Fact Checking NBC: SNL Palin Incest Skit

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Quote Originally Posted by shaddow View Post
    Whooooo cares? It was a stupid skit, but come on. Getting your panties in a bunch over it is kinda lame.

    thats what im saying!


    STOP! B!TCHIN!!!!


  2. You guys don't know from bad taste unless you watch Family Guy. That being said the show is funny as hell, you find yourself doubled over in laughter as your mind is saying "That ain't right"

    :bruce3:
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by jarhead View Post
    Again I disagree. Freedom of speech as defined is most certainly absolute. It means speaking without limitation or censorship. To say that it has "to be used in a reasonable manner" is the exact opposite of what it is. It has nothing to do with using tact and good taste. To say that their are limits to what you can say is contradictory to the very idea of freedom of speech.The simpsons cant say F uck on tv due to network censors. It has nothing to do with perceived limits of freedom of speech. I don't feel that NBC owes anyone an apology and in fact think THAT idea(that they should apologize) is one of the things troubling this country. You have every right to find it in poor taste or offensive. It's clearly not in your taste and I don't criticize you for that at all. However, there is nothing in the first amendment that protects you from ever being offended. You have a choice, you don't have to watch it.
    Again, this isn't what I was talking about, but just to show that you're wrong and freedom of speech is NOT absolute in the United States, here's the wikipedia entry:

    Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in fair political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are also often made between speech and other acts, such as flag desecration, which may have symbolic significance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom..._United_States

    Obviously there are limitations based upon this entry, and therefore Freedom of Speech is NOT absolute. You may disagree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court, but they are the final say in the interpretation of the first amendment. They have said in several rulings that there are limits on free speech, just as there are limits in the right to bear arms.

    As for the issue over whether or not NBC should apologize, I think this is an agree to disagree issue.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Again, this isn't what I was talking about, but just to show that you're wrong and freedom of speech is NOT absolute in the United States, here's the wikipedia entry:

    Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in fair political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are also often made between speech and other acts, such as flag desecration, which may have symbolic significance.

    Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Obviously there are limitations based upon this entry, and therefore Freedom of Speech is NOT absolute. You may disagree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court, but they are the final say in the interpretation of the first amendment. They have said in several rulings that there are limits on free speech, just as there are limits in the right to bear arms.

    As for the issue over whether or not NBC should apologize, I think this is an agree to disagree issue.
    Jerry falwell took larry flint to court over almost the same thing you are offended by. Flint accused falwell of screwing his own mother in a cartoon in his magazine. Flints right to free speech was defended because as a public figure falwell is subject to satire, regardless of taste. As for the rest of your wikipedia stuff, you are confusing legal copyright rules as limiting free speech. That is a legal issue not a philosophical one. In the context of the discussion, I challenge you to show me where the supreme court had ruled that something couldn't be said because it was offensive, which was my point-not copyright issues. Child pornogrophy and all those others things you listed invovle a physical attack or incident-that is why they are illegal. It (the IDEA of free speech) was intended to be absolute in that context and damn well should be. From the link you provided:

    The First Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:

    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.

    Sounds pretty damn clear to me.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by jarhead View Post
    Jerry falwell took larry flint to court over almost the same thing you are offended by. Flint accused falwell of screwing his own mother in a cartoon in his magazine. Flints right to free speech was defended because as a public figure falwell is subject to satire, regardless of taste. As for the rest of your wikipedia stuff, you are confusing legal copyright rules as limiting free speech. That is a legal issue not a philosophical one. In the context of the discussion, I challenge you to show me where the supreme court had ruled that something couldn't be said because it was offensive, which was my point-not copyright issues. Child pornogrophy and all those others things you listed invovle a physical attack or incident-that is why they are illegal. It (the IDEA of free speech) was intended to be absolute in that context and damn well should be. From the link you provided:

    The First Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:

    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.

    Sounds pretty damn clear to me.

    Take a step back. Read my posts. I never said I thought this should be a legal issue. NEVER. Read my posts. All the stuff I wrote was in response to you saying:

    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead View Post
    Freedom of speech as defined is most certainly absolute.
    Its not an absolute. You can quote the Bill of Rights all day, but its tedious as there are hundreds of legal decisions called case law that interpret the amendment, so you writing that does nothing. Absolute mean no limitations. There are limitations to freedom of speech and I outlined them in my previous post.

    I'm well aware of the people vs larry flynt decision and what I said had nothing to do with that decision. I said that since NBC claims to be a reputable and unbiased news and entertainment source they should apologize to the Palin family. You disagree obviously, so as I said in the previous post.....we should agree to disagree.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Take a step back. Read my posts. I never said I thought this should be a legal issue. NEVER. Read my posts. All the stuff I wrote was in response to you saying:



    Its not an absolute. You can quote the Bill of Rights all day, but its tedious as there are hundreds of legal decisions called case law that interpret the amendment, so you writing that does nothing. Absolute mean no limitations. There are limitations to freedom of speech and I outlined them in my previous post.

    I'm well aware of the people vs larry flynt decision and what I said had nothing to do with that decision. I said that since NBC claims to be a reputable and unbiased news and entertainment source they should apologize to the Palin family. You disagree obviously, so as I said in the previous post.....we should agree to disagree.
    Yeah actually I have no idea WHAT you're arguing anymore. I completely and always will disagree with you on what the IDEA of free speech was intended to be in this country. You just said that nbc should apologize because you found the skit distasteful. It is -as YOU said, entertainment. Palin is NOT above satire, sorry. How you cannot see the parrallel with the flint case is beyond me. Both falwell and palin were accused of incest in the satirical comedies. The supreme court ruled in flints favor. They did not force you to watch and there is nothing in the bill of rights, which I will quote all day because, silly me, feel that it's important-there is no law from protecting you from being offended no matter how much junk you try to cloud the issue with. You are talking about censorship plain and simple. Asking people to start apologizing for unpopular speech is INSANE. We absolutely disagree, and that's fine.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by jarhead View Post
    Yeah actually I have no idea WHAT you're arguing anymore. I completely and always will disagree with you on what the IDEA of free speech was intended to be in this country. You just said that nbc should apologize because you found the skit distasteful. It is -as YOU said, entertainment. Palin is NOT above satire, sorry. How you cannot see the parrallel with the flint case is beyond me. Both falwell and palin were accused of incest in the satirical comedies. The supreme court ruled in flints favor. They did not force you to watch and there is nothing in the bill of rights, which I will quote all day because, silly me, feel that it's important-there is no law from protecting you from being offended no matter how much junk you try to cloud the issue with. You are talking about censorship plain and simple. Asking people to start apologizing for unpopular speech is INSANE. We absolutely disagree, and that's fine.
    I guess NBC is on par with Hustler.

  8. http://anabolicminds.com/forum/newre...te=1&p=1591967

    http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...49900120080215

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A967948260

    An apology from NBC would not be unprecedented by any stretch. The last link is an apology about a SNL skit.

    As for your Larry Flynt parallel. Larry Flynt was a libel suit. I said NBC should apologize for their skit. Apples and oranges.

  9. As was mentioned earlier in the discussion, the skit was clearly not intended as a slight to the Palin family, but as a critique of journalism, as evinced by the headline about the journalist who e****led at exposing stories that have no proof or negative proof. I don't want to be disrespectful of the people in this discussion, but it seemed readily apparent to me that the skit was not an indictment of Todd Palin at all and to interpret it as such seriously misses the point.

    Further, as far as the Free Speech discussion goes, it is important to mention the State Action doctrine - our free speech is protected as against actions by Congress, not by private individuals, as with other "fundamental rights." I, as a private citizen, am free to deprive you of your right to free speech. The Constitution was written as a check on the power of the federal gov't against the states, not private citizens or corporations against eachother.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I guess NBC is on par with Hustler.
    As it's rights are defended by the law, it damn sure is. But then, you didn't understand the skit, so I guess you probably wouldn't get that either.
    •   
       


  11. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    . I said NBC should apologize for their skit. Apples and oranges.
    Or you could have -oh I don't know turned the channel and maybe not posted a link exposing other people to something you say is offensive.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by arizonanewbie View Post
    As was mentioned earlier in the discussion, the skit was clearly not intended as a slight to the Palin family, but as a critique of journalism, as evinced by the headline about the journalist who e****led at exposing stories that have no proof or negative proof. I don't want to be disrespectful of the people in this discussion, but it seemed readily apparent to me that the skit was not an indictment of Todd Palin at all and to interpret it as such seriously misses the point.
    Couldn't agree more. It astonishes me that someone could miss that point.

    Some people seem to get off on 'being offended'.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by HardTrainer View Post
    Couldn't agree more. It astonishes me that someone could miss that point.

    Some people seem to get off on 'being offended'.
    I got the point. It was to talk about how "reckless the New York Times is in their journalistic practices". Bullsh1t. They wanted to see how far they could go with Palin and they succeeded. You can't go further than saying her husband a child molester.

    Can you imagine the uproar if they called Barrack Hussein a child molester in a skit? This guy gets apologies for being called by his full name. The double standard is sickening.

    As for "getting off on being offended", I don't get offended. This is the first time I can ever recall being offended by anything on TV. I'm offended that they had the audacity to say what they said, knowing how wrong they were. They said it because they knew that nobody in the press would say a negative word about it, because she is a republican VP candidate.

  14. It was just coincidence
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    ... You can't go further than saying her husband a child molester.

    Can you imagine the uproar if they called Barrack Hussein a child molester in a skit? This guy gets apologies for being called by his full name. The double standard is sickening...
    But they didn't call her husband a child molester. If you watch the sketch, they actually say the exact opposite: that there is absolutely no evidence to support such an accusation. If I say: "The NY Times is so reckless, they would even go so far as to call Sarah Palin's husband a child molester without any proof." It's not the same as saying: "I think Sarah Palin's husband is a child molester."

    I don't see how you could confuse the two.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by HardTrainer View Post
    But they didn't call her husband a child molester. If you watch the sketch, they actually say the exact opposite: that there is absolutely no evidence to support such an accusation. If I say: "The NY Times is so reckless, they would even go so far as to call Sarah Palin's husband a child molester without any proof." It's not the same as saying: "I think Sarah Palin's husband is a child molester."

    I don't see how you could confuse the two.
    I watched the sketch....I was the one who posted it.

    They could've said, "Sarah Palin's husband has sex with polar bears."

    Thats funny because its in no way believable. Nobody has sex with polar bears.

    Tell me to put on a tinfoil hat if you want, but they said that just to put that idea in people's head. Pedophiles are the lowest of the low in society. They're the one group of people that is universally hated by the entire country. This wasn't an off the wall satire, this was calculated attack to push the envelope and associate the Palin's with pedophilia.

    Really though, can you honestly tell me there wouldn't be a backlash if they made the same skit, but made Obama the pedophile?
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Hilarious Chris Farley skit
    By RenegadeRows in forum General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 11:25 AM
  2. Fact-Checking Palin: On Energy
    By BodyWizard in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 03:10 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-17-2008, 09:13 PM
  4. Parody skit of Darth Vader
    By bombBoogie in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2007, 01:37 PM
  5. Best "live" Comedy Skit Ever !!!
    By anabolicrhino in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-06-2007, 12:47 PM
Log in
Log in