What we're fight for. Freedom.

[Pure]

What we're fighting for. Freedom.

Censor bleep Sally Field!

"If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any god -" Emmy winner Sally Field said before the Emmycast cut her off her sound and pointed the camera away from the stage so viewers would be distracted. Cut off were the words "god-damned wars in the first place."

"How can this be?" she asked when she won best actress in a drama series for her work as matriarch Nora Walker on "Brothers & Sisters." While the two-time Oscar winner already has two Emmys, this was her first nomination for series work, and she bested a field that included favorite Edie Falco of "The Sopranos."

"This belongs to all the mothers of the world - may they be seen and valued," she said in a heartfelt speech that was only partially heard by Emmywatchers in the US, while CTV in Canada did not cut her off.

 

[3113]

Censor bleep Sally Field!

"If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any god -"

Sally Field doesn't believe in god?

Really, Pure, I'm sure they were just watching out for the FCC, fearful that Sally's curse word would get them in trouble. I'm sure it had nothing at all to do with her protesting war. Really

 

[Darkniciad]

Looks like everybody's a winner here. The right gets to complain about her comments for a week, and the left gets to complain because her comment was cut off for a week.

A nice non-issue to blow out of proportion is always good filler.

 

[Pure]

note to 3113,

your hypothesis is possible. it's the swearing.


BUT, isn't that almost worse: we have TV censorship after 10, based on a religious right's agenda of prohibiting blasphemy.

(you probably know that the jj 'nipple' case is still proceeding through the appeals.).

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...664058.story?coll=la-headlines-business-enter

Janet Jackson’s 2004 Super Bowl striptease back on center stage

Elise Amendola / AP


By the Associated Press
September 10, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday will consider whether a notorious "wardrobe malfunction" that bared singer Janet Jackson's breast during a televised 2004 Super Bowl halftime show was indecent, or merely a fleeting and accidental glitch that shouldn't be punished.

The case is the second recent test of the federal government's powers to regulate broadcast indecency. Last June, a federal appeals court in New York invalidated the government's policy on fleeting profanities uttered over the airwaves.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia will hear arguments about the Feb. 1, 2004 halftime show when 90 million Americans watched singer Justin Timberlake pull off part of Janet Jackson's bustier, briefly exposing one of her breasts. The episode was later explained as a problem with her costume.

=====


Only in America.

 

[WRJames]

I think Ms. Fields is just plain wrong. Women can be just as vicious as men, and there are many mothers who are perfectly willing, even proud, to sacrifice their sons for the sake of glory.

Look, for example, at the mothers of suicide bombers in Palestine. Or our own "gold star" mothers.

 

[slyc_willie]

Looks like everybody's a winner here. The right gets to complain about her comments for a week, and the left gets to complain because her comment was cut off for a week.

A nice non-issue to blow out of proportion is always good filler.

The Matt Dredge (sp?) show has already had a field day with this. Making fun of Sally Field and treating the whole escapade as the next act in a three-ring circus.

Free speech, indeed.

Welcome to partisan America.

 

[flavortang]

The Matt Dredge (sp?) show has already had a field day with this. Making fun of Sally Field and treating the whole escapade as the next act in a three-ring circus.

Free speech, indeed.

Welcome to partisan America.

Agreed, Slyc. We fight for freedom of speech... but don't you dare actually use it!

 

[Pure]

WRJ I think Ms. Fields is just plain wrong. Women can be just as vicious as men, and there are many mothers who are perfectly willing, even proud, to sacrifice their sons for the sake of glory.

P: i think you're often right, e.g. re the women of Germany in the middle 30s.

however i think the stats are pretty clear, e.g. in the vietnam period, and increasingly so now, that, in general, US women more often want to end the war. supporting this is the 'gender gap'; assuming Republicans are 'pro war' (dems sometimes are, as in viet nam), Republican support among women is usually lower than Dem support. you will mention the southern evangelical strongholds; yes they may be an exceptioin.

---

PS. Slyc: it's Matt Drudge.

 

[slyc_willie]

WRJ I think Ms. Fields is just plain wrong. Women can be just as vicious as men, and there are many mothers who are perfectly willing, even proud, to sacrifice their sons for the sake of glory.

P: i think you're often right, e.g. re the women of Germany in the middle 30s.

however i think the stats are pretty clear, e.g. in the vietnam period, and increasingly so now, that, in general, US women more often want to end the war. supporting this is the 'gender gap'; assuming Republicans are 'pro war' (dems sometimes are, as in viet nam), Republican support among women is usually lower than Dem support. you will mention the southern evangelical strongholds; yes they may be an exceptioin.

---

PS. Slyc: it's Matt Drudge.

Why, thank you.

So why try to make this entire argument about age demographic? Or women's views toward war? Why not, instead, wonder about why Fox so quickly and eagerly moved the camera away, and tried to nullify Sally Field's comments?

Not every action in public life need be politically based. Perhaps Ms. Field's was; perhaps it wasn't. What I find suspicious is that a major TV network 'jumped the gun' and decided not to take a chance at insulting their well-known support for the current war.

 

[Pure]

What I find suspicious is that a major TV network 'jumped the gun' and decided not to take a chance at insulting their well-known support for the current war.


very well put. of course the bleepers have only a couple seconds to react, but it looks to me like 'an abundance of caution.'

listen, Fox is the default station in Air Force One. It's recommended by Bush, Cheney, and co. That tells you something...

this reminds me of efforts to keep legal protesters miles away from the President's sight.

 

[slyc_willie]

What I find suspicious is that a major TV network 'jumped the gun' and decided not to take a chance at insulting their well-known support for the current war.


very well put. of course the bleepers have only a couple seconds to react, but it looks to me like 'an abundance of caution.'

listen, Fox is the default station in Air Force One. It's recommended by Bush, Cheney, and co. That tells you something...

this reminds me of efforts to keep legal protesters miles away from the President's sight.

I'm not a proponent of either the 'Left' or the 'Right.' I don't know or even care if the Fox network is the default station for Air Force One. Personally, I kind of doubt that idea, since it is my view that any group of information-gatherers would want to have ALL viepoints before they decide to respond to anything.

But it does irk me that even the vaguest denouncement of the Iraq 'War' would be stifled in the media. I will never buy that Fox pulled Fields' statement due to 'offensive language,' i.e., her expressions of "God-damned." After all, how many times did the members of Guns N' Roses say 'Fuck' before the netwrok went to commercial?

If ever there was a conspiracy to prohibit free speech, this was it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think Ms. Fields is just plain wrong. Women can be just as vicious as men, and there are many mothers who are perfectly willing, even proud, to sacrifice their sons for the sake of glory.

Look, for example, at the mothers of suicide bombers in Palestine. Or our own "gold star" mothers.

Not to mention the assorted empresses and queens of Europe, who were just as warlike as their male counterparts. And, of course, we have Margaret Thatcher and Golda Mier and Indira Ghandi.

I don't believe anybody's rights of free speech were violated. Sally Field can say anything she wants, but a TV network is not obligated to air it. To force them to do so is to violate their rights.

This brings up a question also. Why should I care what Gidget or The Flying Nun think?

 

[slyc_willie]

Not to mention the assorted empresses and queens of Europe, who were just as warlike as their male counterparts. And, of course, we have Margaret Thatcher and Golda Mier and Indira Ghandi.

I don't believe anybody's rights of free speech were violated. Sally Field can say anything she wants, but a TV network is not obligated to air it. To force them to do so is to violate their rights.

This brings up a question also. Why should I care what Gidget or The Flying Nun think?

What a lovely and typical way to approach an argument. Demean someone based upon a singular event, as if that is all that defines them. I might ask, in return, by what authority a 'pussy-sucker' has in questioning another person's opinion?

I think that any TV network, if they value the principles upon which they were founded (hello? Free speech?) would be willing to air anything and everything anyone might say . . . and suffer the consequences with a smile.

If not, then they are a tool. Which Fox seems to have proved to be in this regard.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Not to mention the assorted empresses and queens of Europe, who were just as warlike as their male counterparts. And, of course, we have Margaret Thatcher and Golda Mier and Indira Ghandi.

I don't believe anybody's rights of free speech were violated. Sally Field can say anything she wants, but a TV network is not obligated to air it. To force them to do so is to violate their rights.

This brings up a question also. Why should I care what Gidget or The Flying Nun think?

What a lovely and typical way to approach an argument. Demean someone based upon a singular event, as if that is all that defines them. I might ask, in return, by what authority a 'pussy-sucker' has in questioning another person's opinion?

I think that any TV network, if they value the principles upon which they were founded (hello? Free speech?) would be willing to air anything and everything anyone might say . . . and suffer the consequences with a smile.

If not, then they are a tool. Which Fox seems to have proved to be in this regard.

What do you mean, "a singular event"? Sally Field made a career out of playing lightweight sitcoms or Burt Reynolds's girl friend. Being an actress, even winning an Oscar or an Emmy doesn't give anybody any authority. I don't claim to know anything except how to eat pussy and write smut.

There are enough talk shows and similar programs that Sally Field can go on one of them and say what she thinks, and she would be welcome. However, an award show is not the place for controversial remarks.

 

[Pure]

turns out our guardians bleeped more than Sally. thanks for keeping us safe.

Ray Romano, Heigl, Field keep Emmy censors on their toes during awards show


Mon Sep 17, 4:08 AM



LOS ANGELES (AP) - The Emmy censors were bleeping busy on Sunday night as three actors slipped in expletives during the live broadcast.


Ray Romano joked about his former "Everybody Loves Raymond" wife, Patricia Heaton, sleeping with her new "Back to You" co-star Kelsey Grammer. But he used a stronger word than "sleeping," which prompted Fox to cut away for a few seconds.


"Shame on you. We have TV children!" Romano said to Heaton, who was sitting in the audience.


Immediately after delivering his routine early in the show, Romano, wearing dark glasses, headed out the back door.


Sally Field praised mothers when she won an Emmy for lead actress in a drama series but also let her anti-war sentiments surface with a God-related swear word. {Thanks, yahoo for further protecting my ears!}


"And, let's face it, if the mothers ruled the war, there would be no (expletive) wars in the first place," Field said.


The censors also got a workout with Katherine Heigl, who mouthed an expletive after winning for her role on "Grey's Anatomy."


{another source: //Katherine Heigl mouthed a bad word when she won her Emmy. There was no sound, but Fox didn't cut away quickly enough. She won a supporting actress Emmy for "Grey's Anatomy."//

maybe she said, "oh, fuck!" of "oh shit!" when she found she'd won???? anybody know????}




-By Chelsea J. Carter and Sandy Cohen

 

[cantdog]

I'm not a proponent of either the 'Left' or the 'Right.' I don't know or even care if the Fox network is the default station for Air Force One. Personally, I kind of doubt that idea, since it is my view that any group of information-gatherers would want to have ALL viepoints before they decide to respond to anything.

But it does irk me that even the vaguest denouncement of the Iraq 'War' would be stifled in the media. I will never buy that Fox pulled Fields' statement due to 'offensive language,' i.e., her expressions of "God-damned." After all, how many times did the members of Guns N' Roses say 'Fuck' before the netwrok went to commercial?

If ever there was a conspiracy to prohibit free speech, this was it.

I can't say about Air Force One, but I know one of the pilots of Two. Cheney has Fox News on the thing all the time, and if he (or one of his passengers like Rice or whoever) changes it in-flight, it is put back on during pre-flight, by Cheney's directive. "Default" would describe it, then, pretty well.

Your notion about decision-makers desiring input from outside their own echo chamber is not the case here.

Just a point of fact on a minor side issue, but I happen to know it.

Carry on.

 

[R. Richard]

Censor bleep Sally Field!

"If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any god -" Emmy winner Sally Field said before the Emmycast cut her off her sound and pointed the camera away from the stage so viewers would be distracted. Cut off were the words "god-damned wars in the first place."

"How can this be?" she asked when she won best actress in a drama series for her work as matriarch Nora Walker on "Brothers & Sisters." While the two-time Oscar winner already has two Emmys, this was her first nomination for series work, and she bested a field that included favorite Edie Falco of "The Sopranos."

"This belongs to all the mothers of the world - may they be seen and valued," she said in a heartfelt speech that was only partially heard by Emmywatchers in the US, while CTV in Canada did not cut her off.

Could it be that the Emmycast cut her off so that her ignorance of Margaret Thatcher would not be so apparent? Just asking.

 

[gauchecritic]

Could it be that the Emmycast cut her off so that her ignorance of Margaret Thatcher would not be so apparent? Just asking.

The Thatch isn't and never was a very good commercial for motherhood or women in general. She wanted to be a man in a man's world and did everything possible to be just that.

Plus she was barmy.

 

[Somme]

By the Associated Press
September 10, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday will consider whether a notorious "wardrobe malfunction" that bared singer Janet Jackson's breast during a televised 2004 Super Bowl halftime show was indecent, or merely a fleeting and accidental glitch that shouldn't be punished.

The case is the second recent test of the federal government's powers to regulate broadcast indecency. Last June, a federal appeals court in New York invalidated the government's policy on fleeting profanities uttered over the airwaves.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia will hear arguments about the Feb. 1, 2004 halftime show when 90 million Americans watched singer Justin Timberlake pull off part of Janet Jackson's bustier, briefly exposing one of her breasts. The episode was later explained as a problem with her costume.

=====


I'm perplexed. How can breasts be indecent?

 

[Stella_Omega]

What do you mean, "a singular event"? Sally Field made a career out of playing lightweight sitcoms or Burt Reynolds's girl friend. Being an actress, even winning an Oscar or an Emmy doesn't give anybody any authority. I don't claim to know anything except how to eat pussy and write smut.

There are enough talk shows and similar programs that Sally Field can go on one of them and say what she thinks, and she would be welcome. However, an award show is not the place for controversial remarks.

Awards shows have always been used for airing of opinions, and people always say that isn't proper.

Sally Fields was only 19 when she played Gidget. She's a little bit older than that now. If you are going to base your opinion of her on her teenage years exclusively, I'm going to remind you of how you got a hardon in English class, every time you get pontifical.

 

[R. Richard]

The Thatch isn't and never was a very good commercial for motherhood or women in general. She wanted to be a man in a man's world and did everything possible to be just that.

Plus she was barmy.

Then you are agreeing with me that Sally Field's remark was ridiculous?

 

[neonlyte]

The Thatch isn't and never was a very good commercial for motherhood or women in general. She wanted to be a man in a man's world and did everything possible to be just that.

Plus she was barmy.

The Thatch [(c) gauchecritic] was quotable:
'The lady is not for turning.'
'We are a grandmother.'
'Goodbye.'

unlike the the lamentable Ms. Fields.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Awards shows have always been used for airing of opinions, and people always say that isn't proper.

Sally Fields was only 19 when she played Gidget. She's a little bit older than that now. If you are going to base your opinion of her on her teenage years exclusively, I'm going to remind you of how you got a hardon in English class, every time you get pontifical.

I also say it is not the proper venue for the airing of political opinions.

I also point out how Sally Fields has an extensive, successful career as an actress. If she wants to give classes on acting, okay, but, except for that, why should anybody pay any attention to what she says?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I also say it is the proper venue for the airing of political opinions.

I also point out how Sally Fields has an extensive, successful career as an actress. If she wants to give classes on acting, okay, but, except for that, why should anybody pay any attention to what she says?

Why should anybody pay attention to anyone's opinions, then? Who's opinion would carry more weight, in your eyes? Richard Feynman's? Only-- he wouldn't be at an entertainment awards ceremony. It would probably be some actor or actress.

As it happens, I tend to agree with her-- I think that the number of god-damned wars would be fewer by ninety percent, if mothers ruled the world. We hate going through nine months of pregnancy and three days of painful labor just to feed them alligators, so to speak. We don't like to waste those precious resources we worked so hard to produce.

 

[neonlyte]

I think the thread title is a little screwed... I keep getting drawn here despite the foolishness of the content.

Freedom is an individual value. You form an association with individuals of similar views but only because their aspirations reach the level you set personally.

Freedom of expression pertains to society, society conforms to norms of behaviour generally setting standards below the mean level of tolerance to avoid offending sectors within the society. Raising and lowering the 'standard' is culturally and cyclically dependent. I think Ms Fileds said 'fucking bedpans'... it's what I'd say if I worked in a hospital.

So FREEDOM...
- are you free from pain?
- is the pain physical?
- is the pain emotional?
- is it with yourself?

All pain changes your ability to respond to situations and modifies the respone you might deliver to a set of circumstances. In one way, it how democracy works, it delivers aspiration that might relieve the pain.

Freedomis what YOU make it; it is not served by jumping on a band-wagon.