XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: Obveeus@aol.com   
      
   "Thanatos"  wrote:   
   > "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >> The show has a few million viewers out of the hundreds of millions   
   >> of people in the USA. it is not representative of US culture.   
   >   
   > So what *is* representative of US culture then? Your criteria seems to   
   > eliminate almost every TV show, movie, painting, book, magazine and   
   > piece of music.   
      
   Watching TV is representative of American culture.  Watching a particular TV   
   show is not.   
   Going to the movies is representative of American Culture.  Going to see a   
   particular movie is not.   
   Listening to music is representastive of American culture.  Listening to a   
   particular song is not.   
      
   > So why don't you tell us what qualifies? And while you're at it, cite   
   > the source of that authority.   
      
   The only authority I need for my opinion is me.   
      
   >> >> ...but again, the issue isn't about Comedy Central denying these   
   >> >> cartoonists the ability for 'free speech' (which as you have   
   >> >> pointed out numerous times in the past does not apply to private   
   >> >> companies controlling what their  eployees are allowed to say).   
   >> >   
   >> > Only in a legalistic sense. Certainly CC can censor the show all they   
   >> > want. Not once in this thread have I suggested that Parker and Stone   
   >> > have a valid 1st Amendment censorship cause of action against CC.   
   >>   
   >> So then, I am glad to see that you acknowledge that no 'censorship'   
   >> exists here.   
   >   
   > Certainly no legal censorship exists. I never claimed or implied   
   > otherwise.   
      
   Nice to see you admit and agree that no censorship exists here.   
      
   > You're tilting at a strawman here.   
      
   No.  You are.  You are the one claiming that Comedy Central has some duty to   
   uphold your person version of American values even against their own best   
   interest and even if it costs them their lives.   
      
   >> >> For Comedy Central, the issue is about protecting their financial   
   >> >> investment and their employees lives...a far more   
   >> >> worthy/legitimate reason to 'give in' than when they give in   
   >> >> to groups setting up sponsor boycotts.   
   >> >   
   >> > Neither one is worthy at all.   
   >>   
   >> The fact that you think people's lives are not worthy of   
   >> protection is mind boggling.   
   >   
   > Which of course I never said.   
      
   I listed two things as worthy and one of them was 'their employees lives'.   
   You responded with 'Neither one is worthy at all'.  What did you mean,   
   exactly, if you weren't suggesting that giving in inorder to save lives was   
   an unworthy decision?   
      
   > People's lives are certainly worthy of   
   > protection. Just not by giving in to threats and extortion.   
      
   See, you prove my point.  You think the stupid cartoon character's are worth   
   dying over...or more specifically, you think the stupid cartoon characters   
   are worth someone else (Comedy Central's secretaries and accountants) dying   
   over.  Be a man, go die for the 'cause' yourself rather than asking them to   
   do it for you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)