Aeolus451 said:
Tulipanzo said:
Alright, so I've given the article a read and it seems this is another classic case of the "moral panic" over not much of anything.
The article does go on a bit long, but essentially what happened was that a politically oriented group made an ad and failed to disclose it, as required by law; when the network notified them they decided they could make bank by crying "censorship" after pulling the ad themselves.
The thing is that the political position of opposing same sex marriage is already quite muddied, with generic statements about "protecting the family" and other such nonsense.
For a fun example: take the ad in question, add "Vote No" at the end. You have a text book example of the kind of ad they would run.
Considering the group's vociferous anti-LGBT views, yeah, they probably should have put a disclaimer.
What really should have set some alarms off, and something you all could, and should, have easily seen, is that no actual person or group is reported as being opposed to the ad, or as having reported it to the network.
This is the same rubbish we should all be accustomed to from the days of DoA Extreme 3.
Saying you're being "censored" and raking in the dough through greater exposure is a surefire tactic, and you all fell for it.
I guess any chance is good to bash your straw-man, eh Aeolus451?
Seems you're still looking for the stupidest banner, good luck!
Anyway, I would expect everyone else to be a little more discerning, maybe read the article |
Oh really? 
An ABA spokesperson told radioinfo:
The Act requires that political matter broadcast at the request of another person be appropriately 'tagged'. It is the broadcaster in the first instance who makes the assessment of whether the material being broadcast is 'political matter' broadcast at the request of another person.
https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/radio-disadvantaged-out-date-rules-political-advertising
It's up to FreeTV if it's political matter or not in spite of them trying to play it off as it's fault of BSA for this.
The father's day commerical is not political at all and it's appropriate for the holiday. That's the truth. Someone at FreeTV likely knew of the group or was bothered by the commercial so they hit 'em with the tag bs after Dads4Kids turned in their ad for broardcasting in order to stop/censor the ad altogether. Also, Dads4Kids stated that they don't have the resources to recut the ad to include the tag. FreeTV could just the ad run as is if they wanted to since it's up to them if it's a political matter or not but nope they're acting like the stereotypical leftist trying to shut down opposing points of view from having a platform to speak. Hell, ya guys got your own stormtroopers (but they wear all black) running around attacking and disrupting any notable person of the right from speaking at colleges and at rallies.
|
They don't have to re-shoot the footage. I don't work in the TV business but how hard can it be to add a text banner to the screen? Find somebody with a video editing program and give them a hundred dollars. I'm willing to be convinced that my ignorance is blinding me: can you explain to me how this excuse is anthing but extremely fishy?
And again you talk about the "stereotypical leftist" as if the antifa guys were representative of, or worked in concert with or on behalf of, left-of-center people and groups generally. These guys are anti-fascist in the same way that communists and Nazis were enemies. In fact, a significant amount of this is apparently neo-communists fighting neo-Nazis. Here are some excerpts from an interview with a guy who wrote "The Antifa Handbook":
These are revolutionary leftists. They’re not concerned about the fact that fascism targets liberalism. These are self-described revolutionaries. They have no allegiance to liberal democracy, which they believe has failed the marginalized communities they’re defending. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum.
...
Q: Here’s my problem. I think the people who showed up in Charlottesville to square off against self-identified neo-Nazis did the world a service, and I applaud them. But when I see antifa showing up at places like UC Berkeley and setting fire to cars and throwing rocks through windows in order to prevent someone like Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, I think they’ve gone way too far. Milo isn’t a Nazi, and he isn’t an actual threat. He’s a traveling clown looking to offend social justice warriors.
Mark Bray: I think that reasonable people can disagree about this. I can’t speak for the individuals who committed these political actions, but the general defense is that the rationale for shutting down someone like Milo has to do with the fact that his kind of commentary emboldens actual fascists. The Berkeley administrators issued a statement in advance that they feared he was going to out undocumented students on campus, and previously he had targeted a transgender student at the University of Milwaukee Wisconsin. Antifa regards this as an instigation to violence, and so they feel justified in shutting it down.
Again, though, this is much easier to understand when you remember that antifa isn’t concerned with free speech or other liberal democratic values.
...
Q: Do you think people are right to be concerned that this type of illiberalism will only occasion more illiberalism in response to it, and that the result will be a spiral of competing illiberalisms?
Mark Bray: As I said before, anti-fascists don't have any allegiance to liberalism, so that's not the question that they are focused on. ...
Q: Do you think the influence antifa is having on the American left will ultimately hurt the Democratic Party — and by extension help the Republicans?
Mark Bray: Not to be repetitive here, but they don’t care about the Democratic Party. ...
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/25/16189064/antifa-charlottesville-activism-mark-bray-interview
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
