Searching \ for '[OT] Advertising policy, was Gmail invites up for' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=advertising+policy
Search entire site for: 'Advertising policy, was Gmail invites up for'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Advertising policy, was Gmail invites up for '
2004\09\12@003743 by hilip Stortz

picon face


Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
-------
{Quote hidden}

corporations do not have the same rights as people.  having said that, i
still agree that google should be allowed to say what they want, but
advertising is NOT them saying something, it is them allowing someone to
buy access to others to say what they want.  by not letting people of
some views have that same access, they are impeding free speech in an
unreasonable way.

> > if i were advertising, i would refuse to use a carrier that practiced
> > such censorship.
>
> Why is that censorship? You're talking as if Google were a public service.
> It's a free web site, like mine or yours or anybody's. I still want to
> decide what I put on my web site... and I'd like to see that everybody else
> (including Google) has that same right.

now if google wants to use some of the ad space to spout the owners
beliefs, that's fine, but that's not what we are talking about.

it's censorship because for speech to have any meaning it must be
possible to communicate your views to others.  that means people on both
sides of an issue must have equal access to the media, or it is as if
the opposing view did not exist.  consider the presidential election,
would it be proper for a company to only carry advertising for
candidates that they liked and refuse to take paid advertising from
their opponents?  obviously this would let corporate america
substantially influence the outcome of an election just by restricting
communication of the alternatives.  the same holds true for any position
and it's counterpoint.  if google will take paid advertising from
anti-gun groups, but will not take paid advertising from pro gun rights
groups, that's a form of censorship.  they make the same money either
way, owning the media does not give one the right to control advertising
to the extent that opposing views are no longer heard.  put it another
way, suppose at&t cable (which refuses to run paid nra infomercials..)
was run by "pro-life" people (which is somewhat likely), would it be
reasonable for them to take paid advertising or even long infomercials
from the pro-life groups but refuse to air similar advertising from the
pro-choice groups?  is it proper that media giants can stifle criticism
of giant mega corporations, or their control of the air waves,
newspapers, etc.?  i don't think so.

> > this is a crisis in america.  all of the media are filtering not only
> > "news" content, but even advertising, not because it is obscene, but
> > because they don't like that group or think it will upset people!
>
> The crisis is not that some companies actually decide what they put on
> their channel, it's that so many people take most of the "information" that
> leads them through life from advertising and TV.

well, ideally all would be well educated, read the local paper (which
would ideally be local), and perhaps visit other news sites on the web. unfortunately the reality is that many people don't read the paper, many
papers are owned by those same or other corporate giants, that many
people don't have the time to thoroughly research things.  the problem
is that many people are susceptible to advertising regardless of it's
content (which is often the point, most ads don't tell you why their
product is good or better than someone else's, they just show it being
"fun" to clean the floor with thier's).  the problem is that many people
are poorly educated.  many do not have access to alternative online news
sources or don't know they exist (certainly microsoft doesn't point
their isp customers to anti-microsoft content, but do to pro microsoft
content).  many people simply do not have the motivation to look for the
greater truth and hope (perhaps wrongly) or are forced to rely on what
is in advertising, which hopefully has some relationship to the truth
and is hopefully balanced by advertising by those with opposing views,
but it isn't.

yes, free speech means you can say whatever you want, it does not mean
that media providers, who take paid advertising, can refuse to take
advertising they don't agree with or don't think their viewers would
agree with or worse, that they don't think viewers should see, and that
is exactly what is happening.  do you think that ms/nbc would carry
future news relating to microsoft and it's ill deeds or even advertising
about the same?  i think not.  and because most of the super rich know
each other, and many people serve on the boards of many different
companies, there tends to be a consensus about what should and should
not be allowed to be revealed to the public for them to make their own
decision on, and this corrupts the very nature of a free democratic
society.  when information is arbitrarily controlled for political
reasons the public simply can not be informed and can not make their own
decisions, because they've already been sold.

-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\12@081106 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> corporations do not have the same rights as people.  having said that, i
> still agree that google should be allowed to say what they want, but
> advertising is NOT them saying something, it is them allowing someone to
> buy access to others to say what they want.  by not letting people of
> some views have that same access, they are impeding free speech in an
> unreasonable way.

Actually the first amendment *only* applies to the government. Google
is free to pic and choose its advertisers for whatever reasons it wishes.

As far as I know the main ruling about commercial speech is that it must
not be fraudulent.

For examples, the tobaco companies were not gotten because their product
kills people, but rather because they knew it kills people *and* they
advertised it as safe.

{Quote hidden}

If Google refuses an advertiser, than there are *many* other forums.

Google is *not* the governement, and doesn't have to be balanced.

> the opposing view did not exist.  consider the presidential election,
> would it be proper for a company to only carry advertising for
> candidates that they liked and refuse to take paid advertising from
> their opponents?  obviously this would let corporate america

Yes, it is. *If* the companies are not media companies. This is because it
hits on the government.

However, there are all sorts of ways to bypass this. News is almost always
reported with a bias.

> substantially influence the outcome of an election just by restricting
> communication of the alternatives.  the same holds true for any position
> and it's counterpoint.  if google will take paid advertising from
> anti-gun groups, but will not take paid advertising from pro gun rights
> groups, that's a form of censorship.  they make the same money either

No. Only governments can censor. If the pro-gun groups want to advertise,
there are lots of places that will take their money.

> way, owning the media does not give one the right to control advertising
> to the extent that opposing views are no longer heard.  put it another
> way, suppose at&t cable (which refuses to run paid nra infomercials..)
> was run by "pro-life" people (which is somewhat likely), would it be
> reasonable for them to take paid advertising or even long infomercials
> from the pro-life groups but refuse to air similar advertising from the
> pro-choice groups?  is it proper that media giants can stifle criticism

Yes, this is both legal and moral. If I owned a company I would put forth
part of my personal adjenda: I would not allow smoking on company grounds.
On the third offense they would be fired. If a supervisor had three
employees fired in the course of a year, they would be fired. And so on
up the chain.

I admit, this is a highly personal adjenda, but one that I feel I could and
should be allowed to do.

> of giant mega corporations, or their control of the air waves,
> newspapers, etc.?  i don't think so.

Have you *ever* read more than one newspaper? They each slant the news
in their own way.

> well, ideally all would be well educated, read the local paper (which
> would ideally be local), and perhaps visit other news sites on the web.
> unfortunately the reality is that many people don't read the paper, many
> papers are owned by those same or other corporate giants, that many
> people don't have the time to thoroughly research things.  the problem

Yes. And these people deserve the government they get.

> sources or don't know they exist (certainly microsoft doesn't point
> their isp customers to anti-microsoft content, but do to pro microsoft
> content).  many people simply do not have the motivation to look for the
> greater truth and hope (perhaps wrongly) or are forced to rely on what
> is in advertising, which hopefully has some relationship to the truth
> and is hopefully balanced by advertising by those with opposing views,
> but it isn't.

People who get their information through advertising have more problems
than we can solve.

> not be allowed to be revealed to the public for them to make their own
> decision on, and this corrupts the very nature of a free democratic
> society.  when information is arbitrarily controlled for political
> reasons the public simply can not be informed and can not make their own
> decisions, because they've already been sold.

Then the public should attend school.

Strangely enough, the large corporations *want* at least part of the public
to become educated. How else can they get future employees above the level
of ditch-diggers?
--
D. Jay Newman           ! DCX - it takes off and lands base down,
spam_OUTjayTakeThisOuTspamsprucegrove.com     !       as God and Robert Heinlein intended.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\12@111954 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jay replied already, and as far as the general issue is concerned, I agree
with him completely. Follow some additional comments.


> having said that, i still agree that google should be allowed to say what
> they want, but advertising is NOT them saying something, it is them
> allowing someone to buy access to others to say what they want.  by not
> letting people of some views have that same access, they are impeding
> free speech in an unreasonable way.

Take that to the extreme. Every media company has limited ad space, and if
they have enough clients, they need to refuse some of them. According to
your logic, they would not have the right to refuse any. That can't really
be, can it? So they need to have the right to say "no" to a client -- just
as you -- as a contractor -- have the right to say "no" (or charge an
unreasonable high price) to a potential client you don't want.

If every time a company or a contractor refuses a job (or a client, or
publishing an ad) a lawyer could come along screaming "censorship" or
"discrimination", we all would be in deep sh..., ahem, trouble.

Or take the case of a company that comes up at the 700th position on Google
in a certain search relevant to their business, while a competitor comes up
on 5th position in the same search. Let's say the one at the 5th position
is a gun control freak, and actually promotes his view on his company web
site (but it's not related to his business). And let's say that the one on
the 700th position is a "guns for all" promoter, and also publishes his
views on his company web site (also not related to his business, which is
the same as the other one's). Should the one at position 700 be allowed to
require Google to list him next to (not before, not after) his competitor?
That soon becomes really ugly.

Where do you stop with requiring "equal access"? Only with paid
advertising? That's not quite "equal", this again promotes only the views
of the ones with money. So access needs to be free and unlimited to be
really equal -- but one reality of life is that there's no free lunch, and
that /somebody/ has to pay for it. I'd rather have the proponents of
whatever view pay for their publication, and I pay for the publication of
my views, than me (through my taxes) having to pay for the publication of
everybody's views, by some government-set rules.

> it's censorship because for speech to have any meaning it must be
> possible to communicate your views to others.  

You can put up a web site, can't you?

> that means people on both sides of an issue must have equal access to the
> media, ...

I think that's a far stretch. Taken to the extreme, this would mean that
every time I read something in the paper that I don't like, the paper would
be obligated to publish my view of the things -- and this, because I'm poor
and can't afford paid advertising for my views, for free. I can't say I'd
dislike the opportunity, but I'm afraid I wouldn't like the paper anymore
where everybody else has this same right. And I'm quite sure the paper
wouldn't survive a week.

> consider the presidential election, would it be proper for a company to
> only carry advertising for candidates that they liked and refuse to take
> paid advertising from their opponents?  

I think it would be. I think this is the way it should be, and probably
this is more or less how it is. I'm not sure about all the laws involved,
but I don't see that forcing a company to do business one way or another
would be a good thing. If you really want equal access, put up a government
channel (or paper) with clear rules. But even that won't provide equal
access -- there will be rules and restrictions. There always are; things
are not unlimited and free (a requirement for being truly "equal").

> obviously this would let corporate america substantially influence the
> outcome of an election just by restricting communication of the
> alternatives.  

I don't think there's a politically uniform "corporate America" that has an
agenda. There are corporations that want investment in national oil, while
there are others that prefer cheap oil from wherever it comes. And so on.
There's not one "corporate America" agenda. So there's also not one
"corporate America" media. That's always the same: the Democrats bitch that
the media is all corporate owned (and therefore Republican), while the
Republicans bitch that the media guys are all liberal (and therefore
Democrat). Give me a break... it's pretty clear that there is not one
agenda from outside the (media) business that controls the media. The only
agenda they probably all share is striving for high viewer/listener/reader
numbers.

> if google will take paid advertising from anti-gun groups, but will not
> take paid advertising from pro gun rights groups, that's a form of
> censorship.  

No. That's selection of clients. If you turn down a client (as a
contractor), and the client happens to be smoker, would you like a lawyer
to come after you because you turned down a smoker and that's
discrimination? Maybe it's even a policy of yours not to do any business
with smokers because you can't stand the smell. Your business, your right.

I don't see why media companies should be treated differently. Now you may
think that all publication is public and therefore all publication should
be government-regulated. But then you really are better off with
prohibiting all private activity in publication and make it all
government-run. But that also means that private web sites would be
regulated by the government. I think what you want -- more regulation of
the media --, leads to less free speech, not more.

> owning the media does not give one the right to control advertising
> to the extent that opposing views are no longer heard.  

They are heard, but on other channels. No one channel is balanced. You want
balanced information? You need to watch/listen/read different channels, and
most of all, you need to go see for yourself in real life and think for
yourself. And that's even for free.

> suppose at&t cable (which refuses to run paid nra infomercials..)
> was run by "pro-life" people (which is somewhat likely), would it be
> reasonable for them to take paid advertising or even long infomercials
> from the pro-life groups but refuse to air similar advertising from the
> pro-choice groups?  

I think it would be. It simply would show where they stand.

> is it proper that media giants can stifle criticism of giant mega
> corporations, or their control of the air waves, newspapers, etc.?  i
> don't think so.

See, I think the real problem is that there /are/ media giants. This shows
a certain tendency of the majority of viewers to go with the stream and not
with the inconformed. But then, that's what they want, and that's what they
get. For the others, there are enough alternatives -- thanks to free
speech, and that we all are allowed to publish one-sided points of views :)


> well, ideally all would be well educated, read the local paper (which
> would ideally be local), and perhaps visit other news sites on the web.
> unfortunately the reality is that many people don't read the paper, ...

I suppose they don't want to.

> ... many papers are owned by those same or other corporate giants, ...

Many, but not all. There are alternatives.

> ... that many people don't have the time to thoroughly research things.

For those people, "balanced" Google ads wouldn't help a lot either. Since
they don't have the time to research the issues, they won't do so, and the
ads won't have much effect on them.

> the problem is that many people are susceptible to advertising
> regardless of it's content (which is often the point, most ads don't
> tell you why their product is good or better than someone else's, they
> just show it being "fun" to clean the floor with thier's).  the problem
> is that many people are poorly educated.  

Both of these problems don't really have anything to do with the balance of
ads on Google. We all are susceptible to advertising, so we have to
restrict our exposure to the advertising that we like. And if people are
poorly educated, either they should go more to school, or pay more
attention at school, or go to better schools, or have better public schools
-- none of which has much to do with Google.

> many do not have access to alternative online news sources or don't know
> they exist (certainly microsoft doesn't point their isp customers to
> anti-microsoft content, but do to pro microsoft content).

Should Google be required by law to point visitors to competitors
(alternative search engines)? Should I be required -- or you --, to point
people to my (your) competitors on my web site, because they might not have
the time or the qualification to look for them?

> many people simply do not have the motivation to look for the greater
> truth ...

That's their choice -- or better, your opinion of their choice. You
(gladly) don't have the right to force the (your) "truth" on them. Maybe
their "truth" is "greater" than yours and mine combined?

> ... and hope (perhaps wrongly) or are forced to rely on what is in
> advertising, ...

I never knew anybody who was forced to rely on advertising. And I knew (and
know) my share of uneducated and/or poor people.

> .. which hopefully has some relationship to the truth and is hopefully
> balanced by advertising by those with opposing views, but it isn't.

Advertising is by definition not balanced. And there is no guarantee that
for every (unbalanced) ad there are all balancing ads for all possible
other angles of the issue. So advertising as a whole is by definition not
balanced. If balance is your goal, you need to prohibit advertising as a
whole -- and, while we're at it, editorials and books and ...

> yes, free speech means you can say whatever you want, it does not mean
> that media providers, who take paid advertising, can refuse to take
> advertising they don't agree with or don't think their viewers would
> agree with or worse, that they don't think viewers should see, and that
> is exactly what is happening.  

Of course that's happening. This is the other side of the coin "freedom".
You are free to, but also need to, pick and choose.

> there tends to be a consensus about what should and should not be allowed
> to be revealed to the public for them to make their own decision on, and
> this corrupts the very nature of a free democratic society.  

I don't really think there is such a consensus. Different companies stay on
all possible sides of the gun control issue, of the abortion issue, of the
war in Iraq issue, of the next president issue, of pretty much any issue.
(Even the tax-laws-too-complicated issue has different sides -- the
business and tax consultants don't necessarily want it all that simplified
:)

> when information is arbitrarily controlled for political reasons the
> public simply can not be informed and can not make their own decisions,
> because they've already been sold.

Now here I, as part of the public, almost feel insulted :)  Of course we
can never /know/, but that's a different issue (and has recently been
discussed in a different thread -- the one about Russell's universes). But
we can very well get different opinions, and make our own decisions, and
all that for free. It's just a matter of wanting to do so.

There's lots of good and free stuff (information, activities,
opportunities) around. Money rules, but not everything.

Gerhard
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\12@185032 by Jason S

flavicon
face
From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <.....listsKILLspamspam@spam@connectionbrazil.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 5:45 AM

> I'm not sure I understand "free speech" correctly, but doesn't it mean
that
> you and anybody else are free to say what you want -- including legal
> entities like Google? Doesn't the same free speech warrant Google's right
> to sell advertising space to whoever they want (or not sell to whoever
they
> not want)?

Free speech is a part of the constitution, which defines the relationship
between government and population.

All it means is the government can not you from speaking your point of view.
Private companies don't have any legal
obligation to let you advertise with them, they are free to turn down your
money if they don't like your message.  The first amendment prevents the
government from ordering them to turn down your money.

The second ammendment is the right to bear arms.  Does that mean strangers
with assault rifles are allowed to parade through your house?

Jason

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\12@190328 by hilip Stortz

picon face
in strictly legal terms, i agree with you.  however, i still think it's
a bad thing.  there are fewer and fewer channels as mega corporations
grab them up (particularly since the FCC changed their rules, which were
made specifically so that no one company had too much control over the
media in a given area or the country).  however, i think it's a bad
thing for a democracy/representitive country.  voices are being
squelched, and that hurts every one, even those who disagree.  it's good
to know what the other views are and why people hold those views, and
just to know that they do exist and that not every one is onboard with
whatever view the owners like.

the case where they can't run enough ads is not the point, obviously
they can only run so many ads, but that doesn't mean they have to turn
away paying customers when they have the ad space or that they should
insist on only selling it to some people while freezing others out.

most people don't read multiple news papers, most people really don't
have the time even if they wanted to.  for many people, tv and radio is
their window on the world, when that window is consistently tinted
perception becomes tinted as well even in people who might agree with
the unpopular view if only they were made aware of the arguments.

yes, it's perfectly legal, and a fine case where what is legal is not
necessarily right or fair, and fairness and rightness are the whole
point when citizens are to have power over government and industry
rather than it being only the other way around.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
> Jay replied already, and as far as the general issue is concerned, I agree
> with him completely. Follow some additional comments.
>
> > having said that, i still agree that google should be allowed to say what
> > they want, but advertising is NOT them saying something, it is them
> > allowing someone to buy access to others to say what they want.  by not
> > letting people of some views have that same access, they are impeding
> > free speech in an unreasonable way.
---------

-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\12@225853 by Joe Jansen

picon face
Of course, the first ammendment does specifically prevent laws from
being enacted that you seem to suppoort.  Your position seems to be
that free speech should be restricted in favor of supporting unpopular
views, that is, to have the government compel individuals /
corporations to print/publish/say things that they do not believe nor
support.  All in the interest of promoting a viewpoint that 'you'
think is fair.

In other words, government censorship in favor of corporate freedom.

--Joe

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:05:16 -0600, Philip Stortz
<madscientist.at.largespamKILLspamearthlink.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\12@231432 by hilip Stortz

picon face
only if they wish to be shot.  by the way, "assault rifles" are always
select fire or full auto, none of the rifles the anti gun people want to
call "assault rifles" are.  the term assault rifle was first used for
full auto and select fire (burst, 2-3 shots usually) weapons, no
military has ever used the term for semi auto only (which means one
bullet out for each squeeze of the trigger, you have to release the
trigger and pull it again to shoot!).

i'm not media companies have any legal obligation to print ads they
don't like, i'm saying that they have a moral obligation which to me is
more important than legal requirements.  if every one only did what the
law requires and did everything it doesn't prohibit the world would be
pretty terrible pretty quickly.  it wouldn't be a problem if all the
media weren't being bought up by a small group of companies, but that's
what's happening.

Jason S wrote:
-------
>
> The second ammendment is the right to bear arms.  Does that mean strangers
> with assault rifles are allowed to parade through your house?
--------

-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\12@232157 by hilip Stortz

picon face
by the way, i don't think i mentioned the first amendment in my original
post.  i have far too much respect for the constitution to say it
applies where it doesn't'.  however, in a free and open society, i think
"free speech" is a fairly broad requirement and that media companies
have a moral requirement to allow unpopular ads.  i never said they were
breaking any laws, just acting in a way that is detrimental to society.

"D. Jay Newman" wrote:
> ------
>
> Actually the first amendment *only* applies to the government. Google
> is free to pic and choose its advertisers for whatever reasons it wishes.
-------

-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\13@000954 by Peter Johansson

flavicon
face
Philip Stortz writes:

> only if they wish to be shot.  by the way, "assault rifles" are always
> select fire or full auto, none of the rifles the anti gun people want to
> call "assault rifles" are.  the term assault rifle was first used for
> full auto and select fire (burst, 2-3 shots usually) weapons, no
> military has ever used the term for semi auto only (which means one
> bullet out for each squeeze of the trigger, you have to release the
> trigger and pull it again to shoot!).

What Philip is getting at here is that a large number of weapons that
simply *look* like *real* assault rifles have been classified by the
government as "assault weapons" and then banned.  In most cases, these
weapons cannot be made full-auto are (for all intents and purposes) no
more deadly than your average semi-auto carbine.

Furthermore, most studies have shown that semi-auto weapons are
actually *more* deadly than their full-auto counterparts in the hands
of both skilled and unskilled shooters.  An unskilled shooter with a
full-auto weapon winds up putting most rounds into the ceiling.  A
skilled shooter taking the time to aim will do the most damage.

-p.
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\13@004447 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> The second ammendment is the right to bear arms.  Does that mean strangers
> with assault rifles are allowed to parade through your house?

Maybe strangers with no sleeves ?

       RM



_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\13@021509 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> ... a large number of [semi automatic] weapons that
> simply *look* like *real* assault rifles have been classified by the
> government as "assault weapons" and then banned.  
...
> Furthermore, most studies have shown that semi-auto weapons are
> actually *more* deadly than their full-auto counterparts in the hands
> of both skilled and unskilled shooters.

Sounds like the government knows what they are about then, doesn't it? :-)


       RM


[ ... ] = my add in to convey the sense of prior text
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\13@033357 by hilip Stortz

picon face
no, you miss my point entirely!  what i'm saying is they shouldn't be
allowed to reject ads just because they don't like the content.  not
that they should have to print unpopular ads, but rather that they
should print any ad someone is willing to pay for.  of course they
should also print ads that they do happen to like.  i'm talking about
equal access for those who can pay, i'm not talking about forcing
companies to provide free advertising or preventing them from taking
advertising.  the problem is that those who run a company act as if it
were there own property, which is not what corporations are about and
what usually keeps them out of jail when the "corporation" breaks the
law.  i'm talking about the power of big money to squelch views they
don't like by controlling the media and refusing to run ads purely
because they don't like the position involved.  in doing this, these
corporations are taking on the job of a fascist government on their own
warped initiative.  there is nothing in the constitution that would
prevent corporations from being regulated in this way.  in fact, when
they give away air time they are already required to give away air time
to opposing views.  additionally, until recently there was federal law
limiting the number of tv and radio stations any one person or company
could own specifically because of the threat of a small group being able
to control the "news" and advertising.

corporations don't believe in or support anything.  by legal definition
a corporation is a fictitious person.  the people who own and run
companies have beliefs and support or don't support things, and have
been using their power from running these corporations to further their
beliefs while blocking information from those with opposing views who
don't have the same corporate power.

i'm not talking about viewpoints that "i" think are fair, i'm saying
that no one should be deciding what view points get advertised and which
ones don't.  surely you can see that this is essential for an informed
public which is essential to democracy?

in any case, i'll stop debating people who just don't get it because
they just don't want to get it.

Joe Jansen wrote:
>
> Of course, the first ammendment does specifically prevent laws from
> being enacted that you seem to suppoort.  Your position seems to be
> that free speech should be restricted in favor of supporting unpopular
> views, that is, to have the government compel individuals /
> corporations to print/publish/say things that they do not believe nor
> support.  All in the interest of promoting a viewpoint that 'you'
> think is fair.
>
> In other words, government censorship in favor of corporate freedom.
--------

-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\13@050208 by hilip Stortz

picon face
absolutely, the minimal design changes in the "PC" (yes, that's actually
what they call it)  model ar-15 really make a difference in it's killing
power. ;)  not to mention how having to use u.s. made parts affects the
killing power. ;)  particularly the magazines which count as 3 parts....
of course high capacity magazines are still dirt cheap and plentiful,
even u.s. made ones, which count for 3 of your 10 parts that have to be
u.s. made.

Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > ... a large number of [semi automatic] weapons that
> > simply *look* like *real* assault rifles have been classified by the
> > government as "assault weapons" and then banned.
> ...
> > Furthermore, most studies have shown that semi-auto weapons are
> > actually *more* deadly than their full-auto counterparts in the hands
> > of both skilled and unskilled shooters.
>
> Sounds like the government knows what they are about then, doesn't it? :-)
--------

-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\13@051031 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> ... in any case, i'll stop debating people who just don't get it because
> they just don't want to get it.

You'd probably greatly increase (OK - somewhat increase) the likelihood of
people listening to what you say if you didn't add things like that at the
end.

It doesn't add to your argument and may quite reasonably be construed as a
studied personal insult. (it sounds like one to me anyway :-) ). In this
instance I formed the impression that the poster did understand what you
were saying and that you have slightly but critically misconstrued what he
meant. Whether I am right or not is not the point. That it is POSSIBLE to
misconstrue another person's point is the issue. If you have done so and he
hasn't (as may be the case) then your argument about "not getting it" is
completely reversed and others may well be asking whether you "just don't
want to get it". Nobody has so far been so rude in this instance, but it's
wise to not give them the idea :-).

A potentially valuable alternative is to just stop debating people who you
opine "just don't get it because they just don't want to get it" without
announcing the fact. This would have the same result from your point of view
and engender considerably less aggro. (And ultimately thy days may be longer
upon the face of the land).

I may be wrong (as Carl Sagan was wont to say)(although never for a moment
even suspecting that he really might be) but I suspect that failure to heed
the above advice  will lead to an increasingly large number of PICListers
entering your name into their exclude filter. Which would be a shame.



       Russell McMahon





_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\13@074057 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> > > ... a large number of [semi automatic] weapons that
> > > simply *look* like *real* assault rifles have been classified by the
> > > government as "assault weapons" and then banned.
> > ...
> > > Furthermore, most studies have shown that semi-auto weapons are
> > > actually *more* deadly than their full-auto counterparts in the hands
> > > of both skilled and unskilled shooters.
> >
> > Sounds like the government knows what they are about then, doesn't it?
:-)


> absolutely, the minimal design changes ...

It appears that you are purposefully misunderstanding my point, so I won't
comment further :-)


       RM




(Should it not be clear, that's a joke).



_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\13@182853 by hilip Stortz

picon face
you are indeed correct, and i apologize.  the last 2 weeks have been
particularly hellish for me in a number of areas, and the hell continues
to spread to new areas.  given my current state of mind, i can't really
be nearly as objective and coolly logical as i normally am, i'll try and
stay away from "opinions" whether they agree with me or not, the only
way for me to be responsible for my words at this point is to shut my
damn mouth if it's hot at all.  i appreciate your wisdom, you are
definitely a wise person, as am i on better days less strained.  i've
had major problems before, but things are just kind of falling apart all
around me lately, and most of the problems really don't have solutions,
or at least not ones that will make it any easier soon, they'll probably
make it rougher for awhile.  i won't go into specifics, but many
bad/unreasonable things are happening around me and to me, my life, and
the lives of those around me.  it's an ugly time all around for me,
something else bad will happen soon, i can tell by the wave patterns.

for the benefit of those i've already alienated, you could quote me on
this.  i am usually very tolerant of nearly any view, and normally
respect the holder of said view in any case.  i've just been lashing out
in smart ass mode and hadn't even caught myself.

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--------

-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\13@185755 by Jason S

flavicon
face

From: "Philip Stortz" <.....madscientist.at.largeKILLspamspam.....earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 12:35 AM


> no, you miss my point entirely!  what i'm saying is they shouldn't be
> allowed to reject ads just because they don't like the content.  not
> that they should have to print unpopular ads, but rather that they
> should print any ad someone is willing to pay for.

I don't see the distinction you're making here.

Anyway, a corporation is a private entity who's reason to exist is to make
profit for its owners.  If the people who run it feel that running an ad
will be bad for business, why should they be obligated to run it?  What if
terrorists wanted to run "ads" showing them murdering people.  If they're
willing to pay, should NBC be required to air the spots?

Jason




_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\09\13@223729 by hilip Stortz

picon face
to my way of thinking, yes to all.  if terrorist were dumb enough to buy
time on u.s. television to show them being inhuman it would hurt them
greatly and perhaps allow many people to realize just how barbaric
people can be.  sort of like the "open casket" idea at funerals,
apparently/allegedly it helps some people realize the person in the box
actually is dead, it can help to break through denial.  as far as
advertising that would hurt media's popularity, media people aren't
usually very good at figuring that out, and if all media run similar ads
there is nothing to single out one media company.  what i'm saying is
that during the "red scare" of the 50's this type of logic was used to
great determent of companies, individuals, and the audience.  based on
wild claims and the fact that people new each other sponsors were
allowed to demand people be blacklisted.  companies were also black
listed.  every one went around trying not to offend any one and wound up
greatly diluting the talent pool, unfairly punishing companies, and
unreasonably destroying careers.  as you say, corporations exist to make
money, at the very least they should strive to sell advertising,
corporations have no business making moral decisions and little ability
to determine what the people will and will not like, witness the number
of popular shows that get canceled for reasons other than ratings. corporations don't get to have opinions or political views, those who
run them have no right to push their views on others by refusing to air
opposing viewpoints, it's there job to make money, not decide what
people should see and they certainly have no right what so ever to be
donating money to politicians or charities.  it's not appropriate, it's
a corruption of their duties to the share holders.  
clear channel stopped playing the  dixie chics after one of them said
she was ashamed of bush, this wasn't based on the general audiences
wishes, it came down from corporate people who liked bush and didn't
want to help any one who didn't make money, they wanted to punish the
dixie chics for what they said.  in fact most of the audience still
liked the dixie chics but were deprived of the opportunity to hear them
on the radio which cost the dixie chics money and likely reduced the
number of listeners (it also cost their agents, record companies, and
all associated with them, people who weren't remotely involved in one of
the 3 making a candid statement).  it was not a business decision, it
was one group of people forcing their will on the public independent of
what it meant to their bottom line.  the dixie chics were and are one of
the most popular groups in country music circles, the decision was
solely based on the desire to punish the dixie chics and prevent people
from listening to any possible new songs that might echo a similar
attitude towards bush, and to scare other's into not expressing those
views for fear they might lose their lively hood or a portion of it. this kind of thing has a chilling effect on music groups, particularly
those just becoming popular and really need the money.  it legitimizes
this sort of decision and to some extent makes listeners refrain from
saying the same type of thing where they work etc. or being politically
active in a way that some might not approve of.  the media play a very
important/large role in how people view the issues, things like this
distort that view by reducing, sometimes sharply, the ability of the
public to hear and understand the view that management doesn't like. it's un-American and unsound business practice to try and tell the
audience they can't listen to the new album or old stuff that they want
to.  it hurts advertisers as many have already negotiated fees for ads
well into the future with a good faith expectation that the corporate
management won't do things to reduce the size of the audience.

as i said, i'm delighted the skin heads and others have web sites, it
lets people see that these groups are very real and just how these
people think, allowing the individual the opportunity to decide what is
right.  it's not reasonable for those who sell website
space/traffic/servers etc. to refuse to carry certain web sites, it is
there job to sell as much service as they can and maximize profit.  they
actually have a positive incentive to host unpopular websites as they
will see less traffic and require less maintenance and other resources
relative to the fees charged even with different service levels being available.

my point is that this is a form of censorship, it's not just the
government that can practice sensor ship, any one in a position of power
can.  in the case of radio and tv stations they can shape people's views
to some extent and move the collective opinion in the direction they
want to an extent by reducing people exposure to opposing views, and
they can do this even when it hurts business which they certainly have
no right to.

as i said, i once worked in a print shop, i'm delighted that we offered
services to the KKK, yes they are reprehensible, but they have just as
much right to pay their money and get their media as any other customer does.

the stations in question should be obliged to run it because people are
willing to give them money to do so and they are in the business of
taking people's money and running their ads.  even if they are child
molesters which would most likely do harm to those represented in the ad
and by doing so help society.

what if all those who run the discovery channel decide that space
exploration or super coliders aren't worth running and push program
producers not to cover them?

yes, business should be required to provide the services they are in
business to supply at a profit to those who can pay and hence make a
greater profit.  there is never a lack of advertising space for long
even when the number of potential advertisers increase, when there is a
temporary shortage, if it looks like a pattern developing media
companies will raise their rates and starve out the less well funded
advertisers in favor of those who can and will pay more.  that is what a
business is supposed to do rather than refusing paying clients and
costing the corporation and stock holders money.

if the media executives decided that video games cause violence and are
a curse on society do they have the right to refuse to run ads for
playstations as christmas approaches?  from a purely profit motive
standpoint the certainly do not.

sorry, i am being a bit repetitive, but i'm trying to provide several
examples and factors involved.

the problem with censorship is you never know what those with power will
find objectionable next, and as a consequence people self censor
expanding the powerful's power even further, and consistently making
them lose money when as a business it is their job to make money.

what if a local tv executive and his pals over at the other tv, and
radio stations and the local paper decide that nazi's are good?   what
if it's like this for decades?  children would grow up not realizing
that while many that there was another way and other ideas.  these
children later adult citizens having grown up in ignorance will tend to
believe the one true version of the truth they are told without
question, they may even tend to not learn how to question the official
version of things much less why it's important to do so.  that's an
extreme case, but one i suspect most on the list are on the same side of.

yes, it is a slippery slope, and the tilt has been increased recently. while all reporting is biased and that bias is usually different at
different papers a coalition of all of them can form if they take a
common position, which they may easily  do on some issues while not
being together on others.  in such a case, the public is kept ignorant
on the issue that all those in power happen to agree upon, and even if a
few don't agree most people still won't have that information.

i'd love to read newspapers all day, but most people just don't have the
time to seek out those opposing views if they aren't presented in any of
the media channels they commonly use.  very few have the time and other
necessities to go out and do research on the issues and formulate a
decision based on this broad knowledge base.

i may disagree with your opinion, but i will fight to the death to
defend your' right to say it.

Jason S wrote:
> ----------
> I don't see the distinction you're making here.
>
> Anyway, a corporation is a private entity who's reason to exist is to make
> profit for its owners.  If the people who run it feel that running an ad
> will be bad for business, why should they be obligated to run it?  What if
> terrorists wanted to run "ads" showing them murdering people.  If they're
> willing to pay, should NBC be required to air the spots?
----------

-- Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...