If I own a TV station is it censorship to not show every movie in my collection? If I own a car, is it censorship to say, you are not getting in it, because you are annoying me, and i see five minutes into the future and what I see is if I let you in this car, i will be kicking your ass out of it on a bridge?
Bush apologist/Fox "newsman" John Gibson misses the irony
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
If I own a TV station is it censorship to not show every movie in my collection? If I own a car, is it censorship to say, you are not getting in it, because you are annoying me, and i see five minutes into the future and what I see is if I let you in this car, i will be kicking your ass out of it on a bridge?
If you are the only owner of the rights to something that you purchase to keep it from the public are you practicing censorship?
Specifically, what if the Christian Coalition had the ability to purchase the rights to specific videos that might embarrass a candidate, they did so simply to keep it from being released, would that be the same as one TV station deciding not to show a music video that one can watch on another TV station?
C
Cancel5
Guest
Why, its almost as if BushCo. merely used OBL as an excuse to attack a nation unrelated to the attacks of 9/11, and in fact unrelated to international fundamentalist islamic extremism. Does that sound crazy of me?
You know I am not a CT nut, but there are so many questions about Osama, his family and 9/11 that you can't help but wonder.
There are Muslim mullah who think he didn't have anything to do with it but just took the credit. There are also mullah who are VERY angry at him for attacking the US. They strategies were to defeat local governments, one step at a time.
He has brought international attention to local terrorism and they are mad as hell!
C
Cancel5
Guest
I haven't been around this forum long enough to know all the personalities, but you guys are cracking me up!
Note to Frog, put down coffee before reading...
I haven't been around this forum long enough to know all the personalities, but you guys are cracking me up!
Note to Frog, put down coffee before reading...
It's all in good fun Frog! Usually...
So you are saying that abc bought this movie from someone else, in order to quash it? Who did they buy it from?
I didn't think what happened to the Dixie Chicks was censorship, but I found the whole "boycott" to be un-American in spirit.
I think it's why line-dancing is popular in the south. Some people are more comfortable (see: less fearful) when everyone does the same thing & has the same opinion.
I think it's why line-dancing is popular in the south. Some people are more comfortable (see: less fearful) when everyone does the same thing & has the same opinion.
So, you think that questions are assertions?
I'm just trying to place exactly where one would set "censorship".
If the Christian Coalition purchased the rights to a DVD simply to keep you from watching it because it was made by a "dirty, dirty, naughty boy!" would you consider it censorship?
If ABC purchased the rights to release of a movie from the publisher, but chose not to release the movie because its release might hurt a candidate that they want to win (note the "if") would it be censorship?
uscitizen
Villified User
No on both counts.
you seem to be making my aurugment for me about corporations taking over the liberal media damo.
Excuse you guys, ok, but get your facts straight. That movie was a f'ing right wing hit job, and it was ABC who showed it in the first place, and before the f'ing election, which was ok with you and Cawacko, you loved it, and now they might very well be afraid of taking more shit, and more advertising dollar hits because liberals were very f'ing pissed, and would be if they tried it again, and that is what we call the "free market at work" how does it taste?
Except who would they be protecting?
IMO, both would be censorship, unlike one radio station choosing not to play a song one could hear on another station. They are not the sole provider of the song, nor the only place one can get the music.
If somebody chooses to block you from seeing something "for your own good" it is censorship. It would not, however, be against the law, it is their product to do with as they wish.
Anyway, I think it is far more likely they only hold the DVD until a date closer to a Primary, such a release would make more cash.
uscitizen
Villified User
They Might be the only stations I can pick up in my area. Yeah I listen to wbugger station in Idaho every day.
Just a handful of corporations control virtually all stations now-a-days.
evince
Truthmatters
The movie does not present the facts.
The facts are in direct opposition to many of the claims in the film.
Clinton did attempt to get OBL and when he did what was it that the Republican party members were screaming?
"wag the dog".
They claimed every attempt to get OBL was a divergance from the VERY IMPORTANT STORY of Clinton getting sued by a whore bag called Paula Jones whos' case was so important that it could not wait until after Clinton was president and BTW it would not get in Clintons way of being president.
At least Clinton tried to get him.
Bush yelled at the briefers who tried to warn him about OBL "dont tell me about that again".
The leading terror expert the US had at the time came forward and said plainly that Bush was NOT interested in him and considered it Clinton stuff.
Then MONTHS after Clinton left office while Bush was president OBL got to us.
Clinton tried and failed, BUSH ignored it and thought he would just go away.
Oh and has he got him yet after the fact?
LOL. You took my questions as an assertion to an opinion, and then didn't read the actual opinion, which I later gave.
IMO, they are likely holding the release until a date closer to the Primary as it will make them more cash.
And there might be only one library in your town, do they practice censorship when they don't purchase every book?
The library is not your only source for books, nor is the radio station for music.
evince
Truthmatters
The movie does not present the facts.
The facts are in direct oposition to many of the claims in the film.
Clinton did attempt to get OBL and whe he did what was it that the Republican party members were screaming?
"wag the dog".
They claimed every attempt to get OBL was a divergance from the VERY IMPORTANT STORY of Clinton getting sued by a whore bag called Paula Jones whos' case was so important that it could not wait until after Clinton was president and BTW it would not get in Clintons way of being president.
At least Clinton tried to get him.
Bush yelled at the briefers who tried to warn him about OBL "dont tell me about that again".
The leading terror expert the US had at the time came forward and said plainly that Bush was NOT interested in him and considered it Clinton stuff.
Ten MONTHS after Clinton left office while Bush was president OBL got to us.
Clinton tried and failed, BUSH ignored it and thought he would just go away.
Oh and has he got him yet after the fact?
ooppss sorry I thought it did not post the first time.
What are you talking about? You going doniston on me?