Forums | MacLife

Let's consider this from the standpoint of network neutrality.

Lollapalooza wrote:

Watch Lollapaloozza archives exclusively in the AT&T Blue room. The new AT&T, delivered.

It's an exclusive venue-- maybe AT&T paid big bucks for this exclusivity. I don't know. In a perfect world, Lollapalooza's artists and promotors and so on could go up to AT&T and say

angry mob wrote:

You know what, AT&T? You're not getting the rights next year. We've had it with you and your lack of integrity

But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where the big ISPs like AT&T are planning to shape traffic to their advantage.

So AT&T could say

fine, fine, just don't expect your packets to arrive on time.

So if the government and a religious institution have a common goal to meet a need, and the religious institution is willing to meet the need without any discrimination and following government regulations with respect to meeting that need, the government should not assist?

That's bull smurf.

What this is - hypocritical liberals are trying to find a loophole to allow government interference with religion. And yes - it is extremely hypocritical of them. Fortunately - the supreme court saw through it, and rightfully found in favor of the Salvation Army.

Who the salvation army hires has absolutely nothing to do with the charity they provide, charity that the government could not provide without spending a considerable amount of money beyond the aid they give to the salvation army.

You take money away from the salvation army, they can help less people.
The money you take away won't even begin to pay the people that the salvation army now can't help.

Less people get what they need.

With the current system - the government wins (less money needed to meet needy people) and the needy people wins.

Because of your philosophical bull crap, you want the government to pay more to have less needy people served. And you call yourself compassionate?

What if the salvation army did hire gays, would your position be different?
If no, then the fact that the salvation army does not hire gays is not relevent.

If yes, then you want to take food and shelter away from needy people to try and strong arm the salvation army - and that is downright pathetic and should cause you to lose sleep at night in shame.

That's blackmail.

It's not "philosophical bull crap", it's the law of the land.

jerwin wrote:

Let's consider this from the standpoint of network neutrality.

Lollapalooza wrote:

Watch Lollapaloozza archives exclusively in the AT&T Blue room. The new AT&T, delivered.

It's an exclusive venue-- maybe AT&T paid big bucks for this exclusivity. I don't know. In a perfect world, Lollapalooza's artists and promotors and so on could go up to AT&T and say

angry mob wrote:

You know what, AT&T? You're not getting the rights next year. We've had it with you and your lack of integrity

So AT&T could say

fine, fine, we'll just take this dump truck full of money to another festival.

To which Lallapalooza would reply:

Just kidding!  We love you guys!

Fixed that for ya!

The moral being: if you don't think that Lallapalooza is only in it for the money, you're deluding yourself.

Krusty the Clown: Now, boys, the network has a problem with some of your lyrics. Do you mind changing them for the show?
Anthony Kiedis: Forget you, clown.
Chad Smith: Yeah, our lyrics are like our children, man. No way.
Krusty the Clown: Well, okay, but here where it says, "What I got you gotta get and put it in ya," how about just, "What I'd like is I'd like to hug and kiss ya."
Flea: Wow. That's much better.
Arik Marshall: Everyone can enjoy that.

Ribtorus wrote:

If I were interested in the preservation of personal liberty as a principle that transcends politics and commerce, I'd be wary of corporate responsibility over information.

And if you go too far, you're committing the very thing you're trying to stop, the squelching of free speech.  AT&T and Pearl Jam were working together in a joint venture to communicate, so they jointly had free speech rights here (though of course AT&T still might've had contractual obligations).  Private organizations should be able to determine what speech they want to propagate, at least as long as they aren't monopolies (in positions of power comparable to the governmen)  or aren't themselves acting at the behest of government (which is what you seem to be hinting).  But there's none of that in this case, as far as I know.

Last edited by charon (2007-08-27 10:05 am)

charon wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

If I were interested in the preservation of personal liberty as a principle that transcends politics and commerce, I'd be wary of corporate responsibility over information.

And if you go too far, you're committing the very thing you're trying to stop, the squelching of free speech.  AT&T and Pearl Jam were working together in a joint venture to communicate, so they jointly had free speech rights here (though of course AT&T still might've had contractual obligations).  Private organizations should be able to determine what speech they want to propagate, at least as long as they aren't monopolies (in positions of power comparable to the governmen)  or aren't themselves acting at the behest of government (which is what you seem to be hinting).  But there's none of that in this case, as far as I know.

I'm not arguing against free speech for anyone. I'm saying that censorship by the private sector shouldn't be an easy out and a way around the intent of that freedom.

Ribtorus wrote:

charon wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

If I were interested in the preservation of personal liberty as a principle that transcends politics and commerce, I'd be wary of corporate responsibility over information.

And if you go too far, you're committing the very thing you're trying to stop, the squelching of free speech.  AT&T and Pearl Jam were working together in a joint venture to communicate, so they jointly had free speech rights here (though of course AT&T still might've had contractual obligations).  Private organizations should be able to determine what speech they want to propagate, at least as long as they aren't monopolies (in positions of power comparable to the governmen)  or aren't themselves acting at the behest of government (which is what you seem to be hinting).  But there's none of that in this case, as far as I know.

I'm not arguing against free speech for anyone. I'm saying that censorship by the private sector shouldn't be an easy out and a way around the intent of that freedom.

Just my point. There is current overlap in AT&T's baileywick. Infotainment (PearlJam) and NSA.

I'd say there's precedent-making going on.

resedit wrote:

What if the salvation army did hire gays, would your position be different?
If no, then the fact that the salvation army does not hire gays is not relevent.

If yes, then you want to take food and shelter away from needy people to try and strong arm the salvation army - and that is downright pathetic and should cause you to lose sleep at night in shame.

Good lord you're being dramatic.  The money could easily go to other organizations who don't discriminate. 

I'd like to know what would make the Salvation Army "hypocritical" for hiring homosexuals.  Homosexuals aren't supposed to have jobs?

(Also, the particular section of the organization at question in the lawsuit was almost ENTIRELY funded by taxpayers....over 90%.)

The Salvation Army is part of the NSA.  I'm sure of it.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

What if the salvation army did hire gays, would your position be different?
If no, then the fact that the salvation army does not hire gays is not relevent.

If yes, then you want to take food and shelter away from needy people to try and strong arm the salvation army - and that is downright pathetic and should cause you to lose sleep at night in shame.

Good lord you're being dramatic.  The money could easily go to other organizations who don't discriminate.

And those other organizations are free to request money from the government.

Where are they?

I'd like to know what would make the Salvation Army "hypocritical" for hiring homosexuals.  Homosexuals aren't supposed to have jobs?

The same reason why they don't hire people involved in other sinful lifestyles - such as pornography and adultry and swingers.

Whether you like it or not, they have a right to consider the homosexual lifestyle to be a sinful one, and as a ministry organization, they have a right to exclude those living sinful lifestyles from paid employment in their ministry.

My church back in the bay area recently fired a community pastor after it was found out he was viewing porn sites on the web. Do you think they were wrong to do so? He confessed it when confronted and acknowledged he needed help - but they could not have him involved with the ministry of the church anymore.