XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: Obveeus@aol.com   
      
   "Thanatos"  wrote:   
   > "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Thanatos"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >> "Thanatos"  wrote in message   
   >> >> news:atropos-73B412.01332423042010@news-wc.giganews.com...   
   >> >> > In article   
   >> >> > ,   
   >> >> > Barry Margolin  wrote:   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >> In article ,   
   >> >> >>  Thanatos  wrote:   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> > Ultimately, if some Muslim wack-job does something   
   >> >> >> > violent both the legal and moral responsibility lies   
   >> >> >> > with the wack-job. We thankfully haven't reached the   
   >> >> >> > point yet where the victim of extortion bears culpability   
   >> >> >> > for not surrendering their freedoms to the extorters.   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> The wack-jobs are litigation-proof, Comedy Central isn't.   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > Which brings me back to their lack of spine. Any media outlet,   
   >> >> > even a comedy channel, that's willing to give up the   
   >> >> > fundamental freedom which is the lifeblood of its industry   
   >> >> > merely because they might be sued has no business being in   
   >> >> > that industry in the first place.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> These 'media outlets' regularly give up their 'fundamental freedom'   
   >> >> for much less.   
   >> >   
   >> > No doubt.   
   >> >   
   >> >> How is this different than when the idiot rightwingers put together a   
   >> >> sponsor boycott against advertisers and cause programs to alter their   
   >> >> content?   
   >> >   
   >> > It's not, except that there are threats of violence involved here.   
   >> > Boycotts are legal. Threatening to kill people is not.   
   >>   
   >> If the authorities felt that they could get a conviction over these   
   >> 'threats', arrests would be made and you know it.   
   >   
   > What does a conviction have to do with anything?   
      
   Who do you think is going to issue the arrest warrant...or are you expecting   
   joe-policeman to simply start arresting people based upon his own   
   initiative?   
      
   >> > I know you think you've somehow engineered a "gotcha" moment here by   
   >> > bringing in "right-wingers" but you've made some assumptions about me   
   >> > that will sadly result in dashed expectations on your part.   
   >>   
   >> You always deny being a 'right winger' and your denials are always very   
   >> weak.   
   >   
   > No, I deny being a Republican. Your problem is that there's as many   
   > different definition for "right-wingers" on Usenet as there are people   
   > posting to it.   
      
   Why is that *my* problem?  Do I need to take special note of those that are   
   to the right of the rightmost Republicans?   
      
   >> it has to do with media outlets fairly regularly altering   
   >> programs for simple threats to boycott sponsors products...   
   >   
   > And where have I said I support that again?   
      
   No one said you did.   
      
   >> and yet you think it is unreasonable to alter programming   
   >> when people's lives are at stake.   
   >   
   > Yes, I do.   
      
   You wany someone esle to risk their life for a cartoon, yet you don't step   
   up and do the same.  Be a man about it.  Stop asking the accountants at   
   Comedy Central to riskk their lives for you.  Dress up as Muhammed yourself   
   and taunt these people until they snap.  Then, you can get the 'justice' you   
   seek.   
      
   >> It is unbelievably misguided of you to claim that Comedy Central   
   >> lacks balls or smarts or whatnot over this issue when all they   
   >> are trying to do is keep their people safe and their programming   
   >> viable.   
   >   
   > So basically whenever anyone uses threats of violence to extort   
   > something from someone else, the victim of the extortion should just   
   > capitulate.   
   >   
   > That about sum it up?   
      
   It sums it up if you are extremely simple minded.  I believe what I said was   
   to be more thoughtful in which battles you fight.   
      
   > Maybe you should change your screen name to Frenchy and be done with it.   
      
   Suddenly, I want to give you a big wet kiss.   
      
   >> I assume your position is just right of the far right fringe...   
   >   
   > Well, you know what they say about assumptions.   
      
   In this case...that they are perfectly valid for the purposes of this   
   discussion.   
      
   > Too bad you haven't   
   > learned that lesson despite having it repeatedly taught to you.   
      
   I've seen you participate in many threads.  Your belief that you are   
   teaching people is quite misguided.   
      
   >> >> You are picking a really poor fight here. if you want to 'show   
   >> >> some balls' and 'defend your right to free speech', go out there   
   >> >> and do it yourself.   
   >> >   
   >> > How do you know I don't?   
   >>   
   >> If you were dressed as Muhammed and dancing around in front of   
   >> a radical mosque, I would have seen you (or your corpse) on   
   >> the news.   
   >   
   > So according to you, the only way to defend one's free speech rights   
   > against radical Muslims is to dance in front of a mosque?   
      
   Not the only way...but a much better way than to demand that Comedy   
   Central's secretaries and accountants do it for you.   
      
   > The sad thing, however, is that you seem peculiarly resigned and   
   > unconcerned about the fact that there are apparently mosques full of   
   > people in this country who will kill people for doing something as   
   > innocuous as dancing and nothing is being done about it.   
      
   Dress up in drag and stand out in front of the redneck bars calling them   
   queers.  See how it works for you.   
   Dress up like Christ on the cross and perform sex acts on a blowup doll in   
   front of a Christian church and see how it works for you.   
   Dress up in black face and tell racist jokes while walking through Philly's   
   inner city and see how it works out for you.   
      
   There are lots and lots of people all over America just waiting to snap if   
   they are prevoked.  If we got rid of all of them, you would be gone as well.   
      
   >> > I certainly don't go around censoring myself   
   >> > based on the dictates of Islam out of fear of being attacked by one of   
   >> > these vicious animals.   
   >>   
   >> I bet your employer would 'censor' you in such a way that you   
   >> couldn't do that Muhammed dance in front of the radical mosque   
   >> while on company time.   
   >   
   > That makes no sense. You seem to be equating an employer's requirement   
   > that employees be productive and do the work they're being paid to do   
   > with censorship.   
      
   Comedy Central is asking their cartoonists to be productive and do the work   
   they are being paid to do...yet Comedy Central is being called out for   
   'censorship' as well.  It is there network.  They get to choose what airs.   
   It is their goal to be profitable.  It is up to them to decide what will   
   lead to profits.   
      
   > It's not even a valid analogy in this case because Parker and Stone   
   > weren't fucking off at work in order to offend Muslims.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)