Fox cuts off anti-war speech during Emmys

www.yikers.com...

well that was just a little bit more than coincidental. Rupert Murdoch is at it again...

thanks for pointing this blatant censorship out.

if mothers ruled the world, there would be no a bunch of white on white

thank you.





[edit on 19-9-2007 by billybob]

i think she said "Goddam war".... I know im not supposed to curse... I guess the censored part was obvious. sowwy.

I don't think they should have sensored her, that was wrong. However, anyone who thinks that females are somehow incapable of conflict needs a reality check. Stupid rich folk, i'll defend thier rights though, just as I'll defend my own.

Why shouldn't it get cut off? Actors and actresses should stop be activist and just act.
It's like you hired a clown for your kid's birthday party and he comes in with save africa messages.

I tend to agree that actors and actresses believe that they're a lot more informed and qualified to make public political statements than they actually do, but having said that, I don't like Murdoch censoring live shows based on his own political views.

the reason i don't mind artists like actors and musicians/singers expressing their opinions, is because AT LEAST THEY DON'T JUST TALK ABOUT CELEBRITIES!

the "news" on the other hand, spends an inordinate amount of time on doggy stories and holly-hype. i applaud someone's efforts to use the soapbox for soapboxing.

go dixie chicks. go willy. go charlie. go sally.

The point being that it was an awards ceremony and not a podium for some self important actor/actress to spout some individuals political beliefs.

Did anyone see the Emmy's? Did this actually happen?

Originally posted by BugsintheSandbox
I don't like Murdoch censoring live shows based on his own political views.

I doubt Murdoch had any say in it, the decision was made on the spot.

They have to censor live shows like this on broadcast television, they could get in big trouble with the FCC if they didn't. While what she said probably wouldn't have been much of a problem, it could easily become one if she went on to use more colorful language.

gatewaypundit.blogspot.com...

Allthough I am anti-war and do not like fox I have to admit they sensored her because of her language and only cut out two words I would guess.

They got that 3 second delay.

She said "If women were in charge we would not have to worry about gosh darn war, but the swearing version of my comment.

And she is wrong, Hillary is as bad as Bush, please don't support the corporate monarchy.

Yeah, good old Fox and their the wool they weave for the sheep of the world.

I think celebrity campaigners have to be met with some apprehension, that being campaigners who began as celebrities, ala Chris Martin.

I don't like Chris Martin you see. I think he's a showboating *insert any expletive you desire* who is only there to have his face seen. Like during Live8. The only reason I don't put Geldof and Bono (as much as I dislike them) with him, is that they have been at it for years, and have done something. Or so I'm led to believe.

I think that the celebrity status is a brilliant place to spread knowledge of world politics and moral standpoints, and would rather see that than mindless nonsense. However, I shall never trust anyone who merely using it as a vehicle for their own ego. Like Chris Martin.

Censorship should not be up to the state. It should be up to the individual person, what they want to hear, what they want their children to hear....and if they don't like something, they don't have to LISTEN to it at ALL!!!
If the state were working in our best interests, and a mother came up to the FCC and said "I don't think my children should be exposed to such filthy language on TV", what they SHOULD say is "Sorry, ma'am, can't do a thing about it because the constitution grants everyone freedom of speech no matter where they are in the country, EVEN on television."
There can be no division between freedom of speech and what's socially acceptable to say, because in this country, according to what's been written in the Constitution, freedom of speech is not always what's socially acceptable. In this country, freedom of speech IS what should be socially acceptable, because we guaranteed ourselves that right more than 200 years ago. If we wanna be truly American about this, anyway.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by indierockalien]

reply to post by intrepid


yup, it happened.

It should be noted that the reason for the censorship is probably two-fold. For starters, the network doesn't want to let one person use the podium for their policital agenda, then others will surely follow. By silencing one, the next one up will, hopefully realize that they are only talking to the auditorium and, therefore, keep quiet. Remember, not all people will use the moment to talk about something that we might want to hear. What if Mel Gibson wins an award and decides to use his time to rant about the police mistreating him or some other nonsense? Silencing one, potentially, avoids future unwanted commentary.
Second, the network might not want the opinions of the performers to be broadcast for fear of being lumped into the same group as the speaker. Again, take the performer who makes comments that nobody wants to hear. Does Fox or ABC etc want to be known as the network that allows Vanessa Redgrave to share her views on the plight of the palestinians?

well there's your problem right there. It should not be UP to the networks! Unfortunately... America is fantasyland.

My Opinion

Whoever owns the network can censor whoever and whatever they please.

If a celebrity is invited to do a show they can say whatever they please.

But the celebrity's need to understand that if they are on someone else's

network they can be censored by that entity.

So if people and celebrity's dislike being censored than only support media

which does not censor and don't do shows on one's that do.

well thats my opinion