Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

contradiction. you don't want to isolate them, but by saying they shouldn't be a part of the world, they would be isolated. the TV is not the only way to be in touch with the world. In fact, I hardly watch TV--only for mythbusters, MASH, and if something's good on the history or science channel. And even that's rare (actually watching any of those). Instead, I'm plugged into my computer.
where's the hypocrisy you're smelling?

wrong. being intentionally rude and harrassing someone are two different things. so yes, you would be needing to pass a law.

That's fundie.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

A Gentleman tries to never be rude unintentionally.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I don't think I have to pass a law, it's called harrassment.

---

Really?Can you explain the legal definition of "harrassment" and how my being intentionally rude to a customer qualifies as breaking laws against harassment?

No, you didn't offend me.I just love the phrase "your an idiot" when it is written in precisely that way because it is so wonderfully, deliciously ironic.--------------------------------------Rat, the words, "your" and "you're" have different meanings."You're" is a contraction of "you are", as in "You're an idiot"."Your" is a posessive form of "you", like in "Your use of "your" instead of "you're" in the above sentence is ironic."Here's the trick I use to help me remember which one to use:If you are unsure, substitute "you are" in any sentence. If it fits, then you should use "you're".

Can you explain the legal definition of "harrassment"No I cannot, I am not a lawyer.The harrassment laws are pretty complicated, as they should be. Probably so that they do not enfringe on the 1st ammendment.

cute, I wish I had enough time in my life to care about spelling.
But I was refering to offending kuresuEdited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

I won't claim to have done a 50 state survey on harassment laws, but for the most part, I'd venture to guess that the sine qua non of harassment laws includes repeated, unwanted contact with the harassee.There is very little that is complicated in any harassment laws that I have looked at. It's a very good idea for harassment laws to be uncomplicated so that everyone is on notice as to what clearly constitutes harassment.If there is one overarching theme underlying most First Amendment jurisprudance, it's the idea that governmental regulation of speech should be content neutral, in other words, it's much more difficult for the government to ban or regulate speech because of the content of what is being said. Because harassment laws usually address repeated unwanted contact, they are completely content neutral. It's just as much harassment to call someone 20 times a day to say they are good looking as it is to call them 20 times a day to say they are ugly. Thus, there is no real question or concern that harassment laws infringe on the First Amendment.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

cute, I wish I had enough time in my life to care about spelling.
But I was refering to offending kuresu

---

Yeah.You called him an idiot.While you were doing that, you made an extremely basic error in punctuation that we all should have learned in the fourth grade.Thus the ironical funny.Look, I'm not saying that my spelling or grammar or punctuation is always perfect; far from it, in fact.However, I do care about it, because it is the way we communicate here, and I care about being understood, and I care about the impression I make on others.Using words and grammar and punctuation incorrectly at best makes it more difficult to understand what you are trying to communicate, and at worst it conveys sloppiness, carelessness, a poor education, and even a less-than-great level of intelligence (even if the person graduated from Harvard with honors).It is sort of like a lawyer showing up in court in torn jeans, a stained teeshirt, her hair a rat's nest and last night's makeup on her face and booze on her breath.Even if she is, in reality, well-prepared and capable, would her appearance inspire you to come to that conclusion?

Yes, I know your (lol) right.

Hahaha.That was pretty funny.

oh so going to play the "i'm a parent, and your not, so i get to pick what is true or isn't true!" card?read the damn conclusion the fact is what maybe too much for your kid may not be too much for some elses, and censoring based on studies that can't prove anything either way is not a good argumentits your job to watch your children, if you can't teach your children the right way to behave, thats not the media's fault

---

"no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." - William Dembski

are you kidding me?!
thats the most absurd thing i've seem yet
being rude to someone is not harassment, do you even know what harassment is?
coming up to someone and calling them names, and when they ask you to go away and you don't, that is harassmentme getting angry at a ranting customer in my line who berates me, is rude but is not remotely harassment!you are heading down a slippy slope with that one,

Harassment - Wikipedia can give you an idea you don't need to be a lawyer really to understand what it is, people try of course to confuse what it is though. imo harassment is the act of not only annoying someone, but ignoring them when asked to stop or to leave, it can be offensive, though not alwayspeople make it complex, the goverment tries to make it clear,but lawyers and people trying to exploit the law try to make it more frustrating that it really is