|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21611693 - 04/29/15 12:48 AM (9 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Sponsors almost always control content. Content can almost always be deemed political. Sounds like a recipe for corruption and oppression.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,478
Last seen: 2 minutes, 37 seconds
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21611777 - 04/29/15 01:25 AM (9 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Sponsors almost always control content. Content can almost always be deemed political. Sounds like a recipe for corruption and oppression.
Are you telling me that all content on tv is political?
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,478
Last seen: 2 minutes, 37 seconds
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21611789 - 04/29/15 01:29 AM (9 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Its not that difficult to define political content vs nonpolitical content. Political advertising is clearly defined in plenty of other countries, I don't think it is beyond our capability to define what is and isnt political reasonably. Batman cartoons are not political.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21612321 - 04/29/15 07:11 AM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Some batman cartoons are...some aren't. There is a lot of political content in American entertainment. Even kids shows have political references and jokes.
It wouldn't be hard to find political references if one wanted to deem content political.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21612569 - 04/29/15 09:06 AM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Even comedy shows like Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia routinely have episodes centered around political issues like gun control, north korea, firearms on school campus's, etc.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21612974 - 04/29/15 11:18 AM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: So almost everything on sponsored TV is an ad. Sponsors almost always pay to dictate the content.
I find that difficult to believe. Do you seriously think when they're writing an episode of the Simpsons, Coca Cola, General Motors, etc. are all sitting in the production room dictating how the story is going to play out?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21613021 - 04/29/15 11:34 AM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I suppose sponsors should be careful on which things they wish to dictate and which things they do not. If there is a spending limit on paying for political speech, then they are subject to it if they wish to dictate political speech on broadcasting stations.
Exactly. If Coca Cola pays the Simpsons for having Homer Simpson drink a Coke, that spending would be advertising and is ok, but if someone pays them for cracking a Mitt Romney joke, then the Simpsons has to reject it if the payment is over the individual spending limit. Seems simple still.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I suppose sponsors should be careful on which things they wish to dictate and which things they do not. If there is a spending limit on paying for political speech, then they are subject to it if they wish to dictate political speech on broadcasting stations.
Exactly. If Coca Cola pays the Simpsons for having Homer Simpson drink a Coke, that spending would be advertising and is ok, but if someone pays them for cracking a Mitt Romney joke, then the Simpsons has to reject it if the payment is over the individual spending limit. Seems simple still.
you're not even limiting political advertising in this scenario. Just general talk about candidates.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
#21613239 - 04/29/15 12:55 PM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said: you're not even limiting political advertising in this scenario. Just general talk about candidates.
As a clarification - just limiting paid general talk about candidates, if (and only if) the payment is from a single donor and above the individual contribution limit.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
What if i want to hire a stand up comedian to perform at my club/party/appear on letterman/ etc. And they are well known for having a political bent to their work? You are effectively outlawing all George Carlin/Bill Hicks style comedy.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
#21613336 - 04/29/15 01:35 PM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Absolutely not. As already mentioned above, if someone is selling political news, comedy, etc, then it's not an advertisement because that's what people are specifically coming to see.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
and people watch the simpsons for the jokes. Which often times are political. So you're example falls flat.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,478
Last seen: 2 minutes, 37 seconds
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
#21613696 - 04/29/15 03:22 PM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said: and people watch the simpsons for the jokes. Which often times are political. So you're example falls flat.
No it doesn't. That's not the same. These things are produced to earn money. They are not paid for with no intention of monetary gain. It is entirely different. Political ads are paid for for the sole purpose putting them infront of a public who has no intent of viewing them. They are shoved in your face. People intentionally watch the simpsons, George Carlin, and South Park, and the producers of these things make money from them. I would also like to see some evidence that sponsors control a significant portion of content, because I honestly don't believe that to be true.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,478
Last seen: 2 minutes, 37 seconds
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21613707 - 04/29/15 03:25 PM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Furthermore, if they want to label something an 'editorial', they can't place it in the middle of another program, because that makes no sense. You don't watch half an episode of Seinfield, then a full episode of something else, and then the other half of the episode.
These arguments are getting ridiculous.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21613739 - 04/29/15 03:35 PM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Who are you to decide what the viewer intends to see? I know many people, myself included, who only watch the Super Bowl because of the ads.
Quote:
These arguments are getting ridiculous.
we're trying to point out how complex this issue really is. Its not as simple as you and fal would have us believe.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,478
Last seen: 2 minutes, 37 seconds
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
#21614032 - 04/29/15 04:51 PM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said: Who are you to decide what the viewer intends to see? I know many people, myself included, who only watch the Super Bowl because of the ads.
The superbowl is a unique occasion where a few people do that. You're not seriously arguing that most people watch tv shows for the commercials? Even during the Superbowl that argument is absurd.
You're mucking thinfs up with ridiculous arguments, grasping at whatever nonsense you can to 'win' the argument, rather than be right, which I find quite distasteful.
The point is: During the Superbowl, or any other time, people pay to put advertisements infront of the general public. The Superbowl itself is the content that people pay to watch, which is why sponsors pay money to put their advertisements in the middle of the programming that people intend to watch.
People don't sponsor advertisements. They sponsor television programming, in order to be able to put their advertisements in front of people.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
#21614082 - 04/29/15 05:02 PM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said: Who are you to decide what the viewer intends to see? I know many people, myself included, who only watch the Super Bowl because of the ads.
Already addressed above. The test is not whether one specific person wanted to see it, it's whether most people wanted to see it.
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: These arguments are getting ridiculous.
we're trying to point out how complex this issue really is. Its not as simple as you and fal would have us believe.
The funny thing is I expected it to be more complicated, but it's turning out to be a lot easier than I thought.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21614127 - 04/29/15 05:11 PM (9 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: The superbowl is a unique occasion where a few people do that. You're not seriously arguing that most people watch tv shows for the commercials? Even during the Superbowl that argument is absurd.
You're mucking thinfs up with ridiculous arguments, grasping at whatever nonsense you can to 'win' the argument, rather than be right, which I find quite distasteful.
The point is: During the Superbowl, or any other time, people pay to put advertisements infront of the general public. The Superbowl itself is the content that people pay to watch, which is why sponsors pay money to put their advertisements in the middle of the programming that people intend to watch.
People don't sponsor advertisements. They sponsor television programming, in order to be able to put their advertisements in front of people.
Easy peasy.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,478
Last seen: 2 minutes, 37 seconds
|
|
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21616628 - 04/30/15 07:59 AM (9 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: No it doesn't. That's not the same. These things are produced to earn money.
I think you and fal are missing the point. They're produced to make money, but not from viewers. They make money from sponsors. Someone is always paying for the simpsons to air or be produced. That someone always has control over content.
Maybe you and fal don't understand how the business works, but large sponsors routinely get preview copies of scripts and can demand changes. Many times they get preview copies of final cuts as well. I promise you that the simpsons stays clear of anything that is offensive to its sponsors.
Same goes for the NY times. That is how the business has always worked.
If Monsanto becomes a huge sponsor of any show, you can bet your bottom dollar that the show will promote Monsanto within its content as well. That is the reality. If there is a bill that is anti GMO, the show will criticize that bill in some way.
This is how all commercial art works.
I am sincerely trying to help you guys come up with an articulable objective test for what is and isn't political advertising. So far, we haven't even been able to come up with a workable test for advertising that doesn't apply to almost everything.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
|