Free *beeep* Speech

[Oliver]

When I watch "The Daily Show" on Youtube, I have a hard time to understand what Jon Stewart actually meant whenever some nut jobs put a *beep* -sound in there every view seconds.

Since this bothers me a lot, I looked what this free speech myth is that everyone is talking about - and I found out it says this:

"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."

So can I sue Comedy Central for some million bucks now for breaching the law or not?

 

[RandFan]

Hey Oliver, I'm with you in spirit. You can sue but it is very unlikely that you will prevail.

Since I tend to be fanatically free speech I'll give others the oportunity to argue why. If no one steps up to the plate I'll play devils advocate. Until then I'm on your side.

 

[Oliver]

Hey Oliver, I'm with you in spirit. You can sue but it is very unlikely that you will prevail.

Since I tend to be fanatically free speech I'll give others the oportunity to argue why. If no one steps up to the plate I'll play devils advocate. Until then I'm on your side.

Okay, then I wait a little bit until someone can tell me why there should be no chance to get the million bucks - and Imagine in the Meantime what I will do with all the money.

 

[RandFan]

Okay, then I wait a little bit until someone can tell me why there should be no chance to get the million bucks - and Imagine in the Meantime what I will do with all the money.

Keep in mind that Howard stern's radio station lost a lot of money taking on the FCC so that Stern could use profanity and in the end they gave up. And hey, unlike you the government infringed Stern's speech. The constitution doesn't gurantee everyone the right to hear speech only the right to speak. If there was a case Stern would have persued it, trust me on this one (see Private Parts). No one is more passionate about free speech than Stern.

 

[Oliver]

Keep in mind that Howard stern's radio station lost a lot of money taking on the FCC so that Stern could use profanity and in the end they gave up. And hey, unlike you the government infringed Stern's speech. The constitution doesn't gurantee everyone the right to hear speech only the right to speak. If there was a case Stern would have persued it, trust me on this one (see Private Parts). No one is more passionate about free speech than Stern.

Huh? What does this mean "right to hear everything?". I mean that's the very meaning of speech: That others hear what I speak. So in reversion it is a clear breach of free speech if someone is not allowed to hear what I speak. And I honestly believe that's the reason why the law was written and that the founding fathers would spend me a beer right now for my conclusion.

Shall we share the money?

 

[Skibum]

So can I sue Comedy Central for some million bucks now for breaching the law or not?

No, Comedy Central can censor whatever they put on their channel.
I'm not sure why they bleep the John Stewart show, considering they recently aired Eddie Murphy Raw unbleeped.

 

[RandFan]

Huh? What does this mean "right to hear everything?". I mean that's the very meaning of speech: That others hear what I speak. So in reversion it is a clear breach of free speech if someone is not allowed to hear what I speak.

I didn't make that argument very well. Maybe I would make a lousy devils advocate for the FCC.

In any event, I'm not sure the person who didn't get to hear the speech has standing. I think it is John Stewart who would have the standing and could bring the suit. It might be technical but I'm pretty sure you can't make a case just because you were prevented from hearing something. Usually the person with standing is the person whose speech was infringed. I don't think reversion applies in this case but I could be wrong.

And I honestly believe that's the reason why the law was written and that the founding fathers would spend me a beer right now for my conclusion.

You might be right.

Shall we share the money?

If Howard Stern couldn't win why do you think you can?

 

[Oliver]

No, Comedy Central can censor whatever they put on their channel.
I'm not sure why they bleep the John Stewart show, considering they recently aired Eddie Murphy Raw unbleeped.

Oh, so it's not a political thing at all - but a moral issue that doesn't make sense if it distorts the meaning of the whole sentence.

Who brought it up - and why? I mean everyone tells me about this cool Free Speech thing. The ones who brought it up seemed to be opposed to the free speech idea.

 

[RandFan]

No, Comedy Central can censor whatever they put on their channel.
I'm not sure why they bleep the John Stewart show, considering they recently aired Eddie Murphy Raw unbleeped.

Hmmm.... South Park actually uses a lot of profanity after 10:00 pm

 

[Grimes]

I'm not sure why they bleep the John Stewart show, considering they recently aired Eddie Murphy Raw unbleeped.

Advertisers, which is why there's so few commercials during Comedy Central's late-night, uncensored features.

It's more about revenue than freedom.

 

[Oliver]

I didn't make that argument very well. Maybe I would make a lousy devils advocate for the FCC.

In any event, I'm not sure the person who didn't get to hear the speech has standing. I think it is John Stewart who would have the standing and could bring the suit. It might be technical but I'm pretty sure you can't make a case just because you were prevented from hearing something. Usually the person with standing is the person whose speech was infringed. I don't think reversion applies in this case but I could be wrong.

You might be right.

If Howard Stern couldn't win why do you think you can?

Because I want the money. But kidding aside - it's pretty contradicting to my experience with nearly every American who praises free speech. And quite frankly, I never heard about a similar free speech law outside the US.

What was the initial intention? Religious censorship?

 

[RandFan]

Oh, so it's not a political thing at all - but a moral issue that doesn't make sense if it distorts the meaning of the whole sentence.

Who brought it up - and why? I mean everyone tells me about this cool Free Speech thing. The ones who brought it up seemed to be opposed to the free speech idea.

Well let's be honest here for a moment. America does by and large have free speech. The purpose of free speech was to allow citizens the right to criticize their political leaders. That's done daily in America. Religion, politicians, institutions, celebrities, etc. are criticized daily on broadcast TV, radio, in news papers, magazines and on the Internet. There is more free speech in America today than there has ever been in our history.

That really is not the question and it is dishonest to suggest that there is no free speech in America. That is demonstrably untrue.

However, the question becomes what if any limits can be and or should be set. I'm pretty much against limits. Some believe that there should be some limits when it comes to obscenity. The Supreme Court of The United States has ruled that communities have the right to set standards as to decency.

We are a nation of diverse opinions. Not everyone thinks that broadcasting obscenity (whatever that is) is necessary to the free exchange of ideas. I disagree but I understand the argument.

So, I'm with you when it comes to censorship in that I'm against it and I frequently and actively campaign on behalf of free speech but I can't take your position that America does not at all value free speech or that there is no free speech in America. That's just silly BS.

 

[Oliver]

Hmmm.... South Park actually uses a lot of profanity after 10:00 pm

*lol* I guess otherwise you wouldn't understand the whole episode anymore.

" *Beep* *Beep* Kyle *Beep* my *Beep* Cartman *Beep* *Beep* *Beep* "

 

[Skibum]

And quite frankly, I never heard about a similar free speech law outside the US.

I consider the censorship of certain political ideas in Germany and much of Europe to be far worse than bleeping a few cuss words.

 

[RandFan]

it's pretty contradicting to my experience with nearly every American who praises free speech.

I can't speak to that. I'm fanatically free speech and I have even fought to keep people on this forum who have behaved in very vulgar and obscene ways. I fought on behalf of someone who made very offensive remarks about Randi and the remarks upset me. I've spoken out for the rights of people I don't like. I've actively attended movies and shows that I didn't want to see simply because they were targeted for boycotts. So I'm probably as fanatic as you will find but I'm not sure what your friends tell you. I will tell you that in my experience there are very few hard core free speech advocates. Most only defend free speech when the speech leans their way politically and I don't mean that the speech itself is political.

What was the initial intention? Religious censorship?

What was the initial intention of what?

 

[Oliver]

Well let's be honest here for a moment. America does by and large have free speech. The purpose of free speech was to allow citizens the right to criticize their political leaders. That's done daily in America. Religion, politicians, institutions, celebrities, etc. are criticized daily on broadcast TV, radio, in news papers, magazines and on the Internet daily. There is more free speech in America today than there has ever been in the history of America.

That really is not the question and it is dishonest to suggest that there is no free speech in America. That is demonstrably untrue.

However, the question becomes what if any limits can be and or should be set. I'm pretty much against limits. Some believe that there should be some limits when it comes to obscenity. The Supreme Court of The United States has ruled that communities have the right to set standards as to decency.

We are a nation of diverse opinions. Not everyone thinks that broadcasting obscenity (whatever that is) is necessary to the free exchange of ideas. I disagree but I understand the argument.

So, I'm with you when it comes to censorship in that I'm against it and I frequently and actively campaign on behalf of free speech but I can't take your position that America does not at all value free speech or that there is no free speech in America. That's just silly BS.

I understand all of that and I guess there is indeed a lot of free speech in America - quite frankly, sometimes too much - but what I don't understand is why it works this way in America. I mean if someone here on TV makes a mistake and mumbles "***it" or is Angry and screams "STFU", there is no reason to censor - it's a very honest reaction.

So I guess the censorship may be because an exaggerated use of profanity, isn't it?

 

[RandFan]

I understand all of that and I guess there is indeed a lot of free speech in America - quite frankly, sometimes too much - but what I don't understand is why it works this way in America. I mean if someone here on TV makes a mistake and mumbles "*****" or is Angry and screams "FU", there is no reason to censor - it's a very honest reaction.

So I guess the censorship may be because an exaggerated use of profanity, isn't it?

It's a misbeghoten perception that obsenity will cause some kind of harm. That's nonsense. It's funny because parents use profanity away from their kids and the kids use profanity away from the parents and it's all one great big lie.

 

[Oliver]

I consider the censorship of certain political ideas in Germany and much of Europe to be far worse than bleeping a few cuss words.

So? Which ones. There is only one that comes to my mind and I feel very okay with that because it's libel. You have laws for libel, too - don't you?

 

[Skibum]

I understand all of that and I guess there is indeed a lot of free speech in America - quite frankly, sometimes too much

WTF?

 

[Oliver]

It's a misbeghoten perception that obsenity will cause some kind of harm. That's nonsense. It's funny because parents use profanity away from their kids and the kids use profanity away from the parents and it's all one great big lie.

It's indeed pretty paradox and I guess that wasn't the case in the first generation of Television. So was there a lobby or discussion about it or did someone start it and the majority of the Media followed?