Are the Democrats bigger censors than the Republicans?

[Battlehymn Republic]

I read the following comment on Matthew Yglesias' blog:

Censorship almost always comes from the Democrats. Social conservatives may complain about, say, South Park, but the Republicans never offer any national bills to actually do anything about violence or naughty language. Democrats, by contrast, are responsible for the V-chip, music censorship, Hate Speech laws, the Hillary Clinton Computer Game Censorship Act of 2005, the Fairness doctrine, etc. Hell, the MPAA hired D power-broker Jack Valenti as Chairman just to get the D Congress off their backs.

Is this an accurate observation? I'm certain that under the Republicans, the FCC did do some restrictive things after the 2004 Super Bowl incident. However, if this is true, then it's ironic, much like how the federal budget tends to get balanced under Democrat administrations, not the fiscal conservatives.

[Flagg]

I read the following comment on Matthew Yglesias' blog:

Censorship almost always comes from the Democrats. Social conservatives may complain about, say, South Park, but the Republicans never offer any national bills to actually do anything about violence or naughty language. Democrats, by contrast, are responsible for the V-chip, music censorship, Hate Speech laws, the Hillary Clinton Computer Game Censorship Act of 2005, the Fairness doctrine, etc. Hell, the MPAA hired D power-broker Jack Valenti as Chairman just to get the D Congress off their backs.

Is this an accurate observation? I'm certain that under the Republicans, the FCC did do some restrictive things after the 2004 Super Bowl incident. However, if this is true, then it's ironic, much like how the federal budget tends to get balanced under Democrat administrations, not the fiscal conservatives.

I don't recall anything like what the FCC pulled after the 2004 titty-flash happening under a Democratic administration or congress. The closest thing to it was after the Columbine shootings, and even then there was no real action by government entities that I remember.

The Democrats have pushed for ratings systems, and there are those like Clinton and Gore who have pushed for regulating the movie, music, and gaming industry for content, but they usually back off when the studios meet them half way.

But the biggest group out there pushing censorship is the Family Research Council, and arch-conservative group. IIRC something like 99% of all complaints made to the FCC came from them.

[Andrew J.]

Is he calling the V-chip censorship? A tool parents can choose to use to keep children from watching certain programs?

[Flagg]

Is he calling the V-chip censorship? A tool parents can choose to use to keep children from watching certain programs?

It's a tool for parents to use in order to block programs of certain ratings, so it's giving parents the ability to censor things for their children.

I think it also happens to invalidate the need for the FCC to regulate content beyond advertising time limits. If there ever was such a need.

[SirNitram]

Democrat-supported 'Censorship': V-chip, which is a tool that can be used at the discretion of the owner.

Republican-supported 'Censorship': Give the FCC power over cable and freak out over a nipple for a half-second.

I'd take the tool and rating systems anyday, myself. This seems like another case of 'Everything bad comes from Democrats, and I'll dig for days if I have to, to find an example.'

[Flagg]

Democrat-supported 'Censorship': V-chip, which is a tool that can be used at the discretion of the owner.

Republican-supported 'Censorship': Give the FCC power over cable and freak out over a nipple for a half-second.

I'd take the tool and rating systems anyday, myself. This seems like another case of 'Everything bad comes from Democrats, and I'll dig for days if I have to, to find an example.'

"While gleefully ignoring all the shit stacked up on my side."

[Darth Wong]

I read the following comment on Matthew Yglesias' blog:

Censorship almost always comes from the Democrats. Social conservatives may complain about, say, South Park, but the Republicans never offer any national bills to actually do anything about violence or naughty language. Democrats, by contrast, are responsible for the V-chip, music censorship, Hate Speech laws, the Hillary Clinton Computer Game Censorship Act of 2005, the Fairness doctrine, etc. Hell, the MPAA hired D power-broker Jack Valenti as Chairman just to get the D Congress off their backs.

Is this an accurate observation? I'm certain that under the Republicans, the FCC did do some restrictive things after the 2004 Super Bowl incident. However, if this is true, then it's ironic, much like how the federal budget tends to get balanced under Democrat administrations, not the fiscal conservatives.

The biggest fallacy about this argument is the same one that is ubiquitous in American politics: the assumption that "Democrat" = "liberal". Your Dems would be arch-conservatives here in Canada. The Republicans and Democrats may differ on economic policies, but socially speaking, they're almost identical.

[Flagg]

I read the following comment on Matthew Yglesias' blog:

Censorship almost always comes from the Democrats. Social conservatives may complain about, say, South Park, but the Republicans never offer any national bills to actually do anything about violence or naughty language. Democrats, by contrast, are responsible for the V-chip, music censorship, Hate Speech laws, the Hillary Clinton Computer Game Censorship Act of 2005, the Fairness doctrine, etc. Hell, the MPAA hired D power-broker Jack Valenti as Chairman just to get the D Congress off their backs.

Is this an accurate observation? I'm certain that under the Republicans, the FCC did do some restrictive things after the 2004 Super Bowl incident. However, if this is true, then it's ironic, much like how the federal budget tends to get balanced under Democrat administrations, not the fiscal conservatives.

The biggest fallacy about this argument is the same one that is ubiquitous in American politics: the assumption that "Democrat" = "liberal". Your Dems would be arch-conservatives here in Canada. The Republicans and Democrats may differ on economic policies, but socially speaking, they're almost identical.

The only real difference is that the Democrats bitch more about violence and the Republicans bitch more about sex. Of course no one cares about the violence unless it's within 14 days of some nutbag or nutbags shooting up a school.

Otherwise only the sex shit gains traction.

That and "obscenities" on live programs. Because hearing mommy and daddy call people in traffic "fucking cocksuckers" is so much better than Bono saying "fuck" at the Grammy's.

[Battlehymn Republic]

I think the main point is that while Republicans get hysterical a lot more, Democrats apparently legislate censorship more often.

[Battlehymn Republic]

In any case, the context was in a comment for a post about Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman's a conservative Republican? Let's examine your specific claims.

Strongly favors indefinite detention, anti-habeus, pro-Gonzalez, pro-wiretapping. - Strongly pro-PATRIOT act

Those positions were alien to the Republican party as recently as 1997, when the Republican Congress rejected Clinton's similar proposals (which Lieberman supported). It was the Democratic party that switched positions--not Lieberman.

- Strongly pro-censorship of entertainment
- Strongly pro-censorship of academic free speech

(the original post above)

Lieberman's record is clearly consistent with that of the D party on this issue.

As far as "Academic Free Speech" is concerned, I'm unaware that either Lieberman or any Republican has ever made any claim of Federal jurisdiction over what College professors or students say or do not say. The only academic free speech issues I know of are those that occur when Universities try to kick the Campus Repubs off campus for saying things that are un-PC (such as offering a $100 scholarship for "deserving white males").

- Anything involving the impeachment of Bill Clinton

You mean the impeachment where Lieberman voted "Not Guilty" on all counts and most Republicans voted "Guilty?"

- A mixed record on environmental issues at best

Hogwash. The Sierra Club loves Joe Lieberman.

Based on this list, I have to wonder if you aren't thinking of some other Joe Lieberman, but just in case, I checked to see what a few "Conservative Republican" groups had to say about him.

NRA grade--------F (10%, worst grade in the senate)
Club for Growth--F (7%, worst grade in the Senate)

That, of course, merits discussion in a different thread entirely. I do think it makes a persuasive argument that Lieberman and McCain are two peas in a pod; they both piss off their parties for their flagrant heresies (Lieberman for his close relations with Bush and his war-hawking, McCain with campaign finance, anti-torture stances, etc.), and are fundamentally distrustable political opportunists, they really aren't all that maverick as one would think. On most issues they are consistent with their parties.

Anyways, that's a tangent, but I'm just showing where the comment is from.

[SirNitram]

I think the main point is that while Republicans get hysterical a lot more, Democrats apparently legislate censorship more often.

Do you have anything to substantiate this claim? Or is it just 'Democrats must be bad, must be.' knee-jerking? It wasn't a Democratic majority that was pushing for the FCC to gain control over cable.

[Battlehymn Republic]

I'm not arguing that point, I just thought that the post brought up an interesting idea. For all I know the poster was ignoring all of the times Republicans introduced and enacted bills for media censorship. That's why I created this thread, to ask what people thought of that view, and to offer counter-evidence.

Why is it that when I introduce a contrarian view (which isn't even my own) I get attacked for knee-jerking?

[Battlehymn Republic]

I mean to ask for counter-evidence. Not offer.

[SirNitram]

I'm not arguing that point, I just thought that the post brought up an interesting idea. For all I know the poster was ignoring all of the times Republicans introduced and enacted bills for media censorship. That's why I created this thread, to ask what people thought of that view, and to offer counter-evidence.

Why is it that when I introduce a contrarian view (which isn't even my own) I get attacked for knee-jerking?

Because you made a statement of fact, and refused to back it up, you ignorant jackass.

I think the main point is that while Republicans get hysterical a lot more, Democrats apparently legislate censorship more often.

You said Democrats put it into law more. Put up or shut up. Or are you too fucking inbred to read the rules of this board?

[Battlehymn Republic]

Because you made a statement of fact, and refused to back it up, you ignorant jackass.

No, I brought up an observation I read from somewhere and asked for opinions about the validity from it, you inflammatory clitbiscuit. The original poster could have been totally picking and choosing the examples he wanted, while ignoring Republican examples of legislative censorship. So I ask for the kind posters of this thread to kindly evaluate its wrongness.

I think the main point is that while Republicans get hysterical a lot more, Democrats apparently legislate censorship more often.

You said Democrats put it into law more. Put up or shut up. Or are you too fucking inbred to read the rules of this board?

I was saying that was the main point of the post that I did not write, you illiterate fucksplash. That is not my own point, but is the point of the quote I posted. So sorry if I was not clear.

[SirNitram]

Because you made a statement of fact, and refused to back it up, you ignorant jackass.

No, I brought up an observation I read from somewhere and asked for opinions about the validity from it, you inflammatory clitbiscuit. The original poster could have been totally picking and choosing the examples he wanted, while ignoring Republican examples of legislative censorship. So I ask for the kind posters of this thread to kindly evaluate its wrongness.

I think the main point is that while Republicans get hysterical a lot more, Democrats apparently legislate censorship more often.

You said Democrats put it into law more. Put up or shut up. Or are you too fucking inbred to read the rules of this board?

I was saying that was the main point of the post that I did not write, you illiterate fucksplash. That is not my own point, but is the point of the quote I posted. So sorry if I was not clear.

My apologies, I should increase my research into telepathic matrixs until I can discern that when you type out a factual statement with no qualifiers, references, or anything else, you are in fact not endorsing the viewpoint you just wrote as fact.

Alternately, you could shut the fuck up and not post stupidly.

[HemlockGrey]

Why is it that when I introduce a contrarian view (which isn't even my own) I get attacked for knee-jerking?

Some people have only setting when something crops up that they disagree with, and that is to go rapidly on the attack. So even though a perfectly normal person could tell that when you said "the main point" you were referring to the article, certain other people have difficulty seeing beyond "statement I do not agree with".

[Battlehymn Republic]

Well, I did post a successive post explaining the original context of the quote. And notice that the thread of the point was a question, not a declarative statement, and perhaps you could have flamed a little less preemptively, seeing as how everything I've written up to that post was asking questions and for clarification.

And isn't telepathic matrix a pretty low level spell?

[Battlehymn Republic]

Title of the thread. Okay, so I'm imbred. Who isn't?

[SirNitram]

Well, I did post a successive post explaining the original context of the quote. And notice that the thread of the point was a question, not a declarative statement, and perhaps you could have flamed a little less preemptively, seeing as how everything I've written up to that post was asking questions and for clarification.

Right. You write what is a declarative statement, with no qualifiers, no references, and no indications it's anything else...

But it's my fault that this happened. What, does my presense cause you to become unable to post sensibly? Just grow the fuck up, child, and admit you should have phrased it better. Or go off and whine with Hemlock about how mean these people are that simply respond to what you wrote.

And isn't telepathic matrix a pretty low level spell?

'Spell'? Are you snorting crack?

[HemlockGrey]

Right. You write what is a declarative statement, with no qualifiers, no references, and no indications it's anything else...

But it's my fault that this happened. What, does my presense cause you to become unable to post sensibly? Just grow the fuck up, child, and admit you should have phrased it better. Or go off and whine with Hemlock about how mean these people are that simply respond to what you wrote.

Look, rather than damning the torpedoes and screaming "Full speed ahead!" here, couldn't you just take a step back and admit that yes, you misinterpreted his statement, and you probably shouldn't have been so precipitous in laying into the guy? I managed to interpret the thrust of his statement correctly, and clearly if I can do it, someone of your towering intellect would be able to if you would just slow down a minute and take into the account the fact that his initial post was characterized entirely by question marks.

[SirNitram]

Look, rather than damning the torpedoes and screaming "Full speed ahead!" here, couldn't you just take a step back and admit that yes, you misinterpreted his statement, and you probably shouldn't have been so precipitous in laying into the guy? I managed to interpret the thrust of his statement correctly, and clearly if I can do it, someone of your towering intellect would be able to if you would just slow down a minute and take into the account the fact that his initial post was characterized entirely by question marks.

Look, rather than pole-vaulting into a thread for no reason other than to exercise your pathetic little axe to grind against my intolerance for foolishness, couldn't you just take a step back and admit that yes, he made a declarative statement and should have been clearer, and you shouldn't be whining all over again?

I do not care about what you think should or shouldn't be. I don't particularly care about whether you think I'm 'laying into him'. I called him stupid for making a declarative statement and then not simply saying 'Yea, that's a mistake'. Gosh, admitting mistakes is too hard, seems to be your view. Let's bash Nitram instead. Whatever, kiddo. Go vanish for a few months again.

[HemlockGrey]

I do not care about what you think should or shouldn't be. I don't particularly care about whether you think I'm 'laying into him'. I called him stupid for making a declarative statement and then not simply saying 'Yea, that's a mistake'. Gosh, admitting mistakes is too hard, seems to be your view. Let's bash Nitram instead. Whatever, kiddo. Go vanish for a few months again.

Look, even after he said that he "wasn't trying to argue the point" but just asking "for counter-evidence" you attacked him for "making a statement of fact" and "refusing to back it up" and called him an "ignorant jackass". This was AFTER he clarified that he wasn't trying to argue the point at all nor asserting any statement of fact.

I don't know whether you genuinely thought he was still asserting that the Democrats censor more often than Republicans or if you were just trying to gratify your own ego, but the reason I hopped is because I think rushing to attack people like you just did without even trying to clarify the point at issue really casts a pall on any attempt to have a discussion that isn't just a rehash of all the political points everyone agrees upon already.

[SirNitram]

I do not care about what you think should or shouldn't be. I don't particularly care about whether you think I'm 'laying into him'. I called him stupid for making a declarative statement and then not simply saying 'Yea, that's a mistake'. Gosh, admitting mistakes is too hard, seems to be your view. Let's bash Nitram instead. Whatever, kiddo. Go vanish for a few months again.

Look, even after he said that he "wasn't trying to argue the point" but just asking "for counter-evidence" you attacked him for "making a statement of fact" and "refusing to back it up" and called him an "ignorant jackass". This was AFTER he clarified that he wasn't trying to argue the point at all nor asserting any statement of fact.

I don't know whether you genuinely thought he was still asserting that the Democrats censor more often than Republicans or if you were just trying to gratify your own ego, but the reason I hopped is because I think rushing to attack people like you just did without even trying to clarify the point at issue really casts a pall on any attempt to have a discussion that isn't just a rehash of all the political points everyone agrees upon already.

I don't give a shit about your opinion on my behavior, as I just wrote. If you have nothing to add to the discussion(Comparisons, evidence, discussions) that is actually on topic, go the fuck away. Your private dislike of me is something I do not give a shit about. It certainly has no place in N&P.

[Battlehymn Republic]

But it's my fault that this happened. What, does my presense cause you to become unable to post sensibly? Just grow the fuck up, child, and admit you should have phrased it better. Or go off and whine with Hemlock about how mean these people are that simply respond to what you wrote.

I totallyl did apologize for that. And I'll apologize again. I'm sorry that I posted like the inbred hick that I am. I'm sorry for that. Anyways, there you go judging my motives again. I'm not blaming you for anything. I was simply unaware that it merited such harsh denouncements. Well I apologize ahead of schedule if that offends you as well.

And isn't telepathic matrix a pretty low level spell?

'Spell'? Are you snorting crack?

Your persona is a Black Mage. Lame joke. Break the ice? No? So much for that.

Anyways, are there any particularly egregious examples of GOP censorship emanating from Congress in the Bush or Clinton administrations? Or was it more localized to Republican administration of the FCC?