Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:23 PM Subject: Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech They put 'crime scene investigation' on their list of top 10 worst shows, at #3. Unless I am mistaken, csi, is not a drama or fictional, but shows professionals in action. Apparently anything that teaches people how to think logically, using the scientific method, is baa-ad. Must protect the children from concepts like a spherical earth, and evolution. Or the second law of thermodynamics? :-) No hard feelings, but I do not consider you an authority on the scientific method. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that you stuck to positions that countered scientific methodology, even after that was pointed out to you. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
The Fool wrote: I wasn't suggesting anything involving 'terrorism', I was suggesting other features of the Taliban rule. How about a different analogy. Popery in the middle ages (not that medieval popery was less violent than the Taliban (perhaps much more so)). A theocratic 'god' rule. They put 'crime scene investigation' on their list of top 10 worst shows, at #3. Unless I am mistaken, csi, is not a drama or fictional, but shows professionals in action. Apparently anything that teaches people how to think logically, using the scientific method, is baa-ad. Must protect the children from concepts like a spherical earth, and evolution. It *is* a drama. Fictional. With writers and such. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0247082 for more about it. You *are* mistaken. (Sorry.) Of the top 10 (and I assume you're looking at the list at http://www.parentstv.org ), there are 2 reality shows, Big Brother 2 and Temptation Island 2. The rest are comedies or dramas. And at their list at http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/main.asp CSI is listed as a drama. (But the link that tells you that is a Javascript one, so I expect you didn't get anything useful from it.) I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from criticism of a gritty drama to assuming criticism of the scientific method. You might want to check up on these details (e.g., drama versus documentary) before you go leaping to conclusions that, while plausible, may turn out to be an extremely long stretch and undermine your position when clarification is given by another. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
Julia Thompson wrote: Of the top 10 (and I assume you're looking at the list at http://www.parentstv.org ), there are 2 reality shows, Big Brother 2 and Temptation Island 2. We have those aberrations here too, local versions, with brazilian actors :-/ Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of The Fool ... Eh? How is this an attack on free speech? I don't agree with the tactics, but I don't exactly see Fox as a great defender of free speech, either. It's an organization that is attacking forms of speech (in this example, among others, TV shows), that they do not agree with, by any and all means possible. It's *just* a boycott. That's hardly any and all means possible. Your hyperbole undermines the credibility of your argument. It's more than a boycott, it goes well beyond just being a boycott. They are not just boycotting the show, they are boycotting those who dare to advertise during the show. They put pressure on these advertisers and use and means necessary to dissuade them from running advertisements during the show (I am not a fan of advertising). When you have a large network of fanatics that are willing to create excessive amount of bad publicity for an advertiser, they can pretty much blackmail and extort any major advertiser away from anything they consider, baa-ad. They also use other sleazy tactics to attack, this is just one example. I think the boondocks example is perhaps a better example. Last year a bunch of conservative fanatics got the strip knocked off of a whole lot of newspapers. They are doing the same thing now. I may have found one more flaw in your religious fanatics argument for the organization in question. I know a number of people that you would deem to be religious fanatics who would be *opposed* to Sabrina, the Teen Age Witch on the basis of, well, she's a witch. Depends on the religious group. Some will say x, is bad, but not y, particularly when the author of y was some kind of believer, like tolkien. Tolkien get praises, but rowlings gets derision. I don't see that the occult aspects of either are all that different. But some religious people somehow do. Did you read the synopsis of 'buffy'? Notice the word occult? (This group also supports any and everything that PAX (a religious channel) shows). (I know someone who won't let her kids go trick-or-treating because Halloween is a Satanic holiday. No joke.) There are certain denominations that are that way. JW's, SDA's frex are extremely against halloween (among other things). Yet it is rated #3 in the Top 10 Best Shows. I think that if they were as religiously-driven as your original subject line made me initially think, that show would *not* be anywhere *near* the Top 10 for Best Shows. The same people who give praise to the likes of 'cinderella' or 'mary poppins' which are the same as any other occult movies. Now, I don't agree with their pressuring to get shows taken off the air, but I think that there are a number of religious people who aren't going to be entirely on board with this, and a number of people who don't consider themselves to be religious who are actively participating in this. Not all crusades are religious ones. Venn Diagram. AFAIK religious people are the only ones actively opposed to the 'occult'. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:46 PM Subject: Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech Venn Diagram. AFAIK religious people are the only ones actively opposed to the 'occult'. Actually, I can think of a number of different atheistic groups that are also. Try Marxist and Objectivists for two. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
on 25/9/02 2:00 am, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:46 PM Subject: Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech Venn Diagram. AFAIK religious people are the only ones actively opposed to the 'occult'. Actually, I can think of a number of different atheistic groups that are also. I thought we had already established on this list that 1) religious does not equal non-atheist 2) atheist does not equal non-religious 3) religious does not equal theist (or deist or pantheist even) Try Marxist and Objectivists for two. And that if it has a special leader and teachings and the sacred writings and the cult-like devotion (as the above) then in fact it is a religion. -- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:13 PM Subject: Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech on 25/9/02 2:00 am, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:46 PM Subject: Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech Venn Diagram. AFAIK religious people are the only ones actively opposed to the 'occult'. Actually, I can think of a number of different atheistic groups that are also. I thought we had already established on this list that 1) religious does not equal non-atheist 2) atheist does not equal non-religious 3) religious does not equal theist (or deist or pantheist even) Established means general agreement; I saw two people buy into this definition. That is not equal to establish. I think that it is definition of convenience for you, allowing you to put movements you don't like into the other camp. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: how religious fanatics attack free speech
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of The Fool ... Eh? How is this an attack on free speech? I don't agree with the tactics, but I don't exactly see Fox as a great defender of free speech, either. It's an organization that is attacking forms of speech (in this example, among others, TV shows), that they do not agree with, by any and all means possible. It's *just* a boycott. That's hardly any and all means possible. Your hyperbole undermines the credibility of your argument. These are the same kinds of people that, like the Taliban, would if they could, impose their religious views on everybody and eliminate the first amendment. Got any evidence of that? I think you're making an unjustified assumption. And the comparison to the Taliban is ridiculous -- far less rational than those you're trying to argue against. It's one heck of a leap from boycotting to terrorism. In this particular case they are trying to starve the show they are attacking of it's principal sponsors and access to funds. I don't find it any less disturbing that a small group of religious fanatics can influence television programming than the fact that a small group of advertisers can do the same. The tobacco companies, which have had far more influence over media than any religious group, have killed more people than the Taliban. Neither religion nor greed are going to be eliminated, so the real solution is to reduce the cost of distributing media, to the point where it's so cheap that nether the greed-heads nor other special interests can wield so much power. Here's a link showing the same kind of thing, in a different way: http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2002/09/21/ Instead of attacking the speech itself they are attacking the ability of those they are against to have that speech, they are attacking the medium itself. That is why it so much more despicable. Imagine if Boondocks reached the same audience via the Internet, perhaps through a P2P distribution system (i.e., something with no central server), with no advertising. That change in distribution would render small groups powerless to bring it down. It would take away the influence of *any* kind of power center. Banning such boycotts would return power to the handful of big media companies and their advertisers, who currently control nearly 100 percent of what a large percentage of our population knows about the world outside their immediate experience. That situation is a far greater threat to freedom than any religious group (unless you consider the worship of power and wealth to be a religion, in which case the media *is* a religion). Seems to me that anything that breaks down the concentration of power in big media is a move toward greater freedom of speech, not less. Yes. But I don't see how this relates to that article. Simply because a successful boycott against any advertising-based medium diminishes big media power. With Michael Powell in charge of the FCC, do you expect anything more than the complete deregulation that has let 1 company (clear channel) buy 1200 radio stations? It looks very much like the exact same thing is going to happen to TV. Already about a dozen or so media giants control 70-90% of the media you read, listen to and watch. A dozen? That would be nice. It's more like five. And you're preaching to the choir with that sentiment. I've been speaking publicly about that issue for about ten years now. Have you ever read The Internet and the Anti-net, which I wrote for the second World Wide Web Conference? (See http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/Overviews/arnett/Antinet.h tml.) It's the piece that led to my friendship with David Brin, among other things. I still get e-mail about it, eight years after publication. It's required or suggested reading for a number of college media classes, translated into several languages. I think you'll see that we're pretty much on the same page on this issue. We see boycotts differently, though. It seems to me to be a legitimate response to the concentration of media power. I'm not of the religious right and I don't think they'd be any less corrupt than the media companies if they controlled the airwaves... but the fundamental problem is the structure of media distribution, which needs to change so that *no one* can seize so much power. Any Christian who imagines that the world would be better off with a church-run government needs to put down the Bible for a moment and read Santayana: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and then a history of the Reformation. If you encounter Christians who seem to be aiming to run the country, feel free to remind them that Christ taught otherwise. A few good verses might be My kingdom is not of this world, and Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. Or point out that
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 3:29 PM Subject: RE: how religious fanatics attack free speech -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of The Fool ... Eh? How is this an attack on free speech? I don't agree with the tactics, but I don't exactly see Fox as a great defender of free speech, either. It's an organization that is attacking forms of speech (in this example, among others, TV shows), that they do not agree with, by any and all means possible. It's *just* a boycott. That's hardly any and all means possible. Your hyperbole undermines the credibility of your argument. These are the same kinds of people that, like the Taliban, would if they could, impose their religious views on everybody and eliminate the first amendment. Got any evidence of that? I think you're making an unjustified assumption. And the comparison to the Taliban is ridiculous -- far less rational than those you're trying to argue against. It's one heck of a leap from boycotting to terrorism. In this particular case they are trying to starve the show they are attacking of it's principal sponsors and access to funds. I don't find it any less disturbing that a small group of religious fanatics can influence television programming than the fact that a small group of advertisers can do the same. The tobacco companies, which have had far more influence over media than any religious group, have killed more people than the Taliban. Neither religion nor greed are going to be eliminated, so the real solution is to reduce the cost of distributing media, to the point where it's so cheap that nether the greed-heads nor other special interests can wield so much power. Here's a link showing the same kind of thing, in a different way: http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2002/09/21/ Instead of attacking the speech itself they are attacking the ability of those they are against to have that speech, they are attacking the medium itself. That is why it so much more despicable. Imagine if Boondocks reached the same audience via the Internet, perhaps through a P2P distribution system (i.e., something with no central server), with no advertising. That change in distribution would render small groups powerless to bring it down. It would take away the influence of *any* kind of power center. Banning such boycotts would return power to the handful of big media companies and their advertisers, who currently control nearly 100 percent of what a large percentage of our population knows about the world outside their immediate experience. That situation is a far greater threat to freedom than any religious group (unless you consider the worship of power and wealth to be a religion, in which case the media *is* a religion). Seems to me that anything that breaks down the concentration of power in big media is a move toward greater freedom of speech, not less. Yes. But I don't see how this relates to that article. Simply because a successful boycott against any advertising-based medium diminishes big media power. With Michael Powell in charge of the FCC, do you expect anything more than the complete deregulation that has let 1 company (clear channel) buy 1200 radio stations? It looks very much like the exact same thing is going to happen to TV. Already about a dozen or so media giants control 70-90% of the media you read, listen to and watch. A dozen? That would be nice. It's more like five. And you're preaching to the choir with that sentiment. I've been speaking publicly about that issue for about ten years now. Have you ever read The Internet and the Anti-net, which I wrote for the second World Wide Web Conference? (See http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/Overviews/arnett/Antinet.h tml.) It's the piece that led to my friendship with David Brin, among other things. I still get e-mail about it, eight years after publication. It's required or suggested reading for a number of college media classes, translated into several languages. I think you'll see that we're pretty much on the same page on this issue. We see boycotts differently, though. It seems to me to be a legitimate response to the concentration of media power. I'm not of the religious right and I don't think they'd be any less corrupt than the media companies if they controlled the airwaves... but the fundamental problem is the structure of media distribution, which needs to change so that *no one* can seize so much power. Any Christian who imagines that the world would be better off with a church-run government needs to put down the Bible for a moment and read Santayana: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and then a history of the Reformation. If you encounter Christians who seem
RE: how religious fanatics attack free speech
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of The Fool Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 2:14 PM To: Brin-L Subject: how religious fanatics attack free speech http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/living/3757290.htm Eh? How is this an attack on free speech? I don't agree with the tactics, but I don't exactly see Fox as a great defender of free speech, either. Seems to me that anything that breaks down the concentration of power in big media is a move toward greater freedom of speech, not less. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/living/3757290.htm Eh? How is this an attack on free speech? I don't agree with the tactics, but I don't exactly see Fox as a great defender of free speech, either. It's an organization that is attacking forms of speech (in this example, among others, TV shows), that they do not agree with, by any and all means possible. These are the same kinds of people that, like the Taliban, would if they could, impose their religious views on everybody and eliminate the first amendment. In this particular case they are trying to starve the show they are attacking of it's principal sponsors and access to funds. Here's a link showing the same kind of thing, in a different way: http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2002/09/21/ Instead of attacking the speech itself they are attacking the ability of those they are against to have that speech, they are attacking the medium itself. That is why it so much more despicable. Seems to me that anything that breaks down the concentration of power in big media is a move toward greater freedom of speech, not less. Yes. But I don't see how this relates to that article. With Michael Powell in charge of the FCC, do you expect anything more than the complete deregulation that has let 1 company (clear channel) buy 1200 radio stations? It looks very much like the exact same thing is going to happen to TV. Already about a dozen or so media giants control 70-90% of the media you read, listen to and watch. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
