way, complaintant who brought the suit I was quoting was the FCC
itself. The case is FCC v. Pacifica in case you'd like to do a little
actual research

> <Secret> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> NO, it can't. The FCC like every other goverment agency has a charter
>> which dictates what it can and can not do. The FCC was created to
>> regulate licensing and technical issues. They have somehow now become
>> the arbiters of what is and is not indecent in broadcasting. The
>> problem is that they do not have that authority. The issue of
>> indecency (which was already decided by the Supreme Court more than
>> 30 years ago) is one for the courts not for a regulatory agency.
>
>

"Bill Everette" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

While I agree in principle with most of what you have to say you missed
on most of the points. Comments intermixed with original post.

> So should I just knock the crap out of anyone who cusses or shows a
> breast?
>
> Aside from the government, who do I call to enforce decency?
>
> Although I agree with most of what you say, I disagree with the notion
> that we cannot legislate decency. Certainly we have laws concerning
> public decency\indecency, this is just an extension of the same laws.
> We CAN legislate ANYTHING we choose.

Almost true. We can legislate anything that is not constitutionally
protected. To legislate anything that IS constitutionally protected takes
a constituional amendment which is far bigger undertaking.


The problems is finding someone
> in the government with the *alls to stand up to a liberal media
> machine that insists that ANY laws governing such things as
> unconstitutional.

Also untrue. The courts determine what is and is not constituional. We
have one of the most conservative Supreme courts in history sitting right
now.

They've even defended NAMBLA.

Everyone is entitled to a defense no matter how reprehensible they may
be. There goes that pesky constitution again


In my city, public
> profanity is against the law. THAT IS legislating morality. Now when
> they tell me I can't watch x-rated material in my HOME, then THAT is
> unconstitutional. No one can say the "N" word in public, because that
> is hate speech.

Also not true. While distasteful and offensive, not illegal.


Yet, music videos and movies can SAY or DO anything
> with no consequences. To long have we allowed the minority to decide
> what the majority can say or do. When the tobacco companies were being
> sued (I'm a smoker), my father agreed with them. I told him that long
> ago that when you start to restrict or fine companies selling a legal
> product that is used voluntarily, that it won't belong before fatty
> foods or cholesterol laden foods are going to be fined or out lawed.


Missing the point again. First off the tobacco companies knew their
product was harmful but they knowingly lied to the public about it.
Second they manipulated the product to make it more addictive.
I've never heard claim of a food manufacturer telling anyone that high
cholesterol foods are good for you.


> We now see that happening. As you say, personal responsibility is out
> the door. With such a simple thing as tort reform and what I call
> "anti-stupidity" laws, you can fix so many things, including
> healthcare in this country. Last I read, frivolous law suits cost the
> medical industry (or cost us you can say) over $250 Billion PER YEAR.
> WE wind up paying that. That's just one example.

>
>
>

"Bill Everette" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> <Secret> wrote
>>
>> While I agree in principle with most of what you have to say you
>> missed on most of the points. Comments intermixed with original post.
>>
>> > So should I just knock the crap out of anyone who cusses or shows a
>> > breast?
>> >
>> > Aside from the government, who do I call to enforce decency?
>> >
>> > Although I agree with most of what you say, I disagree with the
>> > notion that we cannot legislate decency. Certainly we have laws
>> > concerning public decency\indecency, this is just an extension of
>> > the same laws. We CAN legislate ANYTHING we choose.
>>
>> Almost true. We can legislate anything that is not constitutionally
>> protected. To legislate anything that IS constitutionally protected
>> takes a constituional amendment which is far bigger undertaking.
>>
>
> My point still stands, we the people can change anything we want.
> That's why we have the contitutional right to make contitutional
> ammendments. The contitution can evolve to the will of the people.


True although far easier said than done. That is not however what you
said. In addition in the last 200 odd years since it was written there
has been exactly one constitutional amendment that dealt with an issue of
morality and we all know how that turned out.

>
>
>
>>
>> The problems is finding someone
>> > in the government with the *alls to stand up to a liberal media
>> > machine that insists that ANY laws governing such things as
>> > unconstitutional.
>>
>> Also untrue. The courts determine what is and is not constituional.
>> We have one of the most conservative Supreme courts in history
>> sitting right now.
>>
>> They've even defended NAMBLA.
>>
>> Everyone is entitled to a defense no matter how reprehensible they
>> may be. There goes that pesky constitution again
>>
>
> Again my point still stands, we elect politicians who in turn appoint
> Justices.

Also true, but not the point. Everyone is entitled to a defense. I defy
you to find me a judge, lawyer or reasonably educated person who would
state differently. They may be guilty.. we may all know they are guilty.
They are nonetheless entitled to a defense and all of the other
constitutional protections everyone else is.




>
>
>>
>> In my city, public
>> > profanity is against the law. THAT IS legislating morality. Now
>> > when they tell me I can't watch x-rated material in my HOME, then
>> > THAT is unconstitutional. No one can say the "N" word in public,
>> > because that is hate speech.
>>
>> Also not true. While distasteful and offensive, not illegal.
>
> Again my point still stands. Read the first sentence: "In my city,
> public profanity is against the law." Come HERE and call an officer
> any name you wish, I'll post your bail. Or, utter a racial word (say
> "cracker") while doing it, it then becomes a "Hate Crime" and allows
> for stiffer penalties. MOST states have Hate Crime Enhancements (
> inline with 28 U.S.C 994) now that include being called any name
> refering to race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
> biased motivation and more.

Hate crime enhancements have nothing to do with free speech issues and
with the exception of those things that are clearly slanderous I can use
those words all I want. While they may be offensive they are not profane.

The statement "i hate niggers " and the statement " I hate you, you
nigger " are not the same thing. While they are both clearly offensive,
one is arguably slanderous (and therefor potentially civilly liable) the
other is not.


>
>>
>>
>> Yet, music videos and movies can SAY or DO anything
>> > with no consequences. To long have we allowed the minority to
>> > decide what the majority can say or do. When the tobacco companies
>> > were being sued (I'm a smoker), my father agreed with them. I told
>> > him that long ago that when you start to restrict or fine companies
>> > selling a legal product that is used voluntarily, that it won't
>> > belong before fatty foods or cholesterol laden foods are going to
>> > be fined or out lawed.
>>
>>
>> Missing the point again. First off the tobacco companies knew their
>> product was harmful but they knowingly lied to the public about it.
>> Second they manipulated the product to make it more addictive.
>> I've never heard claim of a food manufacturer telling anyone that
>> high cholesterol foods are good for you.
>
> My point still stands and was not missed.
> A valid argument for legal liability can be made for ANYTHING on
> earth.
> ANYTHING.
> 1) Hopewell City KNOWS that concrete can cause a skull to fracture and
> that people occasionally fall, yet all of our sidewalks are concrete
> with absolutely no signs or disclaimer warning me of the potential
> danger of using these public walkways.

Did they intentionally make the sidewalks harder knowing that they would
cause you greater harm? Did they make them slippery knowing that you
would fall. Do they allow holes to go unpatched?
Or perhaps they exercise reasonable care and caution to make them as safe
as possible.



> 2) My daughter can choke on a penny, yet the government has not even
> attempted to put a whole in the middle of coins to prevent that from
> happening.

Ignoring the fact that whole and hole are different words. Is she any
less likely to choke on a washer than a penny?

> 3) The number ONE source of lead available children is pencils, the
> same ones they chew. Yet pencils can be found everywhere. In fact, we
> make them even bigger with more lead for children. You know what

When was the last time you saw a pencil that contained actual lead?
Lead pencils contain no lead.. They never have.



> number two is, dirt. Can I sue the company that made the pie tin that
> my daughter ate that mud pie out of? After all, there was no warning?
> 4) Nabisco KNOWS fat is harmful when they add it to products to add
> flavor. 5) Ford KNOWS that 100 MPH is unsafe and illegal, yet the
> continue to produce vehicles that will go that speed.

Does ford manipulate the product to make it intentionally less safe and
to make you more addicted to it?

> 6) Coke and Pepsi KNOW caffeine and cancer causing sweeteners can be
> harmful and addictive, yet add more of it to products.

Actually caffeine is a beneficial stimulant for many people including
most heart patients and no study that I've ever seen or heard of claims
that aspartame is addictive. Can you show me one?


> 7) Achohol distillers KNOW that their product is addictive, kills it's
> users, other drivers unlucky enough to be near a drunk driver and it
> destroys families. Yet it is legal in spite of the affects of it being
> FAR worse than smoking.

I wont debate this point, but the fact remains that far more people die
of cigarette related illnesses that alcohol related illnesses.

> 8) I have NEVER been told by Phillip-Morris that their cigarettes were
> good for me and\or not addictive. And I'd like to meet the idiot that
> thought smoking wasn't harmful. It's amazing how ignorant people
> become when the possiblity $$$ is flashed before them.
>
> Much to the same point:
> 9) Bell Helmet (I'm a motorcylist) was sued because one of their
> helmets cracked during an accident.What is the stupid part? The man
> SURVIVED an accident where his HEAD was run over by the rear wheels of
> a tandem truck. He's alive, and he sues the company who produced the
> product that undoubtedly saved his life. But HE (a rocket scientist
> I'm sure) didn't think the helmet should have cracked!

That doesn't give his argument merit any more than your ridiculous tirade
gives merit to these arguments.

>
>
> You and I have a choice. Who in here thinks Oreos are good for you?
> 100 Mph? Alchohol? Cigarettes?
>

OK.. once again .. Are oreos addictive? Does the manufacturer manipulate
their formula to make them more so?
> Are these valid law suits? I assume you think so.

Clearly they aren't and equally as clear is that fact that you are
rambling without actually thinking. Take a moment and see if you can't
see the differences. They really should be pretty clear.

>
>
> ********************************************************************
> I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and
> that is softness of head.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
> The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level
> with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
> The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as
> is the most brutal wrongdoer.
> Theodore Roosevelt
>
>
>
>

I agree.

--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt


"Ray Kinzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, I think the point has been made that the courts are now
> deciding what is and what is not law anymore. And that AIN'T in the
> Constituation! They are to interpret the law but it is Congress who
> make the laws. I think THAT is one of the problems in our society
> now.
>
> And I think the point that is trying to be made is that common sense
> needs to prevail. If you really delve into the history of the
> documents that make this country, you will find that, yes, they strive
> for individual rights. But they do NOT say the rights of an
> individual should be upheld to the detriment of the majority. I think
> the arguments you are trying to make is that the right of the
> individual should be held higher than the majority--and that, I think,
> goes in the face of what our forefathers meant and wrote.
>
> I'm sorry if this doesn't make a ton of sense--I have been up for
> almost 24 hours and I am beat. (I would have said 'bushed' but this
> becoming a political debate, I was afraid of smart comments!)
>
> Suffice to say that, technically, "yes", everybody has the right to do
> what they darn well please in this country. But just because you
> 'can' do it doesnt mean you 'should' do it. Know what I mean?
>
> If you say your the rights of an individual are all inportant and you
> shouldn't step on somebody's toes, what if the 'thing' this person is
> doing is stepping on the 'rights' of others? To hell with the others
> and more power to that one person?! Shoud we all be FORCED to listen
> to crap like the original poster was forced to hear? How do you
> 'ignore' something when it is blaring in your ear? How do you
> 'deprogram' a little kid? Sure, this guy doesn't have to buy that CD
> nor does he need to listen to it on the radio. That, my friend, is a
> choice. There IS NO CHOICE when that crap comes bladting from the car
> next to you in the traffic jam.
>
> I guess the guy who is playing the offensive garbage is more inportant
> than all the others who chose NOT to listen to it, huh?
>
> In short, what was meant was use common sense and common courteousy
> when in public. Do what the heck you want in private but in public,
> act civilly. And if you won't do it on you own, I think some force is
> well deserved.
>
> That's my 2-cents-worth. I will sit back and hear this squirrelly guy
> rant on about what I said...
>
>
>
> Secret Squirrel <Secret> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Bill Everette" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> > >
> > > <Secret> wrote
> > >>
> > >> While I agree in principle with most of what you have to say you
> > >> missed on most of the points. Comments intermixed with original post.
> > >>
> > >> > So should I just knock the crap out of anyone who cusses or shows a
> > >> > breast?
> > >> >
> > >> > Aside from the government, who do I call to enforce decency?
> > >> >
> > >> > Although I agree with most of what you say, I disagree with the
> > >> > notion that we cannot legislate decency. Certainly we have laws
> > >> > concerning public decency\indecency, this is just an extension of
> > >> > the same laws. We CAN legislate ANYTHING we choose.
> > >>
> > >> Almost true. We can legislate anything that is not constitutionally
> > >> protected. To legislate anything that IS constitutionally protected
> > >> takes a constituional amendment which is far bigger undertaking.
> > >>
> > >
> > > My point still stands, we the people can change anything we want.
> > > That's why we have the contitutional right to make contitutional
> > > ammendments. The contitution can evolve to the will of the people.
> >
> >
> > True although far easier said than done. That is not however what you
> > said. In addition in the last 200 odd years since it was written there
> > has been exactly one constitutional amendment that dealt with an issue
of
> > morality and we all know how that turned out.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> The problems is finding someone
> > >> > in the government with the *alls to stand up to a liberal media
> > >> > machine that insists that ANY laws governing such things as
> > >> > unconstitutional.
> > >>
> > >> Also untrue. The courts determine what is and is not constituional.
> > >> We have one of the most conservative Supreme courts in history
> > >> sitting right now.
> > >>
> > >> They've even defended NAMBLA.
> > >>
> > >> Everyone is entitled to a defense no matter how reprehensible they
> > >> may be. There goes that pesky constitution again
> > >>
> > >
> > > Again my point still stands, we elect politicians who in turn appoint
> > > Justices.
> >
> > Also true, but not the point. Everyone is entitled to a defense. I defy
> > you to find me a judge, lawyer or reasonably educated person who would
> > state differently. They may be guilty.. we may all know they are guilty.
> > They are nonetheless entitled to a defense and all of the other
> > constitutional protections everyone else is.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> In my city, public
> > >> > profanity is against the law. THAT IS legislating morality. Now
> > >> > when they tell me I can't watch x-rated material in my HOME, then
> > >> > THAT is unconstitutional. No one can say the "N" word in public,
> > >> > because that is hate speech.
> > >>
> > >> Also not true. While distasteful and offensive, not illegal.
> > >
> > > Again my point still stands. Read the first sentence: "In my city,
> > > public profanity is against the law." Come HERE and call an officer
> > > any name you wish, I'll post your bail. Or, utter a racial word (say
> > > "cracker") while doing it, it then becomes a "Hate Crime" and allows
> > > for stiffer penalties. MOST states have Hate Crime Enhancements (
> > > inline with 28 U.S.C 994) now that include being called any name
> > > refering to race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
> > > biased motivation and more.
> >
> > Hate crime enhancements have nothing to do with free speech issues and
> > with the exception of those things that are clearly slanderous I can use
> > those words all I want. While they may be offensive they are not
profane.
> >
> > The statement "i hate niggers " and the statement " I hate you, you
> > nigger " are not the same thing. While they are both clearly offensive,
> > one is arguably slanderous (and therefor potentially civilly liable) the
> > other is not.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yet, music videos and movies can SAY or DO anything
> > >> > with no consequences. To long have we allowed the minority to
> > >> > decide what the majority can say or do. When the tobacco companies
> > >> > were being sued (I'm a smoker), my father agreed with them. I told
> > >> > him that long ago that when you start to restrict or fine companies
> > >> > selling a legal product that is used voluntarily, that it won't
> > >> > belong before fatty foods or cholesterol laden foods are going to
> > >> > be fined or out lawed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Missing the point again. First off the tobacco companies knew their
> > >> product was harmful but they knowingly lied to the public about it.
> > >> Second they manipulated the product to make it more addictive.
> > >> I've never heard claim of a food manufacturer telling anyone that
> > >> high cholesterol foods are good for you.
> > >
> > > My point still stands and was not missed.
> > > A valid argument for legal liability can be made for ANYTHING on
> > > earth.
> > > ANYTHING.
> > > 1) Hopewell City KNOWS that concrete can cause a skull to fracture and
> > > that people occasionally fall, yet all of our sidewalks are concrete
> > > with absolutely no signs or disclaimer warning me of the potential
> > > danger of using these public walkways.
> >
> > Did they intentionally make the sidewalks harder knowing that they would
> > cause you greater harm? Did they make them slippery knowing that you
> > would fall. Do they allow holes to go unpatched?
> > Or perhaps they exercise reasonable care and caution to make them as
safe
> > as possible.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2) My daughter can choke on a penny, yet the government has not even
> > > attempted to put a whole in the middle of coins to prevent that from
> > > happening.
> >
> > Ignoring the fact that whole and hole are different words. Is she any
> > less likely to choke on a washer than a penny?
> >
> > > 3) The number ONE source of lead available children is pencils, the
> > > same ones they chew. Yet pencils can be found everywhere. In fact, we
> > > make them even bigger with more lead for children. You know what
> >
> > When was the last time you saw a pencil that contained actual lead?
> > Lead pencils contain no lead.. They never have.
> >
> >
> >
> > > number two is, dirt. Can I sue the company that made the pie tin that
> > > my daughter ate that mud pie out of? After all, there was no warning?
> > > 4) Nabisco KNOWS fat is harmful when they add it to products to add
> > > flavor. 5) Ford KNOWS that 100 MPH is unsafe and illegal, yet the
> > > continue to produce vehicles that will go that speed.
> >
> > Does ford manipulate the product to make it intentionally less safe and
> > to make you more addicted to it?
> >
> > > 6) Coke and Pepsi KNOW caffeine and cancer causing sweeteners can be
> > > harmful and addictive, yet add more of it to products.
> >
> > Actually caffeine is a beneficial stimulant for many people including
> > most heart patients and no study that I've ever seen or heard of claims
> > that aspartame is addictive. Can you show me one?
> >
> >
> > > 7) Achohol distillers KNOW that their product is addictive, kills it's
> > > users, other drivers unlucky enough to be near a drunk driver and it
> > > destroys families. Yet it is legal in spite of the affects of it being
> > > FAR worse than smoking.
> >
> > I wont debate this point, but the fact remains that far more people die
> > of cigarette related illnesses that alcohol related illnesses.
> >
> > > 8) I have NEVER been told by Phillip-Morris that their cigarettes were
> > > good for me and\or not addictive. And I'd like to meet the idiot that
> > > thought smoking wasn't harmful. It's amazing how ignorant people
> > > become when the possiblity $$$ is flashed before them.
> > >
> > > Much to the same point:
> > > 9) Bell Helmet (I'm a motorcylist) was sued because one of their
> > > helmets cracked during an accident.What is the stupid part? The man
> > > SURVIVED an accident where his HEAD was run over by the rear wheels of
> > > a tandem truck. He's alive, and he sues the company who produced the
> > > product that undoubtedly saved his life. But HE (a rocket scientist
> > > I'm sure) didn't think the helmet should have cracked!
> >
> > That doesn't give his argument merit any more than your ridiculous
tirade
> > gives merit to these arguments.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You and I have a choice. Who in here thinks Oreos are good for you?
> > > 100 Mph? Alchohol? Cigarettes?
> > >
> >
> > OK.. once again .. Are oreos addictive? Does the manufacturer manipulate
> > their formula to make them more so?
> > > Are these valid law suits? I assume you think so.
> >
> > Clearly they aren't and equally as clear is that fact that you are
> > rambling without actually thinking. Take a moment and see if you can't
> > see the differences. They really should be pretty clear.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ********************************************************************
> > > I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and
> > > that is softness of head.
> > > Theodore Roosevelt
> > >
> > > The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level
> > > with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
> > > Theodore Roosevelt
> > >
> > > The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as
> > > is the most brutal wrongdoer.
> > > Theodore Roosevelt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

Actually, I think the point has been made that the courts are now
deciding what is and what is not law anymore. And that AIN'T in the
Constituation! They are to interpret the law but it is Congress who
make the laws. I think THAT is one of the problems in our society
now.

And I think the point that is trying to be made is that common sense
needs to prevail. If you really delve into the history of the
documents that make this country, you will find that, yes, they strive
for individual rights. But they do NOT say the rights of an
individual should be upheld to the detriment of the majority. I think
the arguments you are trying to make is that the right of the
individual should be held higher than the majority--and that, I think,
goes in the face of what our forefathers meant and wrote.

I'm sorry if this doesn't make a ton of sense--I have been up for
almost 24 hours and I am beat. (I would have said 'bushed' but this
becoming a political debate, I was afraid of smart comments!)

Suffice to say that, technically, "yes", everybody has the right to do
what they darn well please in this country. But just because you
'can' do it doesnt mean you 'should' do it. Know what I mean?

If you say your the rights of an individual are all inportant and you
shouldn't step on somebody's toes, what if the 'thing' this person is
doing is stepping on the 'rights' of others? To hell with the others
and more power to that one person?! Shoud we all be FORCED to listen
to crap like the original poster was forced to hear? How do you
'ignore' something when it is blaring in your ear? How do you
'deprogram' a little kid? Sure, this guy doesn't have to buy that CD
nor does he need to listen to it on the radio. That, my friend, is a
choice. There IS NO CHOICE when that crap comes bladting from the car
next to you in the traffic jam.

I guess the guy who is playing the offensive garbage is more inportant
than all the others who chose NOT to listen to it, huh?

In short, what was meant was use common sense and common courteousy
when in public. Do what the heck you want in private but in public,
act civilly. And if you won't do it on you own, I think some force is
well deserved.

That's my 2-cents-worth. I will sit back and hear this squirrelly guy
rant on about what I said...



Secret Squirrel <Secret> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Bill Everette" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > <Secret> wrote
> >>
> >> While I agree in principle with most of what you have to say you
> >> missed on most of the points. Comments intermixed with original post.
> >>
> >> > So should I just knock the crap out of anyone who cusses or shows a
> >> > breast?
> >> >
> >> > Aside from the government, who do I call to enforce decency?
> >> >
> >> > Although I agree with most of what you say, I disagree with the
> >> > notion that we cannot legislate decency. Certainly we have laws
> >> > concerning public decency\indecency, this is just an extension of
> >> > the same laws. We CAN legislate ANYTHING we choose.
> >>
> >> Almost true. We can legislate anything that is not constitutionally
> >> protected. To legislate anything that IS constitutionally protected
> >> takes a constituional amendment which is far bigger undertaking.
> >>
> >
> > My point still stands, we the people can change anything we want.
> > That's why we have the contitutional right to make contitutional
> > ammendments. The contitution can evolve to the will of the people.
>
>
> True although far easier said than done. That is not however what you
> said. In addition in the last 200 odd years since it was written there
> has been exactly one constitutional amendment that dealt with an issue of
> morality and we all know how that turned out.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The problems is finding someone
> >> > in the government with the *alls to stand up to a liberal media
> >> > machine that insists that ANY laws governing such things as
> >> > unconstitutional.
> >>
> >> Also untrue. The courts determine what is and is not constituional.
> >> We have one of the most conservative Supreme courts in history
> >> sitting right now.
> >>
> >> They've even defended NAMBLA.
> >>
> >> Everyone is entitled to a defense no matter how reprehensible they
> >> may be. There goes that pesky constitution again
> >>
> >
> > Again my point still stands, we elect politicians who in turn appoint
> > Justices.
>
> Also true, but not the point. Everyone is entitled to a defense. I defy
> you to find me a judge, lawyer or reasonably educated person who would
> state differently. They may be guilty.. we may all know they are guilty.
> They are nonetheless entitled to a defense and all of the other
> constitutional protections everyone else is.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> In my city, public
> >> > profanity is against the law. THAT IS legislating morality. Now
> >> > when they tell me I can't watch x-rated material in my HOME, then
> >> > THAT is unconstitutional. No one can say the "N" word in public,
> >> > because that is hate speech.
> >>
> >> Also not true. While distasteful and offensive, not illegal.
> >
> > Again my point still stands. Read the first sentence: "In my city,
> > public profanity is against the law." Come HERE and call an officer
> > any name you wish, I'll post your bail. Or, utter a racial word (say
> > "cracker") while doing it, it then becomes a "Hate Crime" and allows
> > for stiffer penalties. MOST states have Hate Crime Enhancements (
> > inline with 28 U.S.C 994) now that include being called any name
> > refering to race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
> > biased motivation and more.
>
> Hate crime enhancements have nothing to do with free speech issues and
> with the exception of those things that are clearly slanderous I can use
> those words all I want. While they may be offensive they are not profane.
>
> The statement "i hate niggers " and the statement " I hate you, you
> nigger " are not the same thing. While they are both clearly offensive,
> one is arguably slanderous (and therefor potentially civilly liable) the
> other is not.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Yet, music videos and movies can SAY or DO anything
> >> > with no consequences. To long have we allowed the minority to
> >> > decide what the majority can say or do. When the tobacco companies
> >> > were being sued (I'm a smoker), my father agreed with them. I told
> >> > him that long ago that when you start to restrict or fine companies
> >> > selling a legal product that is used voluntarily, that it won't
> >> > belong before fatty foods or cholesterol laden foods are going to
> >> > be fined or out lawed.
> >>
> >>
> >> Missing the point again. First off the tobacco companies knew their
> >> product was harmful but they knowingly lied to the public about it.
> >> Second they manipulated the product to make it more addictive.
> >> I've never heard claim of a food manufacturer telling anyone that
> >> high cholesterol foods are good for you.
> >
> > My point still stands and was not missed.
> > A valid argument for legal liability can be made for ANYTHING on
> > earth.
> > ANYTHING.
> > 1) Hopewell City KNOWS that concrete can cause a skull to fracture and
> > that people occasionally fall, yet all of our sidewalks are concrete
> > with absolutely no signs or disclaimer warning me of the potential
> > danger of using these public walkways.
>
> Did they intentionally make the sidewalks harder knowing that they would
> cause you greater harm? Did they make them slippery knowing that you
> would fall. Do they allow holes to go unpatched?
> Or perhaps they exercise reasonable care and caution to make them as safe
> as possible.
>
>
>
> > 2) My daughter can choke on a penny, yet the government has not even
> > attempted to put a whole in the middle of coins to prevent that from
> > happening.
>
> Ignoring the fact that whole and hole are different words. Is she any
> less likely to choke on a washer than a penny?
>
> > 3) The number ONE source of lead available children is pencils, the
> > same ones they chew. Yet pencils can be found everywhere. In fact, we
> > make them even bigger with more lead for children. You know what
>
> When was the last time you saw a pencil that contained actual lead?
> Lead pencils contain no lead.. They never have.
>
>
>
> > number two is, dirt. Can I sue the company that made the pie tin that
> > my daughter ate that mud pie out of? After all, there was no warning?
> > 4) Nabisco KNOWS fat is harmful when they add it to products to add
> > flavor. 5) Ford KNOWS that 100 MPH is unsafe and illegal, yet the
> > continue to produce vehicles that will go that speed.
>
> Does ford manipulate the product to make it intentionally less safe and
> to make you more addicted to it?
>
> > 6) Coke and Pepsi KNOW caffeine and cancer causing sweeteners can be
> > harmful and addictive, yet add more of it to products.
>
> Actually caffeine is a beneficial stimulant for many people including
> most heart patients and no study that I've ever seen or heard of claims
> that aspartame is addictive. Can you show me one?
>
>
> > 7) Achohol distillers KNOW that their product is addictive, kills it's
> > users, other drivers unlucky enough to be near a drunk driver and it
> > destroys families. Yet it is legal in spite of the affects of it being
> > FAR worse than smoking.
>
> I wont debate this point, but the fact remains that far more people die
> of cigarette related illnesses that alcohol related illnesses.
>
> > 8) I have NEVER been told by Phillip-Morris that their cigarettes were
> > good for me and\or not addictive. And I'd like to meet the idiot that
> > thought smoking wasn't harmful. It's amazing how ignorant people
> > become when the possiblity $$$ is flashed before them.
> >
> > Much to the same point:
> > 9) Bell Helmet (I'm a motorcylist) was sued because one of their
> > helmets cracked during an accident.What is the stupid part? The man
> > SURVIVED an accident where his HEAD was run over by the rear wheels of
> > a tandem truck. He's alive, and he sues the company who produced the
> > product that undoubtedly saved his life. But HE (a rocket scientist
> > I'm sure) didn't think the helmet should have cracked!
>
> That doesn't give his argument merit any more than your ridiculous tirade
> gives merit to these arguments.
>
> >
> >
> > You and I have a choice. Who in here thinks Oreos are good for you?
> > 100 Mph? Alchohol? Cigarettes?
> >
>
> OK.. once again .. Are oreos addictive? Does the manufacturer manipulate
> their formula to make them more so?
> > Are these valid law suits? I assume you think so.
>
> Clearly they aren't and equally as clear is that fact that you are
> rambling without actually thinking. Take a moment and see if you can't
> see the differences. They really should be pretty clear.
>
> >
> >
> > ********************************************************************
> > I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and
> > that is softness of head.
> > Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level
> > with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
> > Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as
> > is the most brutal wrongdoer.
> > Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> >
> >
> >

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:53:13 -0800, "Bruce"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> If Howard wants to get his message out,
>(heh, heh, yeah, he's freakin' brilliant!) he can buy his own string
>of radio stations. Why should Clear Channel feel obligated to
>air his garbage?

They still are, they only took him off in six markets. He's still on
some Clear Channel stations.

Let's also remember that the show is exactly what it always was, and
Clear Channel knew exactly what they were buying from the get-go.
They bought it because people listen, which pays in the radio biz.

FWIW, Clear Channel also owns our local Gangsta' Rap station. <G>

Barry

If the Founding Fathers had any idea of the trash, pornography, and poison
that they had _inadvertently_ protected under the first amemendment, they
would have never considered it. Can we honestly think that they would sit on
the Supreme Court (those who determine the intent and application of the
Constitution) and believe they would condone the actions of those who came
before them looking for 1st amendment protection?

pfft!

The whole point of freedom of speech and the intent of the first amendment
was exhibited vividly during the struggle for civil rights in the 60's. THIS
was the intent of the first amendment - We the people are free to speak
against the government, print against the government, and assemble peaceably
and demonstrate against the government to REDRESS GRIEVANCES!

That was on the mind of the Founding Fathers. That is what THEY dealt with,
and that is what they were PROTECTING against. And guess, what, it worked
well in the 60s... as designed.

You can make a case for flag burning under freedom of speech (which I
personally abhor), but dry humping a sign post in town square is
different...

"Freedom of Speech" - what a complete mockery.

Regards,
jbd - Denver

On 01 Apr 2004 13:03:41 GMT, [email protected] (BUB 209) wrote:

>Interesting OT - What's happening in
>that arena made me think. He's got
>a right to present his shtik, but if you
>want it, you should have to seek it
>out.

You do. <G>

>You shouldn't have to listen to it
>when you're walking into some retail
>store

Agreed, and that should be taken up with the store's management, not
the FCC. Any retailer that has Howard on in the store is a bit
lacking in the brains department, wouldn't you think?

> or next to somebody at a
>stoplight with kids in your car.

Also agreed, along with music. In fact I was once sitting next to a
vehicle at a red light with NPR's Saturday Afternoon OPERA cranked to
the hilt! It was funny, but still annoying. Some of the localities
in my area have "Boom Box" laws restricting car stereo volume. So
far, it's just one more law that goes unenforced, right along with
speed limits, use of dealer plates, motor vehicle exhaust noise laws,
etc...

Barry

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 07:09:56 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:

>As the "owner" of the airwaves, which are leased to the stations, the FCC
>can make what conditions it cares to make for use. First says you're free
>to speak, it does not say you may do it without consequence. You know
>certain "hate" words are banned, don't you?

Not only that, but while you're free to speak, that doesn't include
the free use of the broadcast equipment owned by someone else. Clear
Channel owns the radio stations, they can change their mind about what
they broadcast for any reason or for no reason at all. Stern has no
say over what they choose to broadcast.

"Trent©"

> Sadly, I think you simply invoked your prejudice into your daughter's
> education.

Can SHE go around saying it? Do you think she should, as a term of
endearment?


> ...who, because of what you just taught her, will now go on thinking
> that this is always a 'bad' word.

Because to any sensible person, it is.
The word "Ho" is popular too, call your mother that and we'll see how proper
she thinks it is.
Just because you and others have become desensitized to it doesn't make it
proper. It also shows a limited mind.


> I find it hard to believe that they both hadn't listened to the cd as
> they traveled to the store. After all, you said it was still
> playing...as they were in shopping.
>

No, I think it was the last straw for her too. She was of mind enough to
recognize the reality of what she had just witnessed. Many people are
dismissing the effects of the current "anything goes" culture. So don't see
it until it affects them directly

Some in the media insist that these things are harmless to our kids, yet in
many places the effects are becoming more and more apparent. Especially when
looking at the lack of respect the coming generation has for authority,
education, marriage and women.

>> The MOTHER, not the young man, followed us out to the car and stopped
>>me. She apologized to my daughter for it and asked me why I did that
>>[confronted the young man]. I replied that I thought it was my
>>responsibility as a parent and person to point out to the young man the
>>consequences of that song (playing aloud) and that I have NO problem with
>>the music, only that it should be heard by adults exclusively.

> Why? lol I guess I don't understand.

Why what?

>> I can't unteach my daughter about that word.
> Why?...for heaven's sake.

You clearly don't have children.


> Of COURSE he did. We ALL learn new lessons about life. But I don't
> think its the same lesson that YOU think he learned.

Therein lies the problem.

> It was designed to protect against the people who would DEFINE
> vulgarities.

Take history again and see if you can figure out what freedon of speech was
intended for.

> Again...try to find that Boston Public episode. It really discusses
> the problems in using the word 'nigger'. And I think you'll find that
> your dialog is expressed by at least one of the characters in that
> episode.

So I should educate my daughters by quoting fictional characters created by
the same industry that is at least partly responsible for the degradation of
our society that we are current having to endure?

So should I just knock the crap out of anyone who cusses or shows a breast?

Aside from the government, who do I call to enforce decency?

Although I agree with most of what you say, I disagree with the notion that
we cannot legislate decency. Certainly we have laws concerning public
decency\indecency, this is just an extension of the same laws. We CAN
legislate ANYTHING we choose. The problems is finding someone in the
government with the *alls to stand up to a liberal media machine that
insists that ANY laws governing such things as unconstitutional. They've
even defended NAMBLA. In my city, public profanity is against the law. THAT
IS legislating morality. Now when they tell me I can't watch x-rated
material in my HOME, then THAT is unconstitutional. No one can say the "N"
word in public, because that is hate speech. Yet, music videos and movies
can SAY or DO anything with no consequences. To long have we allowed the
minority to decide what the majority can say or do. When the tobacco
companies were being sued (I'm a smoker), my father agreed with them. I told
him that long ago that when you start to restrict or fine companies selling
a legal product that is used voluntarily, that it won't belong before fatty
foods or cholesterol laden foods are going to be fined or out lawed. We now
see that happening. As you say, personal responsibility is out the door.
With such a simple thing as tort reform and what I call "anti-stupidity"
laws, you can fix so many things, including healthcare in this country. Last
I read, frivolous law suits cost the medical industry (or cost us you can
say) over $250 Billion PER YEAR. WE wind up paying that. That's just one
example.



--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt


"Steven P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This I believe is the more germane topic. Forget about censorship, forget
> about the FCC and its fines and regulation and what the government does
and
> does not say you can or can't do. Let's look at ourselves as a
population.
> Let's talk about how we conduct ourselves as a whole. You cannot dispute
> the fact that there is little sense of decorum in our society, that there
is
> little sense of personal limits or personal responsibility. We are
supposed
> to be a nation of self determination. Everyone needs to stop looking to
the
> government to solve problems. We all need to look around ourselves, and
> more importantly AT ourselves and ask how we affect the world around us.
WE
> make the world that WE ALL live in.
>
> I am sure that most of the people reading this do not go around blaring
foul
> language out of the windows of their cars, or walk through the store
> cussing, so this is probably aimed at the wrong audience. However, for
> those that are reading this and are offended by these behaviors, do not
look
> to the government to solve the problem. Instead, let's talk about ways
that
> we can fix it ourselves. I do not know the answer to that. I only know
that
> you cannot legislate a sense of decency and politeness.
>
> SteveP.
>
> "Bill Everette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Funny thing is, we decided to home school her to reduce that amount of
> > exposure she has to the current culture in public schools. Then lo and
> > behold, I stop to get us a Dr. Pepper and Pringles and look what
happens!
> > I also find myself getting more intolerant of our culture (anything
> > goes) the older I get (35 now). If this had happened in the past, I
would
> > have just kept on walking and not thought twice. But I find that we are
> > bombarded with this everywhere we go. Sex, drugs and crime are being
> > glorified. I had to explain the word SLUT because of Nickelodeon, and
> > explain why the afternoon host of Nickelodeon was taking his pants off
and
> > getting "nude". Yes, they used that word as he was taking them off. I
> can't
> > watch ANY channel without an ad for Avlimil advertising that you can
> > increase your sexual libido. Movies can't just show a couple going into
a
> > bedroom and closing the door, they have to show everything EXPLICITLY.
I'm
> > smart enough to understand what they are going to do, You don't have to
> show
> > me pictures! I can get porn channels for that and Janet Jackson's
breasts
> > aren't so impressive that the whole world needs to know. Besides, I can
> buy
> > a pair just like them! I'm afraid to take my daughter to see Scooby Doo
2
> > tonight because the rating says "Language". Come on guys, this is Scooby
> > Doo! I think we can have a Scooby movie without profanity! Disney has
Gay
> > Days without notifying other visitors. I don't want my daughter to see
> > heterosexuals fondling, mush less homosexuals. I don't want to have to
> > explain that to my daughters. The most they need to see is their mother
> and
> > father hugging and giving a lip kiss. That's not an attitude towards
gays,
> I
> > don't like to see the teens walking around the mall in a lip lock with
> their
> > hands on each others rear. It's improper public conduct. And to think, I
> > used to be liberal, life turned me conservative!
> >
> > Rant Over!
> >
> > Roh Kay Raggie
> >
> > --
> > ********************************************************************
> > I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that
is
> > softness of head.
> > Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level
> with
> > the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
> > Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is
> the
> > most brutal wrongdoer.
> > Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> >
> > "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:%[email protected]...
> > > Three cheers for you, Dad! Good job.
> > >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Everette"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > My family and I live in a racially mixed neighborhood (Hopewell,
> VA).
> > > >Everyone gets along great with no racial overtones (at least not that
> > we've
> > > >encountered).
> > > > My daughter refers to black people as brown people because as a 5
> > year
> > > >old, that's how she views it. We stopped at a small convenience store
> > last
> > > >May. There was an SUV parked in front of the store with no one in it
> and
> > it
> > > >was blaring "gangster rap". The song that was playing was clearly
> echoing
> > > >the "N" word every second. My daughter, curious and having been
talking
> > > >clearly since 2, asked me what the "N" word meant. I explained that
it
> > was
> > > >JUST a word that bad people call brown people. I played it DOWN
because
> I
> > > >didn't want to encourage further curiosity about the matter. A five
> > minute
> > > >answer would have provoked a day of thought on the subject and 20
more
> > > >questions. More knowledge than I care to place on a 5 year old mind.
> > > > I started fuming that my daughter had been put in a situation to
> hear
> > > >this against MY will. I proceeded to go into the store and ask who
> owned
> > the
> > > >Ford Expedition outside. A young black man (accompanied by an older
> black
> > > >woman that I assumed was his mother) acknowledged that it was his. I
> told
> > > >him my daughter had a question for him and proceeded to let her ask
HIM
> > what
> > > >that word meant. His attitude quickly turned to anger as he heard her
> > > >question. He looked at me and started (notice I said started) to go
> into
> > a
> > > >racially charged rant and puff his chest at me. His mother was just
as
> > > >shocked that the "N" word just came from my daughter's mouth. I
simply
> > held
> > > >up a finger to pause him for a second, and asked my daughter to tell
> him
> > > >where she heard that word, to which she replied "a song". I then
asked
> > her
> > > >where she heard that song, and she pointed to his vehicle "right
> there".
> > He
> > > >looked confused but his mother's face turned to anger as she turned
> > towards
> > > >him. I then sarcastically thanked him for educating my daughter on
the
> > > >subject and started walking away.
> > > > The MOTHER, not the young man, followed us out to the car and
> stopped
> > > >me. She apologized to my daughter for it and asked me why I did that
> > > >[confronted the young man]. I replied that I thought it was my
> > > >responsibility as a parent and person to point out to the young man
the
> > > >consequences of that song (playing aloud) and that I have NO problem
> with
> > > >the music, only that it should be heard by adults exclusively. I
> also
> > > >expressed my belief that music like that (and Eminem, David Allan Coe
> et
> > al)
> > > >only serves to degrade young minds and goes against all that I am
> TRYING
> > to
> > > >teach my daughter. I told her once that door is open, it's hard to
> close.
> > I
> > > >can't unteach my daughter about that word. I have no problem with
sound
> > > >minded adults listening to it privately in an atmosphere of adults.
She
> > said
> > > >that made perfect since and apologized to me and walked away. As we
> were
> > > >leaving, I could hear her rant at her son as a CASE of CD's was
flying
> > from
> > > >her side of his SUV. The last thing I could hear was him yelling a
> > sentence
> > > >that contained the word bitch. I can only assume that he was calling
> her
> > (or
> > > >my daughter) that word. I can also assume that he provided further
> proof
> > to
> > > >her of the validity of the point that I was making.
> > > >
> > > >Do you think HE learned anything from was had just occurred?
> > > >Do you really think that the First Amendment was designed to protect
> > > >vulgarities?
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
> > >
> > > For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
> > > send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Hold on now, "but if you
> want it, you should have to seek it " you said this. And you also said you
shouldn't have to listen to it at some stoplight. Now you want people to
roll up thier windows when approaching another stopped vehicle?
I personally do not listen to Howard, But back in the day I did listen to
Greaseman on DC 101. I liked him then and to this day I remember some of his
bits. We should all be able to speak our mind, Hmmm there should be a law
about that, people should be allowed to say what they feel! I think it's the
first amendment! I also have kids and I don't want him sitting around
watching a foul mouthed movie at 2 years old. So I monitor what he watches.
Yes I even filter out the cartoons that I think is not appropriate. But see
that my choice and I HAVE THAT CHOICE, if I want to watch cartoon figures
put guns to thier head and pull the trigger then I can Bu t I am not going
to let my son watch it. I make the decisons for me not let some old
battleaxe do it.

Searcher 1

>
"BUB 209" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Interesting OT - What's happening in
> that arena made me think. He's got
> a right to present his shtik, but if you
> want it, you should have to seek it
> out. You shouldn't have to listen to it
> when you're walking into some retail
> store or next to somebody at a
> stoplight with kids in your car.

And he said that I had given my daughter a prejudiced view. THAT is what
truly surprises me.


--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt


"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > "Trent©"
> >
>
> Had him killfiled, for good reason it appears.
>
> ... snip
> > > Again...try to find that Boston Public episode. It really discusses
> > > the problems in using the word 'nigger'. And I think you'll find that
> > > your dialog is expressed by at least one of the characters in that
> > > episode.
> >
> > So I should educate my daughters by quoting fictional characters created
by
> > the same industry that is at least partly responsible for the
degradation of
> > our society that we are current having to endure?
> >
>
> Yep, when you are the writer, you get to set the stage, you get to
> arrange the characters, and you get to give voice to the people whom you
> choose. If you have a particular bias, you can make the people who
> support your position seem well-educated, deeply thoughtful and
> insightful while you can make the people who oppose your particular bias
> appear to be crude, uneducated, bigoted cretins who can't string two
> coherent sentences together. Or, more insidiously, make them appear as
> just slightly less educated and needing some "enlightenment" to see the
> error of their ways. Just one of the reasons I don't even bother to view
> modern-day prime-time programming anymore.

<Secret> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "John Dykes" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > If the Founding Fathers had any idea of the trash, pornography, and
> > poison that they had _inadvertently_ protected under the first
> > amemendment, they would have never considered it.
>
>
> Are you so sure it was inadvertant? The first amendmant is an absolute.
> "Congress shall make no law" that is NO law. Compare that to the second
> amendment " A well regulated ...." One clearly allows for a certain
> amount of govermnent regulation, one was absolute. I sincerely doubt that
> this was an accident.

Not to split hairs. I see the point your trying to make - and agree. But
the second amendment is an absolute. The predicated part is a stated reason
why the absolute non predicated part exists "shall not be infringed" - which
is an absolute.

In other words the governemnt may regulate a militia so since that may
someday need to happen - each citizent, to be ready for that day, has an
absolute right to keep and bear arms. A right not to be infringed apon.

>
>Who the hell is Howard Stern?
>

Yay.