Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Viacom not feeling Neighbourly in the UK

[Mark Jeffries]

The question is if there's another UK home for "Neighbours."  BBC1 and ITV
aren't going to move their 6 p.m. newscasts, especially with the Beeb
getting threatened with the license fee going away.  In the 5 p.m. hour,
"Pointless" and "The Chase" aren't going anywhere.  Fremantle probably
won't accept BBC2 or ITV2.  And if you think there was fuss over Channel 4
picking up the "Bake-Off," just wait and see the cries about them welching
on their alternative programming remit if they pick up "Neighbours."  Would
Sky throw out the big bucks to pick the show up, especially with one of
their execs the former CEO of Fremantle?

Mark Jeffries
spotligh...@gmail.com


On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 4:32 PM Brad Beam  wrote:

> Reports are that Channel 5 is seeking to pull funding from its DowNunda
> corporate sibling Network Ten's longtime soap - this, despite "Neighbours"
> usually bringing 5 its best numbers of the day.
>
> https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/neighbours/a38990910/neighbours-axe-channel-5/
>
> You'd think Paramount+ might spare a little bandwidth
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 10:30:49 AM UTC+8 Brad Beam wrote:
>
>> Viacom, the parent company of Channel 5, is in stalled talks with
>> Australian producer Fremantle over the rights to air “Neighbours” in the
>> Isles. The popular soap could end up on another British channel or none at
>> all.
>>
>>
>> http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/neighbours-facing-axe-british-television-10054291
>>
>>
>>
>> All this just as, this week, (a) the show is airing scenes shot in London
>> and (b) Adele dropped by Ramsay Street for a non-cameo visit during her
>> down-under tour.
>>
>>
>>
>> _  _
>>
>> |_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
>>
>> |_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/c30c4ce5-053b-44ff-912f-813f87188f00n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJ_uKi8PTD%2B7Zhn%3DwMDoHLaiNXzz457Ps0b8eeEbTYpzb%2Bit3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Whoopi Goldberg apologizes for saying Holocaust 'isn't about race' | TheHill

[PGage]

Horrific, incomprehensible “joke”. However, as horrifying to me is this
quote:

“Ms Dorries [Culture Secretary] suggested the government could legislate to
stop comedy people find offensive being shown on streaming platforms.
"We're already looking at future legislation to bring into scope those sort
of comments," she told the BBC.”

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 at 6:43 PM Brad Beam  wrote:

> *From:* tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Steve Timko
>
> *>*ABC’s decision to suspend Whoopi Goldberg from “The View” for two
> weeks for her remarks about the Holocaust has opened the network up to
> criticism that its response derailed a teachable moment for the nation
> about a sensitive topic often misunderstood and seldom discussed on air.
>
>
>
> Elsewhere:
>
> People are discovering Jimmy Carr’s recent Netflix comedy special, in
> which he decided to “joke” about a different racial group involved in the
> Holocaust.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60261876
>
>
>
> _   _
>
> |_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
>
> |_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/001001d81b03%245858dc20%24090a9460%24%40suddenlink.net
> 
> .
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKB2S8nzNa7SvTSkK9DzLmC05aenwog_gnF7e6Qjcaw_g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[Kevin M.]

And here’s an article from a songwriter’s perspective, focused mostly on
Spotify’s treatment of musicians/artists.

https://variety.com/2022/music/opinion/spotify-musicians-revolt-kay-hanley-joe-rogan-backlash-column-1235173047/?fbclid=IwAR2NDo6og7ecfrNLF9ICzcGLhFngrDcemJ_SIgJtmXv6yLfHhklSpt90moU


On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 3:20 PM 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV <
tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Unless it can be shown that any company providing this kind of service
> would either make money from this approach or not lose money/subscribers
> from this approach, it won't happen absent laws or regulations.  These
> companies have proven consistently that they are either unwilling or unable
> to police themselves.
>
> I'll suggest that the fetishization of capitalism in this country devalues
> considerations of free expression. (The expansion of IP laws vis-a-vis fair
> use and public domain considerations could be a conversation in parallel
> with what we've been hashing out.)  The free expression of those with
> money, power, or a platform that has either wins out over those that could
> benefit from a system that truly values free expression.
>
> One way to perceive this discussion is about the gap between where things
> are and where we think we ought to be.  Regrettably, getting to where we
> ought to be is more achievable by acting from where we are than from where
> we ought to be.
>
> The last two years have shown repeatedly that money matters most.  Our
> lives don't matter as much as we want them to, and our ideas and any
> connection to the truth matter even less.
>
> Damn, that's dark.  But I'm not in the mood for sugarcoating.
>
> David
>
> On Saturday, February 5, 2022, 02:45:22 PM PST, PGage 
> wrote:
>
> If I had the chance to have dinner with Neil Young, I would suggest to him
> that rather than calling for Rogan to be banned from Spotify, he propose
> specific guidelines that all speech and music on Spotify should follow
> (e.g. 1. Do not misrepresent qualifications; 2. Do not advocate treatments
> which have not been supported; 3. Do not misrepresent the evidence about
> treatments that have been supported). These guidelines then apply to
> everyone equally, not just Joe Rogan. Critics of vaccines could still say
> “I wouldn’t get vaccinated because we still don’t know enough about their
> long term consequences”, but if a Podcaster repeatedly spreads the message
> that Vaccines increase infant mortality, or cause heart attacks, or alter
> your DNA, they would be first suspended and then, if repeated, removed.
>
> I guess that proposal would be harder to fit in a Tweet, but I think it
> would be more consistent with core values.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/604969686.160653.1644103215922%40mail.yahoo.com
> 
> .
>
-- 
Kevin M. (RPCV)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4CcmcXeh8SdSnt4EqN-0oH_2UvV%2BU67Pq_jXmf6byyK%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

RE: [TV orNotTV] Re: Whoopi Goldberg apologizes for saying Holocaust 'isn't about race' | TheHill

[Brad Beam]

From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Steve Timko


>ABC’s decision to suspend Whoopi Goldberg from “The View” for two weeks for 
>her remarks about the Holocaust has opened the network up to criticism that 
>its response derailed a teachable moment for the nation about a sensitive 
>topic often misunderstood and seldom discussed on air.
 
Elsewhere:
People are discovering Jimmy Carr’s recent Netflix comedy special, in which he 
decided to “joke” about a different racial group involved in the Holocaust.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60261876
 
_   _
|_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
|_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/001001d81b03%245858dc20%24090a9460%24%40suddenlink.net.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Michaels to call 11th Super Bowl before NBC contract ends

[PGage]

This seems to just tell us what we already know, but reads to me as AM
setting the stage for the changing of the guard. It will be surprising if
Tirico is not the official Voice of SNF next year, and this allows Al to
spin things as he chose to do something else. Which of course may be true.

I would think that what he would like is something like the Jimmy Johnson
role in a pregame show, which is high visibility but a lot less work. Even
less work would just be adding him to the panel on SNL ore and half time
coverage.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 at 3:28 PM Steve Timko  wrote:

>
> https://apnews.com/article/super-bowl-cincinnati-bengals-los-angeles-rams-nfl-entertainment-ba27bb539b0ef91b04bbb320a09b6d2c
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yw0TyQVN7LfbXDkySNE4VY5BZDARWR1oJvy3BiPU-1x_A%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJ69F8SZ0WbgUWOpRrpBApFffajPxJAn8oKLaFtN7jong%40mail.gmail.com.

[TV orNotTV] Michaels to call 11th Super Bowl before NBC contract ends

[Steve Timko]

https://apnews.com/article/super-bowl-cincinnati-bengals-los-angeles-rams-nfl-entertainment-ba27bb539b0ef91b04bbb320a09b6d2c

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yw0TyQVN7LfbXDkySNE4VY5BZDARWR1oJvy3BiPU-1x_A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

['David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV]

 Unless it can be shown that any company providing this kind of service would 
either make money from this approach or not lose money/subscribers from this 
approach, it won't happen absent laws or regulations.  These companies have 
proven consistently that they are either unwilling or unable to police 
themselves.
I'll suggest that the fetishization of capitalism in this country devalues 
considerations of free expression. (The expansion of IP laws vis-a-vis fair use 
and public domain considerations could be a conversation in parallel with what 
we've been hashing out.)  The free expression of those with money, power, or a 
platform that has either wins out over those that could benefit from a system 
that truly values free expression.
One way to perceive this discussion is about the gap between where things are 
and where we think we ought to be.  Regrettably, getting to where we ought to 
be is more achievable by acting from where we are than from where we ought to 
be.
The last two years have shown repeatedly that money matters most.  Our lives 
don't matter as much as we want them to, and our ideas and any connection to 
the truth matter even less.
Damn, that's dark.  But I'm not in the mood for sugarcoating.
David

On Saturday, February 5, 2022, 02:45:22 PM PST, PGage  
wrote:  
If I had the chance to have dinner with Neil Young, I would suggest to him that 
rather than calling for Rogan to be banned from Spotify, he propose specific 
guidelines that all speech and music on Spotify should follow (e.g. 1. Do not 
misrepresent qualifications; 2. Do not advocate treatments which have not been 
supported; 3. Do not misrepresent the evidence about treatments that have been 
supported). These guidelines then apply to everyone equally, not just Joe 
Rogan. Critics of vaccines could still say “I wouldn’t get vaccinated because 
we still don’t know enough about their long term consequences”, but if a 
Podcaster repeatedly spreads the message that Vaccines increase infant 
mortality, or cause heart attacks, or alter your DNA, they would be first 
suspended and then, if repeated, removed.
I guess that proposal would be harder to fit in a Tweet, but I think it would 
be more consistent with core values.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/604969686.160653.1644103215922%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[PGage]

I would enjoy the chance to read your novel Kevin, so I hope you do finish
it. But I don’t need to, as I have had several long conversations over the
years with colleagues from European countries like Germany, France and the
UK who scoff at what they see as the making of free speech into a fetish by
Americans.

I proudly own the fetishizing of free expression. In my experience causes
and people I care about are more likely to be in the minority, and what
Freud (following Ibsen) liked to call the “Compact Majority” more often
than not uses its power harshly and stupidly.  We are all safer when
everyone is able to express themselves.

I take second place to nobody in my rage against vaccine denial (it would
be hard to work for a hospital and not be outraged and sickened by it). I
deal with the consequences every day. Literally I find myself weeping
uncontrollably several times a week. I am writing this from self quarantine
in my home, waiting one more day to test myself after an exposure 2 days
ago and pretty severe symptoms in the last 24 hours. 900,000 Americans have
been killed by COVID, still about 2500 per day. COVID is a bitch and fuck
those who are making it harder to protect the most vulnerable.

As I have repeatedly noted here, I am not a free speech absolutist -  there
obviously are limits. The debate we are having here is not really about
free speech ( I assume you favor free speech, and I also assume that you
know I favor reasonable protections). The debate is over the nature of
those limits. Whether formal or informal, restriction of free speech in my
view should be limited, and targeted specifically to messages that can be
shown to directly cause serious harm, not aimed against people we don’t
like.

If I had the chance to have dinner with Neil Young, I would suggest to him
that rather than calling for Rogan to be banned from Spotify, he propose
specific guidelines that all speech and music on Spotify should follow
(e.g. 1. Do not misrepresent qualifications; 2. Do not advocate treatments
which have not been supported; 3. Do not misrepresent the evidence about
treatments that have been supported). These guidelines then apply to
everyone equally, not just Joe Rogan. Critics of vaccines could still say
“I wouldn’t get vaccinated because we still don’t know enough about their
long term consequences”, but if a Podcaster repeatedly spreads the message
that Vaccines increase infant mortality, or cause heart attacks, or alter
your DNA, they would be first suspended and then, if repeated, removed.

I guess that proposal would be harder to fit in a Tweet, but I think it
would be more consistent with core values.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 at 1:33 PM Kevin M.  wrote:

>
> .
> Hopping on my soapbox one more time:
>
> Not that I’ll ever get around to finishing the novel I started writing
> ages ago, but in it I imagine a scenario where an alien race makes contact
> with us. They are on a long journey from their world to ours. They’ve
> received all our radio transmissions and TV broadcasts, and before they
> touch down on Earth, they have some questions. One of them involves our
> penchant for allowing speech proven to be harmful (i.e. false claims of
> election fraud which lead to an insurrection where people are killed, or
> conspiracy theories which lead to fewer people taking life saving
> vaccinations which leads to people dying). Humanity’s collective reply is
> akin to the stance of PGage, that free speech is essential and
> unassailable, and valuable to a democracy. The neutral observing aliens
> question the value of any society that knowingly allows free speech to kill
> its citizens.
>
> Personally, I view speech the same as I view guns, potentially life saving
> and potentially dangerous, and the founding fathers were flawed in
> establishing nearly total freedoms for both, and every subsequent
> administration is flawed in not taking steps to actively correct the
> problems created by the founders.
>
> I don’t want to ban Rogan; I want to demonetize him. I want to make Rogan
> liable for the harm he causes. I want to make Spotify liable for
> contributing to the harm.
>
> I want doctors to be free to openly talk about the benefits and risks of
> all forms of medicine with their patients, but when doctors address the
> public falsely claiming to be an expert (i.e.- that they invented mRNA
> technology when they quite clearly did not), and their false claims spread
> unchallenged via a nationwide media network, then the doctor, the
> broadcaster, and the media outlet should all face severe consequences.
>
> We are nearing 900,000 dead from Covid in the US. I have college educated
> friends who believe breathing through a mask is harmful because of crap
> they hear on podcasts or read on Reddit. I now teach at a school in Orange
> County, and the “Orange Curtain” is adamant that herd immunity is the only
> solution to Covid… their hospitals are overrun with the untruth of that
> belief, but it 

[TV orNotTV] Re: Viacom not feeling Neighbourly in the UK

[Brad Beam]

Reports are that Channel 5 is seeking to pull funding from its DowNunda 
corporate sibling Network Ten's longtime soap - this, despite "Neighbours"  
usually bringing 5 its best numbers of the day.
https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/neighbours/a38990910/neighbours-axe-channel-5/

You'd think Paramount+ might spare a little bandwidth
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 10:30:49 AM UTC+8 Brad Beam wrote:

> Viacom, the parent company of Channel 5, is in stalled talks with 
> Australian producer Fremantle over the rights to air “Neighbours” in the 
> Isles. The popular soap could end up on another British channel or none at 
> all.
>
>
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/neighbours-facing-axe-british-television-10054291
>
>  
>
> All this just as, this week, (a) the show is airing scenes shot in London 
> and (b) Adele dropped by Ramsay Street for a non-cameo visit during her 
> down-under tour.
>
>  
>
> _  _
>
> |_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
>
> |_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/c30c4ce5-053b-44ff-912f-813f87188f00n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[Kevin M.]

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 11:50 AM Brad Beam  wrote:

> *From:* tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *PGage
>
> *>*In a free society free expression ought to be a core, almost sacred,
> value. That does not mean there should be no limits on expression, but they
> ought to be rare and targeted on explicitly dangerous speech. It is
> possible to specify what kind of health misinformation is dangerous and
> thus not allowed on one or more platforms, and then use that to manage,
> with some judgement and flexibility, expression. Spotify has taken steps in
> that direction, perhaps they can do more, I would be interested in hearing
> suggestions. It is not necessary to ban an idiot asshole like Joe Rogan to
> safeguard the public.
>
>
>
> Not to step on Doug’s toes, but from the Wiki “Freedom of expression in
> Canada” (in which speech falls under, up North)…
>
>
>
> Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes
> the right to freedom of expression, and the Supreme Court of Canada has
> interpreted this right in a very broad fashion. However, section 1 of the
> Charter establishes that reasonable limits can be placed on the right if
> those limits are prescribed by law and can be demonstrably justified in a
> free and democratic society.
>
Hopping on my soapbox one more time:

Not that I’ll ever get around to finishing the novel I started writing ages
ago, but in it I imagine a scenario where an alien race makes contact with
us. They are on a long journey from their world to ours. They’ve received
all our radio transmissions and TV broadcasts, and before they touch down
on Earth, they have some questions. One of them involves our penchant for
allowing speech proven to be harmful (i.e. false claims of election fraud
which lead to an insurrection where people are killed, or conspiracy
theories which lead to fewer people taking life saving vaccinations which
leads to people dying). Humanity’s collective reply is akin to the stance
of PGage, that free speech is essential and unassailable, and valuable to a
democracy. The neutral observing aliens question the value of any society
that knowingly allows free speech to kill its citizens.

Personally, I view speech the same as I view guns, potentially life saving
and potentially dangerous, and the founding fathers were flawed in
establishing nearly total freedoms for both, and every subsequent
administration is flawed in not taking steps to actively correct the
problems created by the founders.

I don’t want to ban Rogan; I want to demonetize him. I want to make Rogan
liable for the harm he causes. I want to make Spotify liable for
contributing to the harm.

I want doctors to be free to openly talk about the benefits and risks of
all forms of medicine with their patients, but when doctors address the
public falsely claiming to be an expert (i.e.- that they invented mRNA
technology when they quite clearly did not), and their false claims spread
unchallenged via a nationwide media network, then the doctor, the
broadcaster, and the media outlet should all face severe consequences.

We are nearing 900,000 dead from Covid in the US. I have college educated
friends who believe breathing through a mask is harmful because of crap
they hear on podcasts or read on Reddit. I now teach at a school in Orange
County, and the “Orange Curtain” is adamant that herd immunity is the only
solution to Covid… their hospitals are overrun with the untruth of that
belief, but it continues to be openly spread.

I don’t have “Covid fatigue”; I have “Covid denial fatigue.” The illness
isn’t the problem, it is the third of our population who refuse to take
basic precautions to protect themselves and their neighbors, and who spread
lies and disinformation that are the problem. They seek out media to
reinforce their baseless opinions and reckless actions, and Joe Rogan and
Bill Maher and FoxNews and the Trump cult fill that void because there is
money to be made by pandering.

Take away the potential for profit in the lies… make the lies cost the
liars… that’s how to deal with the problem.



>
> _  _
>
> |_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
>
> |_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/008901d81ac9%24939a9600%24bacfc200%24%40suddenlink.net
> 
> .
>
-- 
Kevin M. (RPCV)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this 

RE: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[Brad Beam]

From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] On Behalf 
Of PGage


>In a free society free expression ought to be a core, almost sacred, value. 
>That does not mean there should be no limits on expression, but they ought to 
>be rare and targeted on explicitly dangerous speech. It is possible to specify 
>what kind of health misinformation is dangerous and thus not allowed on one or 
>more platforms, and then use that to manage, with some judgement and 
>flexibility, expression. Spotify has taken steps in that direction, perhaps 
>they can do more, I would be interested in hearing suggestions. It is not 
>necessary to ban an idiot asshole like Joe Rogan to safeguard the public.
 
Not to step on Doug’s toes, but from the Wiki “Freedom of expression in Canada” 
(in which speech falls under, up North)…
 
Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes the 
right to freedom of expression, and the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted 
this right in a very broad fashion. However, section 1 of the Charter 
establishes that reasonable limits can be placed on the right if those limits 
are prescribed by law and can be demonstrably justified in a free and 
democratic society.
 
_  _
|_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
|_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/008901d81ac9%24939a9600%24bacfc200%24%40suddenlink.net.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[PGage]

Right, and I have noted this several times. I was just going off of your
example of making slavery illegal.

In a free society free expression ought to be a core, almost sacred, value.
That does not mean there should be no limits on expression, but they ought
to be rare and targeted on explicitly dangerous speech. It is possible to
specify what kind of health misinformation is dangerous and thus not
allowed on one or more platforms, and then use that to manage, with some
judgement and flexibility, expression. Spotify has taken steps in that
direction, perhaps they can do more, I would be interested in hearing
suggestions. It is not necessary to ban an idiot asshole like Joe Rogan to
safeguard the public.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 at 9:53 AM Kevin M.  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 12:42 AM PGage  wrote:
>
>>
>> It is now illegal to have slaves, which required the death of a million
>> Americans. But it is not illegal to express support for slavery, or to tell
>> lies about slavery.
>>
>
> This is a straw man. Nobody is trying to make Rogan’s words illegal; Young
> is holding Spotify accountable as a consequence of those words. Rogan was
> and continues to be free to spread dangerous anti-vax rhetoric. But as a
> consequence of his speech, people are acting against Spotify as the
> distributor of his words. This is literally how free speech is supposed to
> work in America. Legality or illegality don’t enter into it. There is ZERO
> threat to the First Amendment. God f*cking bless f*cking America.
>
>
>
>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 8:36 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 2:43 PM 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV <
>>> tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
 I think this position, while admirable, faces a big uphill battle.  The
 ability of companies to police the conduct of those who work for them in
 the conduct of that work has, to my knowledge, never been seriously
 contested in this country from a free speech perspective.  Where it has
 been fought has been in areas of discrimination based on race, sex, marital
 status, pregnancy and other factors.  And those fights were relatively
 recent, and not easy for the positions that prevailed.

 I think this is one of many examples where the American perspective on
 capitalism triumphs over any aspirations it has regarding free expression.
 If one's free speech affects a company's bottom line (directly or
 indirectly), and that individual has some kind of economic relationship
 with that company, the relationship will be adjusted or ended.

 Yes, advocacy directed at these companies is also free expression, but
 it is done because those expressing their viewpoint expect the money
 matters more than any principle.  While those who coined the phrase
 'marketplace of ideas' had something else in mind, today it's about how the
 ideas influence the dollars in the market.

>>>
>>> I would add that, historically, American society/culture almost
>>> exclusively advances only when there is economic incentive to do so.
>>> Slavery didn’t end because it was immoral… it was always immoral. Women
>>> didn’t get the right to vote because they suddenly became equal to men. We
>>> are now faced with the economic reality that disinformation is profitable
>>> (hardly a new concept, but propaganda purely for profit is less common than
>>> political propaganda). Until companies and individuals feel economic
>>> pressure to stop deliberately spreading lies, they won’t stop. I liken it
>>> to Big Tobacco being forced to concede the health risks of smoking. Joe
>>> Rogan is Big Tobacco.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 David

 On Friday, February 4, 2022, 01:54:45 PM PST, PGage 
 wrote:


 Again, right. Spotify is free to ban Rogan or not, Neil and Joni are
 free to demand either Rogan gets banned or they take down their music, you
 and I are free to support or boycott Spotify depending on whatever.

 I’m not talking about what is legal, I’m talking about what is good. I
 am arguing that those who support a free society *ought* to defend the
 expression of unpopular speech (that does not meet certain criteria of
 danger).

 Of course, as you say, others are free to disagree with me.

 On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 1:22 PM Kevin M. 
 wrote:



 On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 12:56 PM PGage  wrote:

 So, it’s true there is no violation of the 1st Amendment at stake. But
 Free Expression as a value goes deeper than that. Unpopular speech should
 be protected whenever possible. Spotify banning Joe Rogan today could
 easily become Disney banning Lin Manuel Miranda in three years.


 Spotify didn’t ban Joe Rogan, and even if they did, a company is free
 to react to public criticism. They are free to host/pay whomever they want
 to, and they are free to stop paying whomever they want to… or they 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[Kevin M.]

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 12:42 AM PGage  wrote:

>
> It is now illegal to have slaves, which required the death of a million
> Americans. But it is not illegal to express support for slavery, or to tell
> lies about slavery.
>

This is a straw man. Nobody is trying to make Rogan’s words illegal; Young
is holding Spotify accountable as a consequence of those words. Rogan was
and continues to be free to spread dangerous anti-vax rhetoric. But as a
consequence of his speech, people are acting against Spotify as the
distributor of his words. This is literally how free speech is supposed to
work in America. Legality or illegality don’t enter into it. There is ZERO
threat to the First Amendment. God f*cking bless f*cking America.



> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 8:36 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 2:43 PM 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV <
>> tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this position, while admirable, faces a big uphill battle.  The
>>> ability of companies to police the conduct of those who work for them in
>>> the conduct of that work has, to my knowledge, never been seriously
>>> contested in this country from a free speech perspective.  Where it has
>>> been fought has been in areas of discrimination based on race, sex, marital
>>> status, pregnancy and other factors.  And those fights were relatively
>>> recent, and not easy for the positions that prevailed.
>>>
>>> I think this is one of many examples where the American perspective on
>>> capitalism triumphs over any aspirations it has regarding free expression.
>>> If one's free speech affects a company's bottom line (directly or
>>> indirectly), and that individual has some kind of economic relationship
>>> with that company, the relationship will be adjusted or ended.
>>>
>>> Yes, advocacy directed at these companies is also free expression, but
>>> it is done because those expressing their viewpoint expect the money
>>> matters more than any principle.  While those who coined the phrase
>>> 'marketplace of ideas' had something else in mind, today it's about how the
>>> ideas influence the dollars in the market.
>>>
>>
>> I would add that, historically, American society/culture almost
>> exclusively advances only when there is economic incentive to do so.
>> Slavery didn’t end because it was immoral… it was always immoral. Women
>> didn’t get the right to vote because they suddenly became equal to men. We
>> are now faced with the economic reality that disinformation is profitable
>> (hardly a new concept, but propaganda purely for profit is less common than
>> political propaganda). Until companies and individuals feel economic
>> pressure to stop deliberately spreading lies, they won’t stop. I liken it
>> to Big Tobacco being forced to concede the health risks of smoking. Joe
>> Rogan is Big Tobacco.
>>
>>
>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 4, 2022, 01:54:45 PM PST, PGage 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, right. Spotify is free to ban Rogan or not, Neil and Joni are
>>> free to demand either Rogan gets banned or they take down their music, you
>>> and I are free to support or boycott Spotify depending on whatever.
>>>
>>> I’m not talking about what is legal, I’m talking about what is good. I
>>> am arguing that those who support a free society *ought* to defend the
>>> expression of unpopular speech (that does not meet certain criteria of
>>> danger).
>>>
>>> Of course, as you say, others are free to disagree with me.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 1:22 PM Kevin M. 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 12:56 PM PGage  wrote:
>>>
>>> So, it’s true there is no violation of the 1st Amendment at stake. But
>>> Free Expression as a value goes deeper than that. Unpopular speech should
>>> be protected whenever possible. Spotify banning Joe Rogan today could
>>> easily become Disney banning Lin Manuel Miranda in three years.
>>>
>>>
>>> Spotify didn’t ban Joe Rogan, and even if they did, a company is free to
>>> react to public criticism. They are free to host/pay whomever they want to,
>>> and they are free to stop paying whomever they want to… or they were when
>>> Rogan was based in California… I don’t know whether Texas is an at-will
>>> state. Free expression includes criticism of free speech, and that’s what
>>> happened here. Neil Young used his freedom of speech to influence an
>>> outcome.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 10:05 AM Kevin M. 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:14 AM PGage  wrote:
>>>
>>> As I posted earlier, I don’t disagree with JS that much. My main
>>> disagreement is with his assessment that Rogan is not an ideologue (perhaps
>>> that word is too sophisticated to apply to Rogan).
>>>
>>> But I do agree that it is dangerous in a free society to start
>>> restricting speech we don’t like - even when we are right. I despise Rogan
>>> and Carlson, despised Limbaugh. But they have a right to spew their filth
>>> (as I have a right to ignore them).
>>>
>>>
>>> We do 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Olympics SPOILER alert

[PGage]

It seems it was the female athlete, Dinigeer Yilamujiang, who was born into
a Uyghur family.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/2022/02/04/dinigeer-yilamujiang-olympic-flame-lighting/


On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 6:07 PM 'Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV <
tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Correction: the male of the pair is Uyghur. B
>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/505acaaa-d15e-4860-bb2d-07bd1eb0f150n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKXByLQnEQC%3DXfVt3EeLTLJ8YOMfoz4gJdpWi_AOQp9zw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[PGage]

So I am under no illusion that Spotify has stood by Rogan out of a
principled commitment to the values of free expression. They are doing it
to make money obviously.

Also, I don’t think the analogy between Joe Rogan and disinformation on the
one hand and things like Big Tobacco or slavery on the other is accurate.

The ability to express opinion is the essence of what it means to live in a
free society. The correctness of these opinions is irrelevant to the right
to express them. Some opinions are not allowed, not because they are
incorrect, but because their expression is itself a direct danger. This is
probably true of some things in Rogan’s show (I wouldn’t know). What we
need is not a campaign to ban specific people we don’t like, but an effort
to articulate specific criteria that identify harmful messages, and then
use these criteria to target and eliminate them. We have done this with
things like child pornography. We tolerate pornography, but not when it
contains children or encourages sex with children. These regulations are
far from perfect, but are a reasonable effort to both protect against a
real harm and protect unpopular speech.

It is now illegal to have slaves, which required the death of a million
Americans. But it is not illegal to express support for slavery, or to tell
lies about slavery.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 8:36 PM Kevin M.  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 2:43 PM 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV <
> tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I think this position, while admirable, faces a big uphill battle.  The
>> ability of companies to police the conduct of those who work for them in
>> the conduct of that work has, to my knowledge, never been seriously
>> contested in this country from a free speech perspective.  Where it has
>> been fought has been in areas of discrimination based on race, sex, marital
>> status, pregnancy and other factors.  And those fights were relatively
>> recent, and not easy for the positions that prevailed.
>>
>> I think this is one of many examples where the American perspective on
>> capitalism triumphs over any aspirations it has regarding free expression.
>> If one's free speech affects a company's bottom line (directly or
>> indirectly), and that individual has some kind of economic relationship
>> with that company, the relationship will be adjusted or ended.
>>
>> Yes, advocacy directed at these companies is also free expression, but it
>> is done because those expressing their viewpoint expect the money matters
>> more than any principle.  While those who coined the phrase 'marketplace of
>> ideas' had something else in mind, today it's about how the ideas influence
>> the dollars in the market.
>>
>
> I would add that, historically, American society/culture almost
> exclusively advances only when there is economic incentive to do so.
> Slavery didn’t end because it was immoral… it was always immoral. Women
> didn’t get the right to vote because they suddenly became equal to men. We
> are now faced with the economic reality that disinformation is profitable
> (hardly a new concept, but propaganda purely for profit is less common than
> political propaganda). Until companies and individuals feel economic
> pressure to stop deliberately spreading lies, they won’t stop. I liken it
> to Big Tobacco being forced to concede the health risks of smoking. Joe
> Rogan is Big Tobacco.
>
>
>
>> David
>>
>> On Friday, February 4, 2022, 01:54:45 PM PST, PGage 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Again, right. Spotify is free to ban Rogan or not, Neil and Joni are free
>> to demand either Rogan gets banned or they take down their music, you and I
>> are free to support or boycott Spotify depending on whatever.
>>
>> I’m not talking about what is legal, I’m talking about what is good. I am
>> arguing that those who support a free society *ought* to defend the
>> expression of unpopular speech (that does not meet certain criteria of
>> danger).
>>
>> Of course, as you say, others are free to disagree with me.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 1:22 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 12:56 PM PGage  wrote:
>>
>> So, it’s true there is no violation of the 1st Amendment at stake. But
>> Free Expression as a value goes deeper than that. Unpopular speech should
>> be protected whenever possible. Spotify banning Joe Rogan today could
>> easily become Disney banning Lin Manuel Miranda in three years.
>>
>>
>> Spotify didn’t ban Joe Rogan, and even if they did, a company is free to
>> react to public criticism. They are free to host/pay whomever they want to,
>> and they are free to stop paying whomever they want to… or they were when
>> Rogan was based in California… I don’t know whether Texas is an at-will
>> state. Free expression includes criticism of free speech, and that’s what
>> happened here. Neil Young used his freedom of speech to influence an
>> outcome.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 10:05 AM Kevin M. 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:14 AM