Why is Fox News banned in Canada?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-05-10 11:59am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Neither does Fox News. Print editorials are fine, just not the broadcast of a network that commits fraud on a regular basis by misrepresenting political advertising as journalism.
Bullshit; Fox News obviously has intellectual content because it has VERBAL editorials.

so basically you consider anything that's done with verbal editorials to have intellectual content? would that include works like the onion, world weekly news and chick tracts?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-10 05:03pm

Keevan_Colton wrote: In fact, americans only have partially free speech, they just crow really loud because they think it's completely free...

I have a serious question Keevan. Why does Britain still have classified information on the books from the Crimean War? What's so important about
a conflict that ended 150+ years ago?

Or for that matter, you guys went overboard in WWI with the Official Secrets
Act, which has never really been repealed, just added to. So you shouldn't
be laughing at the stupid americans.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-10 05:08pm

Darth Wong wrote: I was not aware that fraud was considered "intellectual content".

So mike, by that standard, it would be just peachy if Canada banned
all Michael Moore films from entering the country on grounds of it being
blatant propaganda and intellectual fraud

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-10 05:08pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote: In fact, americans only have partially free speech, they just crow really loud because they think it's completely free...
I have a serious question Keevan. Why does Britain still have classified information on the books from the Crimean War? What's so important about
a conflict that ended 150+ years ago?

That's mainly to save face because of some of the atrocious casualties during that conflict. There were one too many pompous generals back then.

Or for that matter, you guys went overboard in WWI with the Official Secrets
Act, which has never really been repealed, just added to. So you shouldn't
be laughing at the stupid americans.

That exists to safeguard national security, it's not a flat out legal blanket like the DPRK or old skool China used to have. My parents signed it because they were in the forces as have others in my family that worked on sensitive materials. If my brother joins MI5, he'll have to sign it because some stuff just doesn't need to be in the public domain and the US has such rules as well. It's only common sense.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-05-10 05:14pm

Stark wrote:I think this is hilarious. Canada doesn't allow FOX to broadcast because they set a precedent with A-J... and America, to my knowledge, doesn't allow A-J to broadcast either. So, Canadians are just consistent and fair, instead of insular and hypocritical?

No here in the US, we can get Al-Jazeera, just very rarely. (Not enough profit in it)

heres a link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2931689.stm

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-10 05:17pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It's only common sense.

If we used OSA style laws, the Pentagon Papers would have been
squashed by the government and never published...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-10 05:26pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: I was not aware that fraud was considered "intellectual content".
So mike, by that standard, it would be just peachy if Canada banned
all Michael Moore films from entering the country on grounds of it being
blatant propaganda and intellectual fraud

False analogy. Michael Moore is not applying for a broadcast license and calling himself a "news network". If he was, I would actually agree that he shouldn't be given a license.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-05-10 06:59pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Speaking of FOX News, did anyone see that crackpot 'Mathematician' who used a 'mathematical proof' to say God exists with a probability of 67% yesterday?

Then he A: "Conveniently" doesn't tell us the formula, then B: says that DEPENDING UPON THE WORLDVIEW OF THE INDIVIDUAL DOING THE CALCULATION that different percentages can be arrived at, neatly SHOOTING HIMSELF IN THE FUCKING FOOT!!

Tell you the truth, I'd probly rather watch A-J than Fox anyway, but unfortunately David (my bf) watches it constantly...

Then he's not a real mathematician. If he was, he's have to tell you that God is an axiom.

(That's what mathematicians call things that they would like to be true, but can't prove.)

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-05-10 07:05pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote: Well then refute intelligently; don't hide behind this "other people can have other customs" bullshit.

And also, if that's your position, don't get offended when Americans remind you that you don't have free speech, cuz sorry, "partially free speech" is not free speech.
Americans dont have free speech either...you cannot for example say "I want to kill the president" or, shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre or, defame someone.

In fact, americans only have partially free speech, they just crow really loud because they think it's completely free...

Actually, one of my close friends quite recently said "I just want to shoot Bush in the head" really loudly in a Denny's the other day. To which I responded (just as loudly) "What the fuck is wrong with you?"
Him: "I just want to kill him, don't you?"
"NO! I don't want to kill anybody."

Considering the yelling, cursing, blaspheme and death threats, I'd say that Americans do have free speech, if only inside a Denny's at 3 in the morning.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-10 07:21pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote: In fact, americans only have partially free speech, they just crow really loud because they think it's completely free...
I have a serious question Keevan. Why does Britain still have classified information on the books from the Crimean War? What's so important about
a conflict that ended 150+ years ago?

No one wants to admit we've had the Atlantis Stargate since then and we still can't get the damn thing to dial.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-10 07:32pm

MKSheppard wrote: So mike, by that standard, it would be just peachy if Canada banned
all Michael Moore films from entering the country on grounds of it being
blatant propaganda and intellectual fraud

Hey, they don't ban the Jerry Falwell movies about Clinton murdering hundreds of people in Canada either now do they?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-05-10 07:49pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Fox News obviously has intellectual content because it has VERBAL editorials.

Excuse me, but BWAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Sorry, but any sentence combining the phrases "Fox News" and "intellectual content" is naturally hilarious.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-05-10 08:11pm

Darth Wong wrote: False analogy. Michael Moore is not applying for a broadcast license and calling himself a "news network". If he was, I would actually agree that he shouldn't be given a license.

MM's work isn't portrayed as news, but it is portrayed as a documentary. One would expect both to be held to the same standard in regard to fraud and propaganda.

How strict is the ban on Fox News? I got the impression from the thread that it's not just the FNC can't get a license to broadcast, but that it's illegal for anyone to show it on an even a vaguely for-profit basis. Hence fairness would seem to indicate that it would be illegal to show MM's work at a Canadian theater, or even broadcast on a Canadian TV network. (Although for all I know, his work wasn't shown in Canadian theaters or networks.)

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-05-10 08:14pm

Fox news is banned in Canada because everyone in Canada knows that Ruppert Murdoc is the DEVIL...

What other possible reason could there be? And since he obviously struck a deal with those evil Republicans against the enlightened people of Canada and the rest of the world, the only recourse poor Canada has is to ban all of his products, especially Fox News.

Hmmm, do you guys get the Simpsons? That's probably evil Republican propaganda too. Don't watch it, Homer is a poster boy for American imperialism... heh heh, bet you didn't know that one either.

It's the insidious method that the Republicans have of conquering the world... that right... through Homer Simpson. heh heh. Pretty soon, he'll have all you saps drinking duff beer and looking through Big'uns magazine... oh wait, that last one was Married With Children. The previous attempt by the aforementioned evil Republicans and Fox to dominate the world through the concept of cheap sex.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-05-10 08:20pm

I think the more pressing question is: Why isn't Fox News banned in America?

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-05-10 08:24pm

psst. Andrew, the same reason why CNN thrived during the age of Bill Clinton. Now, instead of those commie SOB democrats, we have the evil conniving republicans in charge.

On a more serious note, I think I should be given the power to arbitrarily decide who lives and dies in this world. I think we'd all be in a much better place if that was the case.

J · Post by J » 2004-05-10 09:43pm

CelesKnight wrote:How strict is the ban on Fox News? I got the impression from the thread that it's not just the FNC can't get a license to broadcast, but that it's illegal for anyone to show it on an even a vaguely for-profit basis.

In Canada it's illegal to screen shows for profit without proper licensing, there's no discrimination or anything like that against Fox News. For instance, if a bar owner decided to screen the Mike Tyson or whatever heavyweight boxing match without filling out the proper permits and paying the license & usage fees, he'll get charged. There are numerous regulations to follow should one choose to screen material on a commercial or for-profit basis, that's just the way it work here.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-05-10 10:15pm

CelesKnight wrote:MM's work isn't portrayed as news, but it is portrayed as a documentary. One would expect both to be held to the same standard in regard to fraud and propaganda.

Even if that were true, there's still that little detail involving the fact that Michael Moore isn't applying for a broadcasting license.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-10 10:47pm

CelesKnight wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:False analogy. Michael Moore is not applying for a broadcast license and calling himself a "news network". If he was, I would actually agree that he shouldn't be given a license.
MM's work isn't portrayed as news, but it is portrayed as a documentary. One would expect both to be held to the same standard in regard to fraud and propaganda.

What part of "broadcast license" do you not understand? How many times do I need to stress that the rules for broadcast licenses are much stricter than the rules for distribution of videotapes and DVDs, just as they are in the US? At least we're fair (not allowing Al-Jazeera or FOX News) and don't get upset over stupid dipshit like a glimpse of a nipple.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-05-10 10:59pm

Hmmm, what is fair? Is fair BBC and CNN? And what makes them fair?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-10 11:03pm

0.1 wrote:Hmmm, what is fair? Is fair BBC and CNN? And what makes them fair?

Please learn to read. I was talking about treating extreme cases like FOXNews and Al-Jazeera the same way, not pronouncing judgement that every other news network is 100% fair. Do you always base your rebuttals on the use of a single word taken out of context, or do you know how to read whole sentences?

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-05-11 02:32am

nawww, I read your contradictions often enough to know that even if I bothered read a whole sentence from you, I'd just find another contradictory example down the road somewhere. But you're very entertaining to me, so, every now and then, it's worth it to toss out a statement and see you sputter.

But then again, if you're so hard up on definitions. Why not define your idea of extreme, you seem to be very good at tossing out phrases without putting up proper explanations. Now, onto a slightly different subject, just where did you graduate from again? Color me curious.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-11 02:52am

0.1 wrote:nawww, I read your contradictions often enough to know that even if I bothered read a whole sentence from you, I'd just find another contradictory example down the road somewhere. But you're very entertaining to me, so, every now and then, it's worth it to toss out a statement and see you sputter.

But then again, if you're so hard up on definitions. Why not define your idea of extreme, you seem to be very good at tossing out phrases without putting up proper explanations. Now, onto a slightly different subject, just where did you graduate from again? Color me curious.

Notice how the imbecile makes no attempt whatsoever to answer the point, and instead chooses to harp on his opponent's personality.

No doubt he believes this is fiendishly clever and no one will see through it.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-05-13 01:36am

Darth Wong wrote:
So, Mike your telling me it isn't against the law to watch Fox News in Canada even though it wasn't given a broadcast license? Are you telling me that someone could not be jailed for up to a year, or fined $25,000 dollars, if they were caught, say, playing a sattilite feed of Fox News (or any other none liscensed channel) in a bar?
I see you are too goddamned stupid to understand what "You're full of shit; no one is sending cops out to shut anyone down or fine people if they try to watch FOX News" means.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/20/Co ... lite040220

OTTAWA - People caught illegally buying foreign satellite television service could face stiffer penalties if proposed legislation is passed.

Bill C-2, an amendment to the Radiocommunication Act, would increase penalties on individuals from maximum fines of $10,000 and six months in prison to $25,000 and a year in prison.

Fines on corporations would increase from $25,000 to $200,000.

"If we have a law that does not have prohibitive penalties that will discourage people from engaging in illegal activity, the criminal activity will continue and flourish," Glen O'Farrell, the president of the CAB said.

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters estimates it loses $400 million a year from people buying services from American satellite TV providers.

Critics of the legislation say the bill makes no distinction between people who take Canadian satellite signals without paying and those who pay U.S. providers for channels the Canadian industry isn't willing to offer.

It appears that Canadians who watch Fox News on American satellite networks can be fined, or even put in jail! (Of course, it's possible that this is one of those laws that is never enforced, but that seems unlikely in light of the fact that they're trying to increase the penalties...)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-13 01:49am

White Cat wrote:It appears that Canadians who watch Fox News on American satellite networks can be fined, or even put in jail!

For stealing illegal satellite signals, not for watching Fox News, dumb-ass. Didn't you even read the article before posting it?