From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 15:47:50 MST
comments inline
ben wrote:
> I don't see it at all as a freedom of speech issue actually, since nowhere
> is any citizen guaranteed the right to express themselves over someone
> else's bandwidth.
Neither do I, I wasn't thinking in the literal 1st amendment manner - just the
practical aspects of it.
> If I owned a TV station, I would certainly want to retain
> the right to control the content on that station, and don't begrudge those
> lucky enough to be in that position that same right.
Again I agree EXCEPT, I think it is in poor character to not permit opposing
viewpoints, even if paid for, to air. This would be the case for us as any
viewpoint that openly challenges the Judeo-Christian mythology would be
summarily turned down. As I try to fair, I can understand why the clan cannot by
an ad on ABC, this is a hate group. However, we are by no means a hate group. We
simply do not follow the a god, and for those reasons alone would not be
permitted to advertise.
> What angered me was the
> hypocrisy of a government telling people what they can and can't do to their
> own bodies, forcing an entire sub-economy underground, and then trying to
> make the people feel guilty for the inevitable result of that government's
> own actions.
That angers me as well, but that is par for the course. I expect it. And this is
by no means a new tactic.
best to you Ben
Bill Roh
>
>
> -ben
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Roh" <billroh@churchofvirus.com>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 1:48 PM
> Subject: Re: virus: Cannabinoid receptors and munchies : reprise
>
> Ben, your statement "Anti-Drug Laws Support Terrorists"
>
> Is exactly what I thought, to the letter, when I first saw these adds. I was
> wondering how a person would get those views aired - but decided that one
> could
> not get such views aired. I do not think that there is a single broadcasting
> medium, with any viewership worth mentioning, that would carry such an
> advertisement. Which led me to the whole notion of "What" type of adds could
> not
> get aired. I decided that any add that was anti-christian would not be
> permitted
> - including adds for a non religious group. For instance, one could probably
> get
> away with "Come to our social gathering" but not with "We are having an
> atheist
> gathering" or worse "Want an alternative to Christianity? Call the Church of
> Virus".
>
> I never really thought about it too much, but it is obvious that freedom of
> speech does NOT include pay for advertising services and we would get
> blackballed if we ever tried to advertise in such a medium.
>
> What a bummer
>
> Bill Roh
>
> ben wrote:
>
> > What I find sickening yet oddly humourous about the whole thing is that
> > those problems would go away as soon as it was legalized, (which is much
> > easier to do than to entirely stamp out recreational drug use) but you
> don't
> > see them promoting that to Joe Public as a possible solution.
> >
> > Maybe that should be the new slogan of the decriminalization camps -
> > "Anti-Drug Laws Support Terrorists"
> >
> > -ben
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michelle" <michelle@barrymenasherealtors.com>
> > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: virus: Cannabinoid receptors and munchies : reprise
> >
> > Anyone else here seen the newest ad campaign against "drugs"? Where kids
> > are shown intermingling phrases like "I like to get high with my friends"
> or
> > "I smoke a bit of weed" with phrases like "I help fund terrorists" and "I
> > help bombers get fake passports", ending with "It's my body".
> >
> > It's kind of scary in that it's partially true - but you could say the
> same
> > about paying the power bill, for example. Or taxes. Nobody's doing
> > commercials about that. I'm wondering just how well this meme will take -
> > any predictions? Are even pot smokers to become villainous pariahs, seen
> as
> > terrorist-enablers?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:43 MDT