Last week, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to increase the top fine to $275,000 per indecent incident with a limit of $3 million a day. The House passed a bill earlier that would set fines at $500,000. Differences between the two bills must be worked out.

ok
oprano
the right wing webmaster board
what do you think?
saying balloonknot should yield a fine up to $3 milllion?
but you can dump toxic waste and pay 1/9th of that?
and realize
there is no legal decison on what is indecent
what is indecent to you , may or may not be indecent to me
and vice versa
what happened to parents ?
what happened to turning the knob?
And realize Senator Brownback is a religious nut
so let a religious nut push this thru?
sad day in this country when the Senate votes 99-1 on this
How can I senator vote against this? he'll be ridiculed as being pro indecency
then you wonder why I hate the fuckin right
telling me what I can watch/hear

99-1 vote?

you mean democrats support it too? the system is working as it should for a bill to pass? its not only bush but actually a bi-partisan effort?

crazy. i thought only Bush cared and personally wanted to destroy Howard Stern. i did not know that actually both parties have to vote to create a law.

JR first off
it was piggy backed with a defense bill or something
piggy backing is common and sly
and as I pointed out
if you vote against this
your opponent will RIP you, saying you are FOR INDECENCY
i never said I was a democrat
I said I HATE fuckin BUSH
and the RIGHT
And BROWNBACK is the faget GOP Senator Religious nut who wrote this bill
and snuck it on piggyback to something else
JR you wanna tell me
the kansas senator who washed his employees' feet (so he would be closer to jesus)
who lives in a subsidized housing paid by the fellowship
isn't a religous right fanatic?
he wrote the fuckin bill
ok
wants to be like jesus?
housing paid for by religious group
answer me
don't mock me
you think thats right for america
land of the free?
what a fuckin joke
Viacom paid 1.4 milll to the FCC to shut them up
and stern is expanding
and if you don't like what stern says, don't fuckin listen
I want to hear him, if you don't like it, turn the knob
don't fine his ass for $3million
thats simple silencing free speech
you tell me what's indecent
you fucking can't

True, though each amendment is voted on separately. Any amendment which doesn't pass does not change the passing of the original bill. Here's the vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=2&vote=00134

John Kerry voted for it by the way.

And Meni, like you, I am against increased FCC fines. We could have made it 97-3. :-)

make it 97-4
;-)))

first time Meni is making sense

True, though each amendment is voted on separately. Any amendment which doesn't pass does not change the passing of the original bill. Here's the vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=2&vote=00134

John Kerry voted for it by the way. [/b][/quote]
Shit. Now Kerry wants to take away his rights just as much as Bush. I think this thread should be deleted before Meni's head explodes.

Only Louisiana Sen. John Breaux, a Democrat who's retiring at the end of this year, voted against it. So, are all our Senators really this spineless or are they all really in favor of these increased penalties?

a third possibility?.... they dont understand the web, they don't care that much anyway and it sounded good at the time.

Hard to rationally justify an increase in penalty when the AG has never delegated his powers to even enforce the old regulations, as I read is the case elsewhere.

a fourth possibility..

you're confused.

:P

The bill is aimed at television and radio.

ROFL..

(me) <-- *bang*

have just been reading threads about 2257 :(

True, though each amendment is voted on separately. Any amendment which doesn't pass does not change the passing of the original bill. Here's the vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=2&vote=00134

John Kerry voted for it by the way. [/b][/quote]
Colin
go thru my posts
do I mention Kerry?
NO
My point is this admin is ruining the country
time for a change

Spineless
No one wants to be labelled PRO INDECENCY
you voite AGAINST this, you would be ripped apart in the right wing media
who is the left wing voice?
air america with 4 listeners?
Stern is the only dissenting voice with an audience
the media is full of right wing tv and radio clowns
so what do you think america hears?

Ladies do you think this climate in america is good
for FREEDOM?
are you kidding
bush gets 1 guy in that court (supreme)
and our 5-4 will be 4-5
and adult porn will be in TROUBLE
and abortion, ILLEGAL
no stem cell research
no freedom
all of this because 500,000 complaints about Janet's nipple
yet it was the most looked for image/clip on the net this year
hypocrisy
did Janet get fined yet?
NOOOOOO
You tune into the Super Bowl you dont' expect a nipple
thats SHOCK, fine that (was there every a study to say seeing a nipple corrupts/hurts a child?)
you tune into stern you will hear bathroom humor
and as stern pointed out, oh the parrot is speaking again
$700K of his fines was over doo doo
doo doo
yeah don't you talk to your kids about going potty?
this is a fuckin travesty to our freedom of speech

and lets get rid of bush
so I can enjoy Lindsay Lohan's popularity, traffic, and potential good income thru celebritycling
thank you very much
Lindsay turns 18 tomorrow!

Dump toxic waste? What else are you supposed to do with it, make dinner?

But look, nutjob, I actually agree that the government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing "decency." It's just another scam designed to limit free speech and loot people's money.

It's too bad it took something bad to happen to that moron Stern for you to decide that maybe a giant bloated bureaucracy is not as good as you thought it was.

They are spineless, but that's not why they voted for this -- they need the money.

And my point is that the alternative, as given by the voting record, doesn't look much different.

fucking shit,
all my life I heard that media belongs to liberal jews, and now here comes meni and turns all my beleives upside down
;-)))

And my point is that the alternative, as given by the voting record, doesn't look much different. [/b][/quote]
Keep banging your head against the wall, Colin. One day you might make a hole.

Here's my problem with the choices in this election. There are a number of issues for which I really do not like Bushes stance on. When I go look at the voting record for those issues, Kerry always agrees with Bush. So either:

1. Kerry is going to be no different than Bush on porn, free speech, and so on.

or

2. Kerry is always to go along with the majority for some other reason.

What the hell am I supposed to do? This is just like Bush/Gore all over again for me.
This is as good a year as ever to not vote.

"Voting in particular is an embarrassment, being a public display of weak character and low intelligence. Let us face the truth: Democracy, like spitting in public or the Roman games, is the proper activity of the lower intellectual and moral classes. It amounts to collusion in one's own suckering." -- Fred Reed

One vote doesn't matter anyway. Not even in Florida.

make it 97-4
;-)))

first time Meni is making sense [/b][/quote]
Meni, as anyone else, is always making sense. It just depend to whom.


I fully share his questionning "what is indecency?".

Ditto for CP. Just think that less than a hundred years ago, girls were getting married and yes, FUCKED and MADE BABIES at 14 years of age, and sometimes even younger.

In the seventies, David Hamilton photography was considered ART ! His books still sell (run an amazon search for his name...)

I do not condone sexual exploitation, no matter the age. The problem with exploitation of children sexually is that they do not have the ability to give fully enlightened consent. But the age at which consent becomes possible is certainly not 18 all across the board. For some individuals, it might be argued that it is around 72. For some others, 12 might be it.

The thing is, nowadays, pre-pubescent kids gets sold / thaught the basic of sex via MTV and the media in general and yet, as a society, we like to delude ourselves in thinking of them as living in this innocent child's dreamworld...

There is also the assertion that seeing things sexual is "bad" for children. This I've never seen demonstrated. This, IMO, is of religious roots which divorces mind and body.

That's a big pond of festering stinking double-standards !

But this is all intended. It has a purpose.

The self-righteousness of govts HAS a purpose.

Nobody better summed it up than Ayn Rand in her book Atlas Shrugged:



"The only power any government has is to crack down on crime and criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, then one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens. What's there in that for anyone. But just pass the kinds of law that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you can cash in on their guilt." -from _Atlas_Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand

In Canada, the age of consent is 14, for criminal liability. It does not mean that parents cannot sue for civil dammages. Yet, they'd have to prove them. And the govt is happy to prosecute for whatever reasons.

There is a flock of professional leeches, calling themselves experts, who's only job is to find psychological troubles... That's another bunch of people who want to protect their job.

See how the hoax of child abuse memories are getting debunked nowadays? How many flamboyant cases of people having been jailed on allegations of sexual abuse utterly debunked?

Anyhow, these things, spectacular cases, are always useful.

But useful is like making sense. IT is wiser to not forget ask the question "useful to whom ?"...

Abuse does exist. A lot of abuse exists. Ideally, the system would prevent them to happen. But I'm not sure it is possible to build a system that aims at avoiding abuse without creating even more abuse.

The law of unintended consequences operates, always.

Not before people accept to TALK about it will the issue become clearer

With taboo terms like CP and "harming the children", the drama is that NOBODY wants to truly discuss about them... All to the advantage of the ones who want to cash in on the guilt...

Heck, as an industry, we can't even write "child pornography", we have to tone it down to CP ! This is a mark of how fearful we are of assessing, understanding and passing a value judgment on the true concepts of the conjecture.


P.S.
Want it or not, the term pornography still has a huge stigma.

American brings it upon themselves by equating sex with sin and dirt.

One vote doesn't matter anyway. Not even in Florida. [/b][/quote]
Colin who's gonna appoint a conservative judge?
Bush or Kerry?
enough said
and colin every vote counts

Colin you gonna listen to stern on 103.1
are you too far south?
he comes on after his july 4 vaca
which is probably a whole week

Oh and here are some other rant I posted on another forum about the crash-redefining of 2257

========= Originally posted by Bree =========
It's incredible. Like I was saying in another thread... our govt is all about taking away freedoms all in the name of porn... no telling where else this will lead when the document is so vaguely worded... leaves a lot of open doors...
=====================================


Yeah, but you americans, and thanks Uncle Flynt and his emulators for that, you pushed the friggin idea that sex = sin = dirt for so long....

You're now reaping the full disease of what you implanted in the collective consciousness.

The US porn industry had the occasion to promote a sex-positive idea of sex, but it did not.

Hefner tried it but with the wrong basic premises, too full of contradictions.

Flynt did nothing but promote the equation sex=sin=trash

Now, powermongers have the PERFECT excuse, and thanks to the population's sheepish opinion that was previously shaped by religion but that got a second moral sanction by Flynt et al., now, the religious powermongers are closing in on the evil of pornography for their popularity advantage.


USA will become akin Saudi Arabia, it seems.

Thank God's self-appointed representatives... and the promoter of the equation sex = sin = dirt

I used to listen to him everyday - back in 1998-1999. Got bored of him somewhere along the way. Still admire him.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican so this doesn't bother me. I'd prefer liberal judges but not enough to only want Democratic presidents. 7 of the current 9 justices were appointed by Republican presidents so unless Ginsburg or Breyer retire during a Republican administration the political makeup of the Supreme Court won't change much.

Ginsberg eats fatty foods