🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <44cef413.15418443@news.earthlink.net>,
 hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> There are enough media streams that are polluted with jerks and 
> professional pottie mouths like Howard Stern.

When you say "enough", can you be more specific? How many is "enough"? 
What exactly do you object to? How will  government censorship of 
celebrities, much less veterans, improve the nation or the quality of 
life therein? 

> If they want to run uncensored, let 'em show it after 10 PM.  How 
> hard is that?

Supposing I *want* my kids exposed to these voices and the reality they 
represent? Why should I have to get them up after 10 PM simply to 
satisfy some bluenose?

> This is not a question of absolute censorship, but one of PBS trying 
> to get more market share.

Hogwash, Harry. This action, carried out by the F.C.C., represents 
official codified suppression policies of the United States Government. 
This is the very definition of censorship. In this particular instance, 
the content is of great historical value. Who are any of us to judge the 
value of such programming for anyone else?

> If they were to win a court case, all it would mean is more lowering 
> of the already low standards of television, because the door was 
> re-opened.

Whose standards, Harry? Walt Disney? Your local Concerned Women for 
America? The Conservative Baptist Association? Al Quaida? The American 
Nazi party? Elmer Fudd?

> In this case, I'll say Hooray Bush moralists, just do the same to Ann 
> Cuntter.

See, that's the thing about censorship. It is NEVER, EVER equally 
applied. I would guess that with this particular administration, YOU 
would be gagged and restrained before that harridan. In my view, either 
is equally unjust (although Coulter's suppression is infinitely more 
desirable to me).