From: ben (ben@machinegod.org)
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 14:47:09 MST
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. 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. 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.
-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 - 13:28:42 MDT