Kathy Griffin's Emmy Remarks to Be Censored because?
By John Amato Tuesday Sep 11, 2007 10:01am
Remember her Coulter rant?
She had the nerve not to thank Jesus and make a joke.
"Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast on Saturday night," the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences said in a statement Monday. In her speech, Griffin said that "a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus."
She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, "This award is my god now!" The off-color remark was to say, "Suck it, Jesus."
I happen to like Jesus and His teachings a great deal, but this is ridiculous. This is America and we have a Constitution---or so I thought. And she has the same free speech rights that the odious and violent Bill Donohue has. I haven't seen him censored. (scroll down to see some of his antics)
Login or Register to post comments.
Who's Kathy Griffin?
Yet another shining example of our new-fangled United Police State of America in action!
Holy Crap, Batman! They are actually calling this blasphemy! Er, isn't it the 21st century or something?...I mean, who gives a shit, really?
I hate this kind of censorship. EVERYONE knows who she is, including poster #1... if you know she'll be speaking, and you don't like her, why not turn the channel? There are a few Catholic channels, some other christian channels... lots to choose from. Some of us DO want filth, we DO want meanness... we DO want hate. And there is a market for that... Don't deprive us of what we might want to hear. I like Kathy Griffin.
I'd like to hear what baby Jesus has to say about this.
No irreverence allowed?
Bill Donahue is now in charge of what we get to see?
This is bullshit.
Bill Donahue is an asshole which people in entertainment should be ridiculing, not kowtowing to.
Even if Kathy had joined the Gingrich revolution or funded Ken Starr's professorial chair at Pepperdine, after her star turn in Shakes the Clown, I would still lay down in a gutter so she could walk across my back.
Maybe if she had held up a figereen of a dinasour and said something like.." I received
this at the Creation Museum where man and the dinasours co-existed and survived on
Noah's Ark only 6,000 years ago", her statment would not have been censored.
"What' she doing wearing a coctail dress first thing in the morning any way? Did she just get back from the party?" very funny line, but what got them angry was when she asked if they ever fact-checked anything she says. Kathy Griffin is totally cool
boozemop @ 5:
Are you talking about the newly born 8lb baby Jesus? Please be more specific!
Whenever I see someone who survived a plane crash say God spared them I have to wonder what he had against the poor bastards that died?
This is not offensive speech despite the fact that Griffin is often offensive, not funny and unnecessarily mean.
Do these people think Jesus picks TV award winners? Does he dislike the 4 out of 5 losers? This is bizarre.
Speaking of it haven't heard much from Ann Coulter for a while.
She hanging out with Bin Laden or something?
Kathy rocks. These networks need to stop trying to pander to Donohue. The daddy party's culture war never stops
lvogt @ 11:
Maybe "HE" cherry picks data...you know, like Gen. P. when giving his report to the
U.S. Congress.
Will the reich-wingers be outraged over this censorship, because we ALL know they would be if they censored "suck it, Muhammad"?
Um, holy not-a-big-deal batman. A company made a business decision as to what to broadcast on their paid-for airwaves. Are they stupid? Sure. But this does not count as a free speech violation. It's a television channel choosing what to show.
I think I'll go buy a Baby Jesus Buttplug, just to celebrate Kathy Griffin.
lvogt @ 11:
Or when athletes thank God after they win a championship....because, we all know, God only likes the winner.
Welcome to the NEW America. Where you must suck up to the Christianist right...or be censored.
Part of the right to free speech is the right of private parties to regulate speech on their private propery. E! can broadcast whatever it wants to. By forcing them to broadcast certain parts you are forcing them to use their private property to spread speech that they do not want to. Doesn't this violate their right to free speech?
I read somewhere else that she is quoted as saying, "fuck you, Jesus" Is this not true? Are all her remarks censored? Are they bleeping something out or simply not showing her acceptance?
Josh @ 16:
Yes, in this context, that IS censorship.
But the network has the right not to air what she says. That's not violating her speech rights. She can say it all she wants. Remember, the first amendment applies TO THE GOVT'S ATTEMPTS TO STOP SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It does not apply to private individual's or corporations. I can kick someone off my front lawn if they set up a podium and don;t like what they are saying.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is just plain stupid. Who cares what she says. She is a very funny, and a bit over-the-top comic. If you don't like it, don't listen. My point is that every time a non-governmental entity engages in some level of censorship that folks here don't like, people get all fired up and start ranting about free speech, the Constituion and the 1st amendment when they DO NOT APPLY TO THIS SORT OF SITUATION!!!!
Are you kidding? Why should a cable station be forced to run her commentary? They are a business -- if they do not think running part of her acceptance speech will help them increase viewers and generate ad revenue, then why should they run it? Would you call it a violation of her free speech, if they had cut somebody else's long, boring acceptance speech?
Besides -- who cares about what Griffin thinks?
Josh @ 16:
Well, this is a symptom of a much bigger problem: We've lost our rights!
There's no way around it, we are now living in a police state, where the government can and WILL break your body and take your freedom if you speak up against them.
What would Jesus do?
I'm only asking.
Josh @ 16:
The "airwaves" are intended to be used for the public benefit. The "company" is granted permission for this purpose. How does censoring her comments benefit the public?
Dr. Matt @ 22:
I didn't say it wasn't censorship. Not all censorship is a Free Speech violation.
Good for Kathy! Freedom of speech... No problem. She's censored; I don't watch the Emmys. There. If enough people refused to watch the show, perhaps those in power to censor others would understand that it's not profitable.
Check this out... http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091207M.shtml Wonderful perspective on the situation in the U.S. made easy.
Does it take Kathy Griffin to show people how fucking stupid they are? What happened to our country?
The young woman who got kicked off "Big Brother" last night thanked her god for losing.
Dr. Matt @ 22:
Actually, it is the sponsors/advertisers who make such decisions....and it is most
definitely censorship.
Peoples Front of Judea @ 27:
Shouldn't have said airwaves, as it is cable anyway. If it was broadcast, your argument would hold more water. Less so here. This IS censorship, but not a free speech violation. There are real free-speech problems in this country. This is not one.
Doggiebobo @ 32:
Who said it wasn't censorship? It's just not a free speech violation.
People watch the Emmy Awards?
Ok, technically, maybe you're right, but it's still not cool. I guess we all know to steer clear of E! then, right?
Hooray for Kathy Griffin! May we all make the religious just a little less comfortable today.
Indigowatcher @ 36:
I agree with you there.
Patthemokey @ 35:
Best post yet!
You're right and you're wrong.
She does have the right to free speech just like everyone else. And no one can take that from her. She is free to wish as she says. (Personally, I don't find her words offensive. I just don't think she's funny).
But, the broadcaster, and the show's producers also have rights. It's their PRODUCT. They are producing something for mass consumption. They have the right to decide what is good business and what is bad business. It's the same thing as paying an actress, and editing out certain scenes before releasing the final product. That's what happened here. They paid her to be part of their show (by providing an "award"), and she provided work for them. They decided that the quality of her work is not what they liked, so they have decided to leave it out of the final product. That is just plain old capitalism at work.
This is not a case of government sponsored censorship (at least, not based on the information available to me). If this was the FCC mandating that her comments be censored, I'd be in 100% agreement with you; it would be an outrage.
But this is nothing other than the producer/broadcaster having the final say as the employers.
E!'s decision to shut down Griffin isn't an affront to our Constitution; it's just corporate risk-management by a bunch of suits. They don't want to deal with all the loonies who would come out of the woodwork demanding boycotts if her joke went on the air. It's a smaller pain in the ass to deal with this than it would be to deal with the religious kooks who would call for heads on pikes. After all, E! is just a division of Comcast.
And Griffin's rights aren't being abridged; she can still say anything she wants. But freedom of speech doesn't mean the right to be broadcast.
Having said that, I thought the joke was pretty funny. I hate it when people thank God in their acceptance speeches. What...God hates the people who didn't win?
Patthemokey @ 35:
When not watching Faux Noise, O'Liely, Hannity & Colmes, HardBall, Joe Scrabrough,
Gibson, Brit Hummmm....so that is the group who watches the Emmy's.
My previous should read "she is free to say as she wishes", not "she is free to wish as she says" :-)
That's awesome. I've been waiting for someone to actually credit THEMSELVES when they win an award, not some imaginary thing that had nothing to do with it. Good for her!
This isn't a free speech issue. It is censorship, but not the kind of censorship contemplated by the 1st amendment, as there is no government action here. Television programs edit for content all the time; just because the decision might be stupid, doesn't make it a free speech issue. The Emmys are under no obligation to broadcast her remarks or anyone else's. This is a private organization making a business decision. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
Mike K @ 40:
Presactly what I would have said, if I wasn't lazy.
Welcome to AmerIraq or AmerAfganistan or AmerIran. However you spell it, it's religious extremism at its best.
"This is America and we have a Constitution—or so I thought."
Geesh! Do we have to go throught this yet again?!
Yes, we have a Constitution. And the Constitution says that GOVERNMENT cannot censor speech, it does not say that PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS cannot censor speech.
Personally, I think taking that line out of the show is ridiculous. But please do not try to make every act of censorship a first amendment issue.
...and the right wingnuts have the balls to wag their fingers :-) at Sharia.
oh well.
Eric Jaffa @ 6:
Donohue is an obnoxious moron who should never be put on cable TV again. Of course, the reason they put him on is that he's obnoxious and he's got a chip on his shoulder the size of Caleefornia...
"I happen to like Jesus and His teachings a great deal"
You might want to reconsider this position.
I'm Christian, and I thought it was hilarious. All this thanking god and jesus is just false humility and hilariously, they're making it worse for the people who lose the award because the implication is that the divine power was *against* them winning. If she had left out the "suck it" comment, would it have gone through. Maybe she should have stopped there.
You see son... when a cult has political power they're more equal than everyone else.
Totally unfair. Did E! even stop to think about all those who've laid down their lives defending this sitcom star's right to tell Jesus to suck on her Emmy?
Who's Jesus?
Oh, you mean that barefooted hippy in the sky who goes *poof* and things appear?
You like THOSE teachings?
Give me a break.
wait a sec here.
how can we be for msnbc not showing the freedom's watch ads, but against the entertainment network not showing this?
this surely is a free speech issue, but not about kathy griffin. the networks' also have speech rights and if they choose not to show and advertisement or comments made by an actor at an awards ceremony, that's their choice. it's them exercising their own speech rights.
i applaud kathy griffin for exercising her right to say what she feels, but e! doesn't have to show this if they don't want. free speech works both ways. if kathy griffin wants to make "off-color remarks" about anything, she can start her own podcast and do so without the fear of anyone censoring her.
E! was perfectly within their rights to censor a comment they perceived to be offensive. I'd have to hear the actual, unedited tape, but there could be a genuine concern that, 'suck it, Jesus' could be misheard as, 'f---in' Jesus'
Regardless, you gotta love Bill Donohue raving about it being 'hate speech'. He ought to know.
Btw, I do find it somewhat ironic that the host of the site complains about censorship and yet has this in the site's commenting policy:
"C&Lis a personal site. It is not the Government. It is not public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors’ point of view. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author’s ISP."
So, Mr. Amato, why do you believe that E! (and whoever E!'s parent company is) should not exercise the same power that you reserve for yourself?
I usually find her incredibly annoying but this is rich
This isn't a Constitutional issue or government censorship.
But it is a free speech issue and censorship by a business.
If their goal were to make the broadcast as interesting as possible, then they would make sure to include the most controversial remarks.
The people editing the Emmy Award Show aren't editing out her remarks because they don't meet their quality standards. They're doing it to avoid offending religous zealots.
debaser71 @ 51:
Actually, a portion of her statment was, again, censored...What she said was:
"I happen to like Jesus and his teaching us a great deal of bullshit"...
Who gives a shit what Donohue says? He can suck His, too.
I guess Donohue has never seen any of Sarah Silverman's skits. That fuck would blow his top off.
My awards acceptance speech:
And most of all I'd like to thank God and Jesus...for liking me so much more than the rest of you losers who didn't win!!!
Once again, the rights of the Atheist stomped on.
Besides, no one can take a joke.
If a person wants to promote their icons, then that is their business. It's not anyone's right to paint red all over everyone else's beliefs however.
Crooks and Liars works hard to not allow flamewars to break out and the sitemonitors usually stamp them out in short order when they do.
I don't see a huge difference in sensibilities here, quite frankly. Erect me if I'm wrong.
Swashbuckler @ 58:
my thoughts exactly. how can you find fault with e! if you exercise the same policy?
Awwww ... Did mean old Kathy hurt the feeling of the fairy-tale believers? Next thing she'll be saying is there is no Santa, no Easter bunny, no tooth fairy.
We have done exactly like osama wants, we have now become censured like the world of islam.
Kathy..get your Burka
Amerka, grab you korans.
The rest of us have to go along with the delusional or get punished by bushs' religious right gestapo.
Swashbuckler @ 58:
Fair point.
Eric Jaffa @ 60:
Censorship by a business and free speech issues are mutually exclusive. Free Speech is a right that can not be abridged by the Government. Business can do whatever they want.
hello -
The purpose of an awards show is the acceptance speeches.
Flame wars between commenters isn't the purpose of most blogs.
George Carlin, Your next! How dare you make jokes about Jesus!
It always bothers me when people thank Jesus or God because they won an award or even survived a disaster. That implies that either Jesus or God are making choices in those situations. If one person survives a mining disaster where ten others died, are the families of those to died to believe that God allowed their loved ones to die. Every time someone thanks Jesus for their good fortune it's like their saying "look everybody, God chose me." It's really a slap in the face to the less fortunate.
I agree with those who say this is not censorship. It's not the news, it's entertainment... It's just editing. Perfectly within their rights but it points out the strangeness of religious sensitivity in this case.
Dr. Matt @ 18:
Yeah...I want to see a losing team thank God for all he has given them.
I mean losing will build character and create compassion in the heart.
Thank you God for all of the hard lessons I have had to learn.
hello @ 65:
well, as for as the constitution goes, sure it's everyone's right to "paint red all over everyone else's beliefs" (which isn't what griffin did, unless you think everyone else in america is christian). that's what free speech is. but e! isn't a government entity, it's a for-profit television network. they have every right to decide her comments aren't appropriate for their network. just as mr. amato (or more likely the site monitor) has the right to decide comments here aren't appropriate for this website.
Kathy Griffin wins an Emmy ..... yaaaawwwn .
Kathy Griffin tells Jesus to suck it ....... megapublicity .
You do the math .
I reject making public cracks about Jesus until Gentiles can make public cracks about Jewish religious leaders.
I thank Jesus for Kathy Griffin....Really I honestly do.
You're right about the free speech.
Her comments should have been alowed.
This is America
and free speech is what help make this country great !
I'm no longer angry or upset
about what folks say on TV
about Jesus or God or religion that is negative.
Just bored. Yawn !
I'd rather be the only Christian living with atheist
then living with Christians who would eliminate free speech...or atheist or Jews or Muslims etc. who would do the same.
Swashbuckler @ 58:
Exactly. She can find places to say suck it Jesus, and some media outlets won't let anything go.
I think the hipocracy bells should be ringing at C and L right now
Josh -
Free speech is a big issue. When a company decides not to broadcast something to avoid giving offense, that is part of it. Their decision may be right or wrong, but the speaker who isn't heard still has less free speech.
Free speech isn't only a legal issue.
Eric Jaffa @ 81:
OF COURSE free speech is a big issue. As many of us have said, this has NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO to do with free speech.
Granted, this is a business and not a government supported agency, but is it realistic for a business to be able to supercede the Constitution of the United States?
Where is it written that a business can act as a hostile sovereign nation within the boundaries of the USA? Where is the Constitutional Amendment that states that government shall not pass a law infringing upon an organization's right to do business?
That being said, God makes pedophiles in his own image.
Magical thinking FUCKING SUCKS. No matter how you try to slice it. (Mixed metaphor alert!)
lonesomerobot @ 75:
That's what I actually meant. Thanks for clarifying ;-)
Carl @ 78:
Good comment, I would be more succinct and say:
"I'd rather be the only christian living amongst atheist,
than the only atheist living amongst christians"
Here's Jesus's reaction to her comment:
http://uberkuul.files.wordpress.com/2006/06/buddy%20christ%20from%20dogm...
He's tired of thuggish gangsta rappers, impact addled athletes, and airheaded hoochies thanking him for every award anywho.
Zenrage @ 83:
The business isn't superseding the Constitution. Read the first amendment. Right Here:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Constitution says exactly what the Congress can not do. It doesn't say anything about private citizens. Nothing about business. Seriously, understand the Constitution before you go spouting on what it does, or does not, say
Josh -
In the 1950s, the writers of "I Love Lucy" weren't allowed by the network censors to refer to her character as "pregnant." Instead, they had to call her "expecting."
Does that have anything to do with free speech?
Josh @ 81:
First the FCC wants to censor nipples and loudmouthed announcers (liberals but not conservatives?), than it was to censor speech and religious views too.
Pr?s?d?nt-B?sh @ 85:
meaning that the christians would be crueler to an atheist than verse visa
iraqconcilable @ 76:
lol, yup. If anyone watches her show, they are playing right into her hands. Can't wait to see next season's show. She's loving it.
Kathy Griffin has gone to Iraq and/or Afghanistan to entertain the troops. What has Bill Donohue ever done but run off at the mouth?
Eric Jaffa @ 88:
Was it a government censor? If so yes.
If the corporate network censors (was it NBC, I forget) made the decision, then no, it doesn't. The business made a decision (albeit silly). Lucille Ball could have run around everywhere and screamed "I'm pregnant" even though the network prevented it on the show. No one's free speech rights were infringed.
From the annals of officially sanctioned religious hate speech:
"From the October 4, 2004, edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity and Colmes:
ALAN COLMES (co-host): Would you like to convert these people [Muslims] all to Christianity?
COULTER: The ones that we haven't killed, yes.
COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?
COULTER: That would be a good start, yes."
Media Matters, Feb. 5, 2005:
- http://mediamatters.org/items/200502030008
ysbaddaden @ 89:
But this wasn't the government. This was a corporate entity. If it WAS the FCC, i'd agree with the Free Speech argument.
I'm sure the nuts over at LittleGreenNoballs, who are always seething about censorship to avoid offending Muslims, will be equally outraged about this.
Josh -
Let's assume the free speech "rights" of the writers of "I Love Lucy" weren't infringed by their having to use the word "expecting" instead of "pregnant." The writers never had the right to a broadcast of whatever script they wanted.
Their free speech was still affected.
What networks choose to show the public-when making correct or incorrect decisions-is a free seech issue.
Christians, christians... Aren't they the guys who follow the "turn the other cheek" ideology? You know, those without sin casting the first stone. If Christians are really that humourless, then I think they've lost the plot of their religion.
Eric Jaffa @ 99:
Sorry. The law disagrees with you. They could have sent the script to the New York times if they wanted to. They could have gotten their word out about it. The Constitution strictly refers to the government.
Josh @ 97:
But it is a violation of civil rights which are enforceable against corporations.
Unless they're was a contractural statement to the effect that they could edit content a civil suit may be possible.
Josh @ 100:
To make this more clear, the law says you have the right to say,write, or express yourself however you like. Corporations have no obligation to publish your speech or get you an audience. Publication and an audience is not an inalienable right.
ysbaddaden @ 101:
Um, no it isn't. You have no civil right of publication. Sorry.
The I Love Lucy writers were employed by the Network, and like any employees had to tailor their work accordingly. Especially since the Network was under the purview of the FCC
Pay Purview.
The most hated religion = Atheism
Eric Jaffa @ 6:
I'd like to know who the fuck Bill Donahue is and how he managed, seemingly overnight, to become the official spokecretin for Catholics everywhere.
Annoyed Canuck @ 95:
I'm betting Jesus does not like Ann Coulter one tiny bit.
And you just know that all those people who were so eager to see Mohammed mocked in Danish cartoons will also stand up for Kathy's right to free speech as well. Cause we all know that consistency is their strong suite.
ysbaddaden @ 102:
And you don't think that the network puts edit rights in every contract? If they didn't, you'd be right, but I'd be shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that they didn't have the contractual rights to do so.
While I’m a devout Christian, this gives support to the Muslims who protested political cartoons mocking Mohamed. They claimed the cartoons were blasphemy and here this is called the same thing in the United States in the 21st Century. Also the expression “suck it” isn’t referring *here* to something that Idaho Senators and Florida state representatives do in men’s rooms, but rather the alternative meaning, “you lose—take that.” I can see this being used by Muslims in the future as evidence that the West censors comments mocking Jesus (whom Muslims believe is a prophet of God, by the way, just not the last one), but not bothering to censor depictions mocking Mohamed. And I’ve have to say they have a valid point.
You have the constitutional right of speech, and the constitutional right not to speak (Barnett v Florida), and once they signed any contract allowing this commediane onto the show, they cannot and should not alter that agreement unilaterally.
[deleted - caps.]
SUCK IT JESUS! lawl! You go girl!
The law is only one aspect of society.
Something can be Free Speech issue when it isn't a legal issue.
The censorship of Kathy Griffin for being irreverent is an example.
Eric Jaffa @ 98:
i think you're missing the point here. there are two sets of free speech rights involved- the network's and kathy griffin's. kathy griffin can say whatever she wants, on her own dime. but she's saying it on someone else's dime. and they have the right to say no to that.
your right of free speech goes only as far as it infringes upon someone else's right to ensure that they aren't being misrepresented by what you say on their dime. that's THEIR right of free speech. in this case, e! has every right to exercise their own free speech and not allow what griffin said to appear on THEIR network.
it would be the same if someone planted an "i hate jesus" sign in your yard. you have every right to take it down and i'm sure you wouldn't feel like you were infringing someone else's free speech rights. let them plant the sign in their own yard.
ysbaddaden @ 113:
Have you seen the contract? Do you know that the contract does not include a clause allowing the network to edit her commentary as they see fit? Re-read the first amendment. This has nothing to do with the government.
I guess I don't see the problem. If E! is tax-payer subsidized then that's one thing. This site engages in a lot of so-called "censorship" because it's a privately owned site and the owner has the right to decide what's appropriate and what's not. E! has the same right, no?
Can anyone here tell me that the company they own or work for can let anything go and you'll agree with it? If you're an underpaid mechanic working for some car dealership would it be ok with you if somebody came in and began preaching whatever fruit-basket nonsense they preach? Or would you agree that he should be "censored" and removed the premises?
Oh wait... there's a big difference. You're stuck there because you have to make a living but I can change the channel, right? I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about my company and I have every right to choose what my company represents which means if you want to preach values that aren't in line with my company I have every right to censor you.
XuYu @ 114:
lol
anyway, y'all should check kathy's official message board. Tons of people registering to tell the board that they are no longer fans and to tell eveyrone about JESUS!!
The overall issue to me is the increasing talibanization of America. Of course the network can censor what they want to without violating any laws, that is not the point. The bigger point is that they felt that they needed to do it. There are countries where music shops are burned down because the music offends a religious minority. There are no laws against selling records, but after a few shops are burned down, music shops become hard to find.
I also noticed a big flap a few days ago about a Disney star whose nude photos appeared on the web. She apologized for ever having nude photos taken. Now I haven't seen these photos (despite trying very hard to find them :) ) but nothing indicates that there was anything that she should have apologized for. Should women apologize for having bodies? My mom worked as an artist's model in College (G.I. bill era) and later had a long career as a teacher. The sad thing is that nowdays there are some people who would have a problem with that.
I think most of these controversies are manufactured in order to distract the sheep from our real problems.
Eric Jaffa @ 116:
Um. No. "Free Speech" in capitals is a LEGAL construct, laid out in the constitution. The idea of "free speech" (lowercase) is completely different. Your right to "Free Speech" is a protection against the government. Your right to "free speech" is not immune to censoring by those who do not choose to publish your speech or give you an audience, even if they are stupid for it. This is really really simple
lol...it's funny how ppl think jesus existed at one point. he never did and you can't prove it anymore than you can prove hercules existed. it's fine to believe it, but don't go around acting like it's real...it's lame.
I am a Christian, and I wanted to be open about that so I wont be perceived as some closet conservative or something... but isn't this whole story just another casualty of the "Too Much Information" age? Years ago, I'm not so sure the same things were not being said in these award shows and wherever else, its just that now you can go on the internet and find anything that ANYONE had to say about anything. We didn't know about them because--and I'm guessing-- they were edited out of the show, like Kathy Griffin!! And I don't believe that is censureship in its natural form. I don't think there's anything wrong with knowing your audience. And if E! believes their audience to be a bunch of Bible-believing Christians, they're not going to put something on that's gonna cause more controversy than necessary. Think of how much this would've blown up if that crazy guy from the Catholic League was doing his rounds all over the media to complain and spew hate for what she said. I understand that many people calling themselves Christians have committed and self-pardoned many of their own heinous acts, but why can't we be thought of just like any culture, racial or ethnic group, to whom we usually give great sensitivity to not insult or attack without merit. Though my view may be seen as a bit biased, I totally base it on the fact that I'm an American, and not that I'm a Christian.
Josh @ 104:
That would be true if they refused her appearance on the show at the outset, but once on the show she has the right to represent her own view and no one else like paid writers. She should at least be given the option of having her whole segment removed, with pay, and scheduling be damned.
#123 - I'm pretty sure Jesus existed. And it seems even though he was a deluded whacko that would be prescribed heavy meds in today's world, at least he seemed pretty tolerant and thoughtful though you wouldn't know it from those who claim to follow him.
ysbaddaden @ 113:
Contract? She won an award; she wasn't hired to entertain. There was no contract.
George @ 121:
YEP. We have to confront the American rightwing Taleban every time they issue a Fatwah, just as they did with Kathy Griffin. Everyone knows the American rightwing Taleban confront the people they disagree with at every chance they get.
ysbaddaden @ 125:
Sure, unless the contract strictly states that the Network has the right to edit comments, which i'd be relatively certain it does.
Josh @ 118:
I'm presuming you haven't read the contract either and are also talking out of hat. Additionally, when people are convicted of civil rights crime, they are being charged with laws made under the amendments. Additionally, you can sue an employer for violating your civil rights, which falls under this category under various Titles, whether your work for the government or not.
Rusty Shackleford @ 127:
However, in order to participate in the even, I guarantee there was legal paperwork that was signed about the telecast. And in there, there would have been language about ability to edit comments for time, content, etc. Even if it was a blanket form given out that said "by participating in this even, you agree to.... balh blah blah".
ysbaddaden @ 130:
You still don't understand that free speech is not a civil right, and Free Speech is only protected against government intrusion. Please please please, show me the court case involving free speech as a civil right, or Free Speech when it is not involving the government.
CafeenMan @ 126:
why are you pretty sure he existed? there is no evidence of it at all. belief doesn't make it real...
ysbaddaden @ 125:
still missing the point. similar to what i said @ 117, you can invite a neighbor into your yard (or on your network), but if the neighbor starts planting signs in your yard that say "i am a nazi" do you think you're restricting your neighbors free speech rights by taking the signs down or do you think the neighbor is misrepresenting you and your own right of free speech?
CafeenMan @ 126:
Y'know...ever since I accepted Kathy Griffin as my personal savior, I've been a fundamentally less confused person, I think?...
Good Grief. This country....ga-ga for Jesus, a country that couldn't live farther from his teachings, yet claims to be such a religious one.
F*** religion. Jesus wasn't the only prophet or person in history that we could all stand to take lessons from....I wonder if the outcry would be the same if she said, "Suck it Darwin ,or Aristotle, or Einstein!"
Freakaloin @ 132:
Did Caesar exist? Did Nero? Socrates?
The fact that it's an award show says everything. There probably was no contract but a release. However, if they start broadcasting all and sundry thanking Jesus for their award, that would mean they're approving and disapproving certain religious expressions in a way that shouldn't be allowable outside of CBN.
Could you imagine if everyone from hacks like Steven King to Anne Rice had to worry about the censorship of their publishers? The freedom of press in the constitution is not continent upon the approval of the owner of the press, once they agree to publish. Although I'm sure there's some give-and-take.
Kathy Griffin is my new hero.
SUCK IT, JESUS!
Steve @ 134:
It wouldn't because it really has nothing to do with them.
Ga-ga for Jesus sounds like a name of another 90's band.
Professor Farnsworth @ 135:
are you serious? if so thats funny!
Freakaloin @ 132:
I don't think the Vatican lies about everything. I think they know that the whole idea of god and jesus being his son is a fraud, but I think they have plenty of documentation of his existence.
I believe what I believe. I can't prove he existed and frankly I don't care if he did or not. He certainly wasn't the son of a non-existent entity and mary was no virgin.
136 should say continegent, not continent.
ysbaddaden @ 136:
Steven King and Anne Rice DO have to worry about it. They have enough clout, however, to get what they want published, and have shown that a sensible business would not edit them. The freedom of the press has NOTHING to do with publisher/writer relationship. It has to do with the government.
Damnit, contingent!
Freakaloin @ 140:
Can you *prove* they existed?
ysbaddaden @ 144:
Now don't you wish they would auto censor you :).
ysbaddaden @ 136:
They do.
Wrong. It's the owner's freedom. You can publish whatever you want in your personal newsletter. The New York Times can publish whatever htey want in their newspaper. You can't publish whatever you want in the New York Times.
Josh -
You're the first person I've seen claim that "free speech" and "Free Speech" have different meanings, depending on the use of capital letters.
CafeenMan @ 145:
oops...
Login or Register to post comments.