>Me:
>Brian D Williams thinks censorship is moral,
>Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
>Brian D Williams thinks no such thing, Brian D Williams is provoking
>discussion by playing Devils advocate.
Then somebody is using your name, somebody claiming to be Brian D Williams
most definitely did say:
"I tried for a number of years to interest the NRA/ILA to propose a simple
law based on this fact. I proposed that the law ban the depiction of guns,
or there use, on TV and in the movies."
Obviously working on a project for a number of years goes way beyond Devil's
advocacy, so the message must be a forgery, you really should start signing
you posts with PGP to prevent this sort of thing in the future.
>I'll just ignore your threat.
If you interpreted anything I said as a threat then I apologies.
>>such a law has nothing to do with guns, it has to do with speech
>>and the inability of government to convince people to do what they
>>want. The only solution these gangsters can think of is to use force
>>to stop citizens from hearing the other side of the argument.
>It has everything to do with gun violence, which is a learned
>behavior.
It's no different than anything else, everything is a learned behavior, the
only reason anybody censors anybody about anything is to get people to do
what they want.
>The gangsters you refer to, are in my opinion, the major television
>and cable networks which have written policys against running
>anything which might put gun ownership or use in anything except a
>negative role.
What's wrong with that? I wouldn't like people saying things I don't agree
with on my network either. If you don't like their policy then start your own
network, it's never been easier technically. Of course nobody will watch if
you have nothing to say.
>The major networks are not encrypted to the curb, much less the home,
>so your argument fails completely.
They are not encrypted because at the present time there is no reason to do
so, but you must know the categories of broadcast TV, the Internet, telephone,
and cable are starting to blur. The strong trend is to treat them all the
same way, as bits of information, massive censorship would accelerate the
trend. The only way to stop it is to destroy all private computers and
dismantle the internet. Unlikely.
>As someone else already pointed out CNN has a written policy to
>this effect, as does CBS, the others you mentioned are rumored to
>as well.
I misunderstood, I thought an " anti-gun policy" was something that would
change network content, that is, I thought the words meant something.
>Don't believe it? try running an NRA commercial during prime time..
Is that all you mean by an "anti-gun policy, not a law "banning the depiction
of guns"?
>You choose to call what he did after "a perfectly honorable
>profession" (acting), I call it hypocrisy.
If you're a good person and an actor and play the part of Hitler in a movie,
does that make you a hypocrite?
John K Clark johnkc@well.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBNKSQdX03wfSpid95AQFlNgTw5KuaxT+jKngpAELex7qYXlrLAPLW2Xe+
ah27brzEX+a1SCtlT2R5WLpWEctozncehkZOSt6hXt2K+9of+VOyJJrau/XJop4c
KMPJfLl91rjEo0cD0xkQ3TflQvhp0HvLgo2U+cpmER/d4Qp/ZZWlC7L4xhEpZeHd
d+obMOp67nE1anNYb+Xm78OY6aJ+TRxdkjUf1QVpn8EIJMkdHRk=
=rWgM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----