quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
Ok, I guess were talking about Jane Fonda?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
In any case, my point was made when North was characterized as an "exemplary Marine" rather than a "treasonous slut".

Since I did call Col. North an "exemplary Marine" (and you fail to understand my explanation) let's be very clear: I called Hanoi Jane a traitor. I never called her a "slut". I leave stuff like that to Limbaugh, that palin Maher, and Schultz and their ilk.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

let's be very clear: I called Hanoi Jane a traitor. I never called her a "slut"

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

she committed the treasonous act of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I'm not sure about "comfort" although, I'd wager she fucked a few of 'em just to prove what a humanitarian she is but, propagandizing is certainly giving aid.
Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
In any case, my point was made when North was characterized as an "exemplary Marine" rather than a "treasonous slut".

Since I did call Col. North an "exemplary Marine" (and you fail to understand my explanation) let's be very clear: I called Hanoi Jane a traitor. I never called her a "slut". I leave stuff like that to Limbaugh, that palin Maher, and Schultz and their ilk.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
In any case, my point was made when North was characterized as an "exemplary Marine" rather than a "treasonous slut".

Since I did call Col. North an "exemplary Marine" (and you fail to understand my explanation) let's be very clear: I called Hanoi Jane a traitor. I never called her a "slut". I leave stuff like that to Limbaugh, that palin Maher, and Schultz and their ilk.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

Doesn't matter, as I said, as denouncements go, it was much more lukewarm and heavily qualified than passionate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
In any case, my point was made when North was characterized as an "exemplary Marine" rather than a "treasonous slut".

Since I did call Col. North an "exemplary Marine" (and you fail to understand my explanation) let's be very clear: I called Hanoi Jane a traitor. I never called her a "slut". I leave stuff like that to Limbaugh, that palin Maher, and Schultz and their ilk.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

I'll call North a good marine. He sacrificed himself to save his commander. It was the figurative 'dive on a grenade to save your squadmates'.

quote:

quote:

I think Gen./Sec. Powell blew a chance to enter the history books

No, he made a choice not to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
IMO, Powell would have been a great one.

I wanted Powell/Keyes just to "balance the ticket" in certain ways to try and insure a win.

Forgetting the bottom of the ticket, I think Gen./Sec. Powell blew a chance to enter the history books instead of the current POTUS.

I think Gen./Sec. Powell would have won with something like 70% of the vote. I mean that. I think it would have been the landslide to end all landslides. When I realized that he wasn't just playing coy and really wasn't going to run, I was very disappointed.

ETA: Hell, I would have volunteered my time to help get him elected; something I haven't done since Reagan '80



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
The fact that the 1st amendment is guaranteed to come under attack because of the nature of what it is is a given. It's almost like the controversy is built right in.

What I don't understand is how someone can claim to be for freedom of speech while looking to silence someone else. It boggles my mind...

I'm shocked at other people who depend upon freedom of speech to advance their own agenda, though and can't seem to understand that discourse is one of the first steps to change.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

Getting away from "Chickenhawk" Limbaugh for a moment, actor and Religious Rightist Kirk Cameron is a good example of this. He goes on TV and attacks gays, saying he has a 1st Amendment right to speak his mind on the subject in a public forum...

And then complains about "hate speech" when others use their 1st Amendment right to criticize what he said in a public forum...

He seems to believe that he has a 1st Amendment right to say what he wishes - and everyone else only has a 1st Amendment right to agree with him...

quote:

Powell decided to leave when he realized Bush II shot him in the back with that "yellow-cake uranium" BS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5
But back to whether or not Rush should be on the air.... if he can't get enough sponsors to stay on the air, I'll feel so sad. NOT!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

FR

I don't like Rush's message, but I do believe in the First Amendment which protects his right to say what he wants to say.

What the First Amendment does NOT protect is someone's right to say whatever they want to say on the radio.

SCOTUS upheld that the 'right' goes to the individual to speak and to listen via radio in stating that individuals are not 'carriers'. Carriers are restricted in certain aspects and there are differing levels for 1st protection. Individuals are not held to those differing standards and are protected in any media and on the Internet. The 1st is still there for carriers, just at (3) differing levels.

"In CBS, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, for example, the Court examined the legislative history of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934 and found that Congress “firmly … rejected the argument that the broadcast facilities should be open on a nonselective basis to all persons wishing to talk about public issues.” It found great significance in the act’s command that a person “engaged in radio broadcasting shall not … be deemed a common carrier.” (my bold)

Here is the standard for a common carrier:

"It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

Broadcast radio is limited in the protection offered by the 1st but talking heads are not as it is considered personal preference rather than policy of the broadcasting station.

Examples:

A telemarketer calls you on the phone and goes into the spiel.. he is then acting as an agent of policy and not as an individual so his 1st protections are at a differing level and must adhere to the Communications Act of 1934. Unscripted talk shows would not be an 'agent of policy', radio commercials would be an agent of policy. Being a guest on David Letterman - not an agent of policy, trying to sell advertising for David Letterman.. agent of policy.

Your statement has some merit when it comes to agents of policy.. you can't just say anything you want without violation. Rush doesn't fall under the same level of scrutiny in 1st protection as far as SCOTUS though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Thanks for this. I thought that radio broadcasts are still subject to obscenity laws, and that kind of thing (which presumably would affect any given show) - or is that just no longer the case?