Post Happy!
Cool. Thanks.
Now, now, David. Do you really want to promote facism in this country?
Because what the anonymous blogger was promoting was facism and the elimination of free speech, not the promotion of free speech.
LOL, read his posts! He believes that there should be no freedom of speech to express any view that is contrary to his own. He believes that he is entitled to gain free access to every bit of software which is developed, every picture painted, every photograph taken, every book written, to use to promote his own views, while trying to thwart others from presenting their views.
He believes he is entitled to the personal property of others. He made the conscious choice NOT to remove the protected material from his site, fully knowing his ISP would close him down in seven days. He WANTED to be closed down or he wouldn't have made this choice...
Now, the guy is whining and crying because the site was closed down and he is using you to promote him. He's a loser. The only thing he was asked was not to use the soundbytes of others. Instead of respecting personal property rights, he chose to have his site closed down.
If you're supporting this guy, you're supporting facism and not supporting free enterprise. If you are supporting him, then you aren't supporting labor unions because they are based upon the premise of free speech...that is something he definitely does NOT respect while he makes his claims as a "progressive Democrat."
So, David.....what is it? Does everyone have the right of free speech? Do people have the right to their own personal property?
Does he have a right to take your family pictures and put them on his website and discuss them negatively? Does he have a right to take your work product and put them on his site and discuss it negatively? Does he have a right to call your boss and insist you get fired because you have your own views which you have publicly expressed?
The great thing about America is we do have free speech. You take that away and we are under a facist government. Is that what you want? It's clearly what he wants.
blogicalthought,
Who do you work for?
Disney, ABC, KSFO?
Are you are friend of Ms. Morgan?
Maybe just an overenthusiastic fan?
I support fascism because I advocate the exposing of just how racist, vile and hateful the on-air personalities of the right-wing are?
Wow. Just Wow.
David...I am simply an internet user who believes in free speech. Its totally amusing that you would immediately presume because one advocates free speech and disagrees with you, that one would have a special relationship to individuals in the issue. Its kind of like talking about Bush or Pelosi and immediately assuming a person has a personal relationship with them because of the mere fact of public discourse. That kind of discourse is nonproductive and with your response, one has to wonder if you really care what others are thinking.
As I wrote above, you are entitled to express your opinion...everyone is...we live in a country of free speech...but the issue isn't you, the issue is the anonymous blogger who stole copywritten material and placed it into public domain, as well as who tried to stop the free speech of others because he didn't agree with their views. And the question was about your support of the illegal and unethical actions he has taken. His actions are far from those of the more ethical bloggers on the internet.
I don't think my comments were out of line for those who are interested in online journalism and blogging. Afterall, it is intended as an exchange of ideas and thoughts.
What I am trying to do is have a conversation with you, about your opinions on free speech...I asked specific questions to get your feelings on the matter and for some reason, you were reluctant to discuss your feelings and took it as a personal attack.
I see the actions of the anonymous blogger to be facist tactics which are often used in extremist regiemes, such as in Iran, many African countries and which existed in Stalinistic Russia, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Free speech was not appreciated and not allowed in those countries, as well as in many countries today.
However, it is the basis of a free society and was carefully crafted by the founding fathers of our country to insure each and every voice and each and every opinion could be heard. Even yours, LOL!
My questions to you were:
Does everyone have the right of free speech? Do people have the right to their own personal property?
Does he have a right to take your family pictures and put them on his website and discuss them negatively? Does he have a right to take your work product and put them on his site and discuss it negatively? Does he have a right to call your boss and insist you get fired because you have your own views which you have publicly expressed?
How do you feel about the freedoms of Americans? How do you feel about open and honest discourse of opinion? Do you feel there is more productivity with open discourse or do you prefer propoganda? I mean, anyone can talk and spiel propoganda, but it does take a bit to think logically.
Do you believe the rights of others should be respected?
These questions are and were asked with sincerity and a desire of honestly wanting to know your answers to them.
First off, if you refuse to accept the airwaves as public property, and the federal government grants a license to use those airwaves, then your thesis that using the words of Melanie Morgan in a manner consistent with Copyright Fair Use restrictions is the equivalent your example, then we don't really have any further to talk about.
The airwaves are owned by the public, and use of said airwaves are a privilege granted to the license holders, on behalf of the public.
But nonetheless, Spocko did use, with Fair Use guidelines, the publicly broadcasted words of Melanie Morgan.
Additionally, Spocko was doing nothing to "shut her down". He was advocating contacting advertisers and asking them if the wanted to be associated with people who advocate the things that Spocko highlighted, which anyone listening to her program, would have been able to glean.
Those advertisers who decided that they didn't wish to be connected to that hate, wisely pulled their advertising.
What ABC/Disney is attempting to pursue, is eliminate the ability of an individual to voice their opinion, that the opinion espoused by the employee of ABC/Disney is, in fact vile.
What is a restriction on free speech, is ABC/Disney trying to stifle dissent.
If you take the position that one should respect the opinion of others, then taking the position that what Spocko is doing is "Fascist", is not respecting the opinons of others.
However, your understanding of "Fascist" is so far off as to be comical.
¡Bravo Davido!
Thees exchange, she should be a post at OBI.
Por favor, write eet eento a post here, so we can leenk to eet there.
Or email me.
so.
David, you may wish to review copywrite law. By your analogy, you are stating that the music bytes on air waves are public domain, but the fact remains, they simply are not. You are stating that movies are public domain, but they are not. One cannot record copywritten material. Haven't you read the little FBI notices on the movies you rent? LOL!
Just because someone has a license to operate on the air waves does not make the content public domain....you are just too funny.
Actually, this entire scenario is absolutely hilarious... and ripe for a sitcom.
You've got some guy who thinks he is a vulcan, who posts under a fictional screen name and who has demonstrated an obsession for what appears to be a very attractive talk show host.
He is so obsessed, he unlawfully records all her sound bytes and is so into his character and alter ego, he writes online (just yesterday) that he threatened to defame someone who said "something bad about his screen name."
Apparently, he feels rebuffed by her and it has affected him to the point that he feeds his obsession by his continual posting on his website in an attempt to garner her attention.
The misinterpretation of her statements and his outlandish accusations are simply priceless. The poor guy isn't even bright enough to understand there many definitions of some words as he appears to operate within a single obssessive focused axis.
Actually, he may be a woman, so I should probably preface my statements with "he/she is"
Nonetheless, he/she takes the protected property and places it into public domain and would rather give up his/her website than his/her soundbytes...
A screenwriter couldn't dream of material like this...pretty funny stuff, though if I were the broadcaster I might be scared of him and his obsession. Shades of Fatal Attraction, you know?
Funnier yet, are the bloggers who are "jumping to his/her defense" after he/she refuses to give up his/her sound bytes and loses his/her website.
What do you want to bet he/she has posters of her hanging on his walls, huh?
Don't you guys have something better to write about than play into this drama? Funnier yet, is most of you write political blogs....God help our country. You are just too funny.
Oh, by the way....I'd die for a job at Disney or CBS, but unfortunately, due to my rural suburban lifestyle and the demands of my family and my animals, the commute is simply way too far for me and I am not into a six or seven hour daily commute. Further, I have no desire to live or even venture into an urban environment these days.
Can't you think of any argument or debate to my statements, other than the standard, "Ah, she must work for Disney?"
By the way, you haven't answered the questions about free speech or private property...there must be a reason you are ducking them...
Could it just be that you really don't agree with what this crazy person is doing?
Have a very nice day,
A couple of points.
First: The use of portions of audio broadcasts from the radio are covered under fair use guidelines. Explain how CNN, Fox, Rush Limbaugh, etc. have not been sued into non-existence for their use of snippets of broadcasted material? Like Spocko, they give credit to the creator, and do not claim it as their own, and use only a limited segment.
Much like Spocko.
Next: I know who Spocko is, and your attempted belittling of the supposedly unknown gender of this person is petty, stupid and childish (at best).
Third: Don't you guys have something better to write about than play into this drama? Funnier yet, is most of you write political blogs....God help our country. You are just too funny.
Jebus help our country if we allow corporations to get away with this type of action.
Fourth: Rural? I have your IP address and know exactly where you post from. Yes, I know you have gone through great lengths to hide your IP, but I still have it, and I have traced it. So you being an employee of KSFO is certainly not out of the question, and since KSFO is a part of the ABC radio network, owned by Disney? You prove to me you aren't.
Fifth: Your free speech argument is pointless. You are arguing that it is a violation of the first amendment when a citizen takes action by encouraging people to act against something they find offensive.
How about you define how people writing to Melanie Morgan's advertisers and highlighting her own words, while asking if they want to be associated with them, is a suppression of free speech.
We need to set the limits of that debate before taking it any further. Because what you appear to be advocating is suppression of free speech, and the First Amendment.
Commenting by HaloScan
