It's on the public Internet. I don't see a meaningful distinction there.
Someone must pay to access the internet. No payment is required for access to public airwaves. There's your difference.
No pay is required to access public airwaves? What are they piped into your brain? Or are you forgetting you need to purchase a TV?
Since the movie in question mocked a dead warlord, is there anything inherent to this particular warlord that demands respect vs any other warlord?
Someone must pay to access the internet. No payment is required for access to public airwaves. There's your difference.
This isn't a question about whether Muhammad was a warlord. You could call the Christian God and many other God systems the same thing. It's a matter of respecting other people's beliefs. If someone were to tell me unicorns are real and it helps them sleep at night, I might think they're off their rocker, but I certainly wouldn't be disrespectful about it. If the maker of the movie had any respect, he wouldn't have made the movie, let alone lie to the actors in the film and voice over their original parts.
Again, it boils down to common sense. You don't make a movie like that and release it publicly knowing that it will cause violent outrage. It's a thin line to walk, I admit that. But you have to ask yourself, at what point does it stop being art? We don't consider child porn as art. We don't consider racial violence videos as art. We shouldn't consider this art either.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? When you acquire a TV, you have access to public airwaves free of charge. When you acquire a computer, do you have the internet free of charge (for ever and ever)?
You argument is unsound all on its own. In pointing out that TV is also paid for I am pointing out that your argument is also logically invalid.
No, your argument is BS. Needing electrical equipment is a given. Needing to pay for access is the difference.
You asked for a difference, there it is - plain and obvious. Are you still going to claim that there is NO difference?
He DID translate it into Arabic. What did he think was going to happen? They'd all become Christians?
This thread shows the inability of the right to get past simplistic jingoism. Did anybody think this wouldn't happen? The simmering rage of Islam that you all are telling us about...well, he poured gasoline on it...Hello?
Needing to pay for access makes no meaningful difference. Even if it did, it is possible to access the net for free at libraries and public computers. YouTube is free. The fact that Internet requires a subscription is no different from cabl, which is also censored.
Your distinction is neither a real distinction nor, should we grant a distinction arguendo, is the distinction a meaningful one.
yet nobody is doing anything to protect the right of network TV to curse or show nudity.
I have done that a few times.
Only if those depictions utilize public airwaves. The public has the right (responsibility, even) to regulate public airwaves, in a public manner.
It's on the public Internet. I don't see a meaningful distinction there.
Bravo!
Are you being intentionally obtuse? When you acquire a TV, you have access to public airwaves free of charge. When you acquire a computer, do you have the internet free of charge (for ever and ever)?
Why do you want nudity and profanity on public airwaves? You don't get enough from other sources? As a public good (a commons) and a limited resource, I am fine with keeping those few stations fit for family enjoyment. I vote no nudity or profanity on public airwaves and I'm in the majority, so tough crap.
I think you are taking libertarian to a stupid extreme on this issue.
Ever heard of free WiFi?
I'm sorry, but this was a horrifically stupid poll. Not the even the most extremes of any political lean on here have said yes.Simple question (I hope it's obvious I mean the Prophet Muhammed, I just couldn't include that in the title due to space limitations)?
Edit: Crap, I hit "go" before I had a chance to post the poll (and it won't let me delete my OP, so I can try again). Can a poll still be added?
Edit2: Ok, I figured it out.
Stations that wanted to bring in the family unit would show things for that audience while everyone else would not. There is also nothing to be scared about with nudity or human interaction. I don't see how this is a stupid extreme when there is no reason what so ever for the government to act.
I'm sorry, but this was a horrifically stupid poll. Not the even the most extremes of any political lean on here have said yes.
Given some of the arguments in this thread, there really should be a few more yes votes. .
It's funny how so many argue yes, but are too cowardly to come right out and vote it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?