| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2006 03:11:30 PM |
| Object: |
Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
http://www.citizenlink.org/fnif/A000003365.cfm
The ACLU is threatening the Village of South Holland, Illinois, because
the town won't allow 'Comcast on Demand' inside its borders.
South Holland's franchise agreement with Comcast prohibits 'On
Demand.' Comcast spokesperson Angelynne Amores says they won't
fight the requirement.
"In order for us to provide services in any municipality, we have to
adhere to the agreement. So, Comcast is in complete compliance with the
terms of the franchise agreement with South Holland."
Every town has a franchise agreement with a cable company. South
Holland administrator, J. Wynsma, says blocking porn channels fits his
town's long-established community standard. After all, the
village's motto is 'Faith, Family and Future.'
"As a community, we've continually supported these values and this
is long-established by the courts as a proper and a fitting role of the
municipality."
But that's not good enough for the ACLU. They contend South
Holland's franchise agreement is a form of censorship. Pat Trueman of
the Alliance Defense Fund disagrees.
"This is something that a city has every right to do since the cable
operator wants to use the city property to string his cable.
Restrictions are always appropriate. And the city cannot be forced to
become an X-rated programming participant, even if the ACLU tries to
take them to court and sue them."
Trueman applauds South Holland's stand and says if the porn industry
is to ever be reigned in, the federal government needs to investigate
companies like Comcast for broadcasting illegal and obscene material.
.
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 04:28:09 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in news:1165871489.993380.21330
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
What is the problem that you have with individual freedom?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anonyma" |
|
| Title: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 10:32:19 PM |
|
|
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Censorship is un-American
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anonyma" |
|
| Title: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 11:18:04 PM |
|
|
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
They are blind to whether something is decent or not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 03:43:04 PM |
|
|
AC LOON "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> returned to a tried and true troll
in message news:1165871489.993380.21330@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
<yawn>
You're getting stale, IBen.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 04:49:20 PM |
|
|
In article <1165871489.993380.21330@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Oh, hey, it's just that silly ol' First Amendment thingie, you
know the one I mea...beg pardon? Sorry, my bad, I figured
most Americans were aware of it.
Well, in a nutshell, it's a small mistake inadvertently
left in the Constitution when the Flounders were wrapping
up the final version. Basically it says that /you/ do
not get to decide what /I/ may read, look at, write, or
publish. Hey, I mean, like, it was really really LATE, and
I'm sure they were just EXHAUSTED. Like, totally understandable,
dude.
A number of right-thinking Americans are working, even as we
speak, on an Amendment to correct this silly little oversight.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
12 Dec 2006 01:06:44 AM |
|
|
In article <1165871489.993380.21330@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Censorship is indecent.
Nobody is forcing anyone in the town to buy Comcast, or watch it.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
12 Dec 2006 12:51:33 AM |
|
|
J Young a =E9crit :
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
=20
What's the problem that YOU have with decency?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 04:41:10 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
http://www.citizenlink.org/fnif/A000003365.cfm
The ACLU is threatening the Village of South Holland, Illinois, because
the town won't allow 'Comcast on Demand' inside its borders.
South Holland's franchise agreement with Comcast prohibits 'On
Demand.' Comcast spokesperson Angelynne Amores says they won't
fight the requirement.
"In order for us to provide services in any municipality, we have to
adhere to the agreement. So, Comcast is in complete compliance with the
terms of the franchise agreement with South Holland."
Every town has a franchise agreement with a cable company. South
Holland administrator, J. Wynsma, says blocking porn channels fits his
town's long-established community standard. After all, the
village's motto is 'Faith, Family and Future.'
"As a community, we've continually supported these values and this
is long-established by the courts as a proper and a fitting role of the
municipality."
But that's not good enough for the ACLU. They contend South
Holland's franchise agreement is a form of censorship. Pat Trueman of
the Alliance Defense Fund disagrees.
"This is something that a city has every right to do since the cable
operator wants to use the city property to string his cable.
Restrictions are always appropriate. And the city cannot be forced to
become an X-rated programming participant, even if the ACLU tries to
take them to court and sue them."
Trueman applauds South Holland's stand and says if the porn industry
is to ever be reigned in, the federal government needs to investigate
companies like Comcast for broadcasting illegal and obscene material.
On demand programming is not broadcasting. As the name implies, it
is something that someone explicitly asks for. This is NO chance
that someone will accidentally see anything from an on demand service.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 03:21:39 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
....>
But that's not good enough for the ACLU. They contend South
Holland's franchise agreement is a form of censorship. Pat Trueman of
the Alliance Defense Fund disagrees.
"This is something that a city has every right to do since the cable
operator wants to use the city property to string his cable.
Restrictions are always appropriate. And the city cannot be forced to
become an X-rated programming participant, even if the ACLU tries to
take them to court and sue them."
Trueman applauds South Holland's stand and says if the porn industry
is to ever be reigned in, the federal government needs to investigate
companies like Comcast for broadcasting illegal and obscene material.
What's obcene to you may not be to me an visa versa. No one is forced
to look. If you don't want to see porn on the cable just don't call up
the porn channel. If there were no porn customers there would be no
porn.
Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of
forced obedience?
Isn't it high time to join The Resistance?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 03:25:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
....>
But that's not good enough for the ACLU. They contend South
Holland's franchise agreement is a form of censorship. Pat Trueman of
the Alliance Defense Fund disagrees.
"This is something that a city has every right to do since the cable
operator wants to use the city property to string his cable.
Restrictions are always appropriate. And the city cannot be forced to
become an X-rated programming participant, even if the ACLU tries to
take them to court and sue them."
Trueman applauds South Holland's stand and says if the porn industry
is to ever be reigned in, the federal government needs to investigate
companies like Comcast for broadcasting illegal and obscene material.
What's obcene to you may not be to me an visa versa. No one is forced
to look. If you don't want to see porn on the cable just don't call up
the porn channel. If there were no porn customers there would be no
porn.
Given the level of kkkristian hypocrisy going around, I bet the porn
channel would be the most popular in a town full of modern day
kkkristians.
Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of
forced obedience?
Isn't it high time to join The Resistance?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 04:43:28 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Note that the village of South Holland is banning -all- "on demand"
cable service, not just programs it considers pornographic.
It seems about equivalent to forbidding Amazon.com from selling books to
New Holland residents for fear someone might order a racy title.
I can see why folks might be upset - the ACLU included.
Peace and justice,
http://www.citizenlink.org/fnif/A000003365.cfm
The ACLU is threatening the Village of South Holland, Illinois, because
the town won't allow 'Comcast on Demand' inside its borders.
South Holland's franchise agreement with Comcast prohibits 'On
Demand.' Comcast spokesperson Angelynne Amores says they won't
fight the requirement.
"In order for us to provide services in any municipality, we have to
adhere to the agreement. So, Comcast is in complete compliance with the
terms of the franchise agreement with South Holland."
Every town has a franchise agreement with a cable company. South
Holland administrator, J. Wynsma, says blocking porn channels fits his
town's long-established community standard. After all, the
village's motto is 'Faith, Family and Future.'
"As a community, we've continually supported these values and this
is long-established by the courts as a proper and a fitting role of the
municipality."
But that's not good enough for the ACLU. They contend South
Holland's franchise agreement is a form of censorship. Pat Trueman of
the Alliance Defense Fund disagrees.
"This is something that a city has every right to do since the cable
operator wants to use the city property to string his cable.
Restrictions are always appropriate. And the city cannot be forced to
become an X-rated programming participant, even if the ACLU tries to
take them to court and sue them."
Trueman applauds South Holland's stand and says if the porn industry
is to ever be reigned in, the federal government needs to investigate
companies like Comcast for broadcasting illegal and obscene material.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
13 Dec 2006 08:38:10 AM |
|
|
In article <w7ydnbZE9aSOQuDYnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Note that the village of South Holland is banning -all- "on demand"
cable service, not just programs it considers pornographic.
It seems about equivalent to forbidding Amazon.com from selling books to
New Holland residents for fear someone might order a racy title.
Nope, but try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
13 Dec 2006 02:13:17 PM |
|
|
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <w7ydnbZE9aSOQuDYnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Note that the village of South Holland is banning -all- "on demand"
cable service, not just programs it considers pornographic.
It seems about equivalent to forbidding Amazon.com from selling books to
New Holland residents for fear someone might order a racy title.
Nope, but try again.
Ah, the crushing logic of your argument has thoroughly refuted him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
13 Dec 2006 03:36:03 PM |
|
|
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <w7ydnbZE9aSOQuDYnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Note that the village of South Holland is banning -all- "on demand"
cable service, not just programs it considers pornographic.
It seems about equivalent to forbidding Amazon.com from selling books to
New Holland residents for fear someone might order a racy title.
Nope, but try again.
You are invited to expound on the distinction.
There seems no significant difference.
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
13 Dec 2006 07:18:40 PM |
|
|
In article <M6qdnYUYE6vW7x3YnZ2dnUVZ_vbinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <w7ydnbZE9aSOQuDYnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Note that the village of South Holland is banning -all- "on demand"
cable service, not just programs it considers pornographic.
It seems about equivalent to forbidding Amazon.com from selling books to
New Holland residents for fear someone might order a racy title.
Nope, but try again.
You are invited to expound on the distinction.
Does Amazon.com need a franchise agreement with South Holland in order
to sell books to its residents?
Sheeeeeesh, leftards are stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
13 Dec 2006 10:27:49 PM |
|
|
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <M6qdnYUYE6vW7x3YnZ2dnUVZ_vbinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <w7ydnbZE9aSOQuDYnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Note that the village of South Holland is banning -all- "on demand"
cable service, not just programs it considers pornographic.
It seems about equivalent to forbidding Amazon.com from selling books to
New Holland residents for fear someone might order a racy title.
Nope, but try again.
You are invited to expound on the distinction.
Does Amazon.com need a franchise agreement with South Holland in order
to sell books to its residents?
So, if the Village of South Holland enacted an ordinance that Amazon.com
-did- need such a agreement to ship books to its residents, that would
be copacetic?
That would take about ten minutes work by the city council.
And apparently just perfectly ok with you.
After all, the only reason why there's a franchise agreement with
Comcast in the first place is that the City Council passed an ordinance
saying one was required.
Sheeeeeesh, leftards are stupid.
A mirror might be your best chance of observing stupidity.
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
14 Dec 2006 08:07:57 AM |
|
|
In article <3sGdnRN1NsBSTx3YnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <M6qdnYUYE6vW7x3YnZ2dnUVZ_vbinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <w7ydnbZE9aSOQuDYnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Note that the village of South Holland is banning -all- "on demand"
cable service, not just programs it considers pornographic.
It seems about equivalent to forbidding Amazon.com from selling books to
New Holland residents for fear someone might order a racy title.
Nope, but try again.
You are invited to expound on the distinction.
Does Amazon.com need a franchise agreement with South Holland in order
to sell books to its residents?
So, if the Village of South Holland enacted an ordinance that Amazon.com
-did- need such a agreement to ship books to its residents...
....it would be overturned by the first court it was appealed to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
14 Dec 2006 01:37:31 PM |
|
|
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <3sGdnRN1NsBSTx3YnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Harold Burton wrote:
-snip-
Does Amazon.com need a franchise agreement with South Holland in order
to sell books to its residents?
So, if the Village of South Holland enacted an ordinance that Amazon.com
-did- need such a agreement to ship books to its residents...
...it would be overturned by the first court it was appealed to.
As will the cable tevee pay-per-view prohibitions as soon as they hit a
court.
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
14 Dec 2006 02:05:10 PM |
|
|
In article <Z-6dnc5fOamYNRzYnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Harold Burton wrote:
In article <3sGdnRN1NsBSTx3YnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
Harold Burton wrote:
-snip-
Does Amazon.com need a franchise agreement with South Holland in order
to sell books to its residents?
So, if the Village of South Holland enacted an ordinance that Amazon.com
-did- need such a agreement to ship books to its residents...
...it would be overturned by the first court it was appealed to.
As will the cable tevee pay-per-view prohibitions as soon as they hit a
court.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 03:21:38 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
The only problem is that the ACLU doesn't go about suing people on a
whim as the story implies. Someone would have to get the ACLU involved
in such a case, and since your little church bulletin can't name that
person, the credibility of the story comes into question, especially
given the source.
<snip *****>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 11:52:44 PM |
|
|
On 11 Dec 2006 13:11:30 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Because it's not the town's business what cable teevee services its
residents subscribe to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
12 Dec 2006 01:01:37 AM |
|
|
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 13:11:30 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Because it's not the town's business what cable teevee services its
residents subscribe to.
As it turns out, towns can decide who gets the franchise, if anyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
12 Dec 2006 09:30:12 AM |
|
|
Lobby Dosser wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 13:11:30 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Because it's not the town's business what cable teevee services its
residents subscribe to.
As it turns out, towns can decide who gets the franchise, if anyone.
Maybe, maybe not. Within a given area, there may be only 1 cable
service provider, especially if the town is smaller. So, the town
either accepts that company's offering or they get nothing. Other
cable providers aren't going to invest money in a small town where they
can't realize a decent profit on their investment.
The only other option would be for the citizens to buy satellite
service. Although the town could fight back by passing ordinances that
outlaw having satellite dishes on the roof or house, or in the yard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
12 Dec 2006 10:12:58 AM |
|
|
On 12 Dec 2006 07:30:12 -0800, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 13:11:30 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Because it's not the town's business what cable teevee services its
residents subscribe to.
As it turns out, towns can decide who gets the franchise, if anyone.
Maybe, maybe not. Within a given area, there may be only 1 cable
service provider, especially if the town is smaller. So, the town
either accepts that company's offering or they get nothing.
Or they can do what Minet did in Monmouth and Independence here
locally, and build their own municipally-owned optical fiber network
to provide cable television, internet and phone service to their local
population.
They did that simply because the cable industry didn't care to offer
broadband access until sometime after 2010. When the towns offered
service on their own, it was over the Mighty objections of the
(hallowed) Private Sector, who somehow Found that they Could offer
service sometime in 2008.
Minet is hooking folks up right now to a state-of-the-art service
that's going to do Just Fine, once it hits a critical mass of
customers to make it economically feasible. The (hallowed) Private
Sector is still whining about that.
Tough! I think the towns did rather well, making their own choices.
They haven't yet gotten around to dealing with the specific
programming, since they're concentrating on the internet stuff more.
But that'll come.
As the provider of the service, then and Only then may the town decide
what premium channels it wishes to offer. It will, after all, own the
service and run it as it sees most fit. Which works just fine.
But if a (halloed) Private Sector operator wishes to offer Premium,
extra-cost and voluntary programming, the town has no cause to attempt
to censor those offerings. The franchisee only must meet the terms of
the franchise. It may go beyond them for any further voluntary
offering.
Other cable providers aren't going to invest money in a small town where they
can't realize a decent profit on their investment.
The definition of Decent Profit usually includes How Fast they can
make it. A small town might well offer a profit, but not as
comparably large as would a smaller town. Capital being a Limited
Resource in scarce supply, the cable provider would act rationally in
preferring to operate in larger markets.
The action does make sense.
But doesn't change anything for the small town market either.
The only other option would be for the citizens to buy satellite
service.
Nope. That works only for television programming. As the three
technologies -- cable tv, internet and telephone -- continue to move
toward being just the One Service, it makes good economic sense for
small towns to develop their own WANs and offer all three services.
The scale of Big Bidniss in wanting to serve only Big Markets can be
upset by such actions, and I applaud them when they can and do so
successfully.
Although the town could fight back by passing ordinances that
outlaw having satellite dishes on the roof or house, or in the yard.
Such ordinances would fail a Constitutional examination, on several
fronts. Not really worth the effort.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
12 Dec 2006 01:13:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:01:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 13:11:30 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Because it's not the town's business what cable teevee services its
residents subscribe to.
As it turns out, towns can decide who gets the franchise, if anyone.
They can. But not what Premium services they can offer, nor set the
price for those.
Which is the salient discussion in this case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
12 Dec 2006 01:44:45 AM |
|
|
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:01:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 13:11:30 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Because it's not the town's business what cable teevee services its
residents subscribe to.
As it turns out, towns can decide who gets the franchise, if anyone.
They can. But not what Premium services they can offer, nor set the
price for those.
Which is the salient discussion in this case.
Seen the recent Christmas tree fiasco? Apply it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
12 Dec 2006 10:04:57 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:44:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:01:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 13:11:30 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Because it's not the town's business what cable teevee services its
residents subscribe to.
As it turns out, towns can decide who gets the franchise, if anyone.
They can. But not what Premium services they can offer, nor set the
price for those.
Which is the salient discussion in this case.
Seen the recent Christmas tree fiasco? Apply it.
Don't need to, there being no applicable point of comparison.
Now, were the town to demand an additional Jewish-Only channel for the
choice of its viewers, there might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
12 Dec 2006 11:24:38 AM |
|
|
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:44:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:01:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 13:11:30 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
Because it's not the town's business what cable teevee services
its residents subscribe to.
As it turns out, towns can decide who gets the franchise, if anyone.
They can. But not what Premium services they can offer, nor set the
price for those.
Which is the salient discussion in this case.
Seen the recent Christmas tree fiasco? Apply it.
Don't need to, there being no applicable point of comparison.
To bears of little brain.
Now, were the town to demand an additional Jewish-Only channel for the
choice of its viewers, there might be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 04:13:45 PM |
|
|
On 11 Dec 2006 13:11:30 -0800, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
None at all. Censorship is indecent.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 05:49:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:11:30 -0800, J Young wrote:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
As if you know what decency is.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Blocks Porn, ACLU Attacks |
11 Dec 2006 03:54:21 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet J Young
(youngopinions@aol.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
What is the problem that the ACLU has with decency?
What is the problem the religious have with sticking their noses into other
people's business?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
