|
|
|
March 01, 2004
Guns, penises, and now tongues?
The following story was sent to me in an email from Newsmax.com: Rolling Stone Blames Obscenity Worries on Republicans OK, let's assume the movement to "clean up" the airwaves is as much coming from the left as it is from the right. What the hell difference does that make? My objection to this "movement" is not based on whether "Bush is behind it" or whether "the Democrats" are behind it. I just don't like it, period. Americans -- without regard to political affiliation -- should oppose government meddling with what we want to hear. People get all exercised about such things as low-flow toilets which don't flush. Is interference with the free exercise of speech any less invasive? Or odious? If anything, the fact that the left and the right join hands in promoting a more "muscular" approach to "tongue control" only confirms what I have been saying all along about the phony choices we are offered. One side wants gun control. The other wants penis control. Now, according to Newsmax, BOTH want tongue control. If history shows anything, it's that tongue control can be carried too far! posted by Eric on 03.01.04 at 02:28 PM
Comments
Am I the only one who thinks that this article is rediculous in light of the FCC ruling that decided it was OK for him to say it since he wasn't referring to a sex act? Phelps · March 2, 2004 06:29 PM They are trying to get the FCC to REVERSE its decision. Here's the Rolling Stone article: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=19246 **QUOTE** Within hours of Powell's speech, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said that he would seek to dramatically increase penalties for broadcasters. Eleven other Republicans and Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-S.C.) have sponsored a resolution that asks the FCC to revoke the license of television stations that repeatedly air indecent material. A bill sponsored by Rep. Doug Ose (R-Calif.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) even aims to completely ban, from all radio and network television broadcasts, the following words: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and asshole. How could they put such language in a bill? My blog could be blocked even for talking about it! Eric Scheie · March 2, 2004 10:08 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Laughing at the failure of discourse?
• Holiday Blogging • The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Nat Hentoff once remarked that the urge to censor your opponent is more powerful than even the urge to have sex. I know that very well. Have to resist the temptation, have to defend the free speech of my most loathsome enemy even as I defend my own.
Everybody has a right to speak his or her mind. I have a right to listen to or read whatever I damn please whether the government likes it or not. If I don't like what they're saying, I can turn it off, read another book or article or magazine, go to another Website or blog, tell the guy off, or punch him in the mouth, ha! ha! (and get punched back if I do that, ha! ha!)