• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fox rejects another Super Bowl ad. NSFW

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
neckarb said:
But aside from that, they are exercising their right to censorship...?! I thought that in the land of the free there was no censorship? Hmmm enjoy your hypocrisy
Click to expand...

You really, truly do not understand what freedom of speech & the rules regarding the lack of censorship are, do you?

Fox is a company in the free market. They are free to allow or deny advertisements as they see fit - they have the right to do so. The government didn't censor the ad. If they had, you might have a case....but they didn't. This was an independent decision by an independent company. The free market at work.

Its really not that hard to understand, you're just being a dick for the sake of it. I believe there's a word for that...it starts with a t.....
 
Some of you people are insane. How dare you project your morals on me or the rest of the world. Who do you think you are?

I don't cheat because I don't want to cheat, not because it's morally wrong. That's completely subjective and has little to do with anything.

May as well be spouting on and on about religion.
 
Eli said:
Some of you people are insane. How dare you project your morals on me or the rest of the world. Who do you think you are?

I don't cheat because I don't want to cheat, not because it's morally wrong. That's completely subjective and has little to do with anything.

May as well be spouting on and on about religion.
Click to expand...

🙄
 
TheVrolok said:
🙄
Click to expand...

What? 😛

It's true. People are just people, and they'll do what they want. For better or for worse, humans aren't monogamous creatures overall.

That is our ideal, and it does happen.. but it usually takes a lot of trial and error along the way. Such is life.

This is like the adult version of a "slut". It's so high school overall. The reality is that everyone is a slut, whether we like to admit it or not.

Why does cheating make someone any less of a human being? Because they hurt another human being emotionally? Such is life. It happens. They'll get over it and move on.

Curious.. How do you feel about lawyers? lol.. I would say that trying to defend someone you know is guilty is much more "morally reprehensible" than cheating, in the grand scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
Eli said:
Some of you people are insane. How dare you project your morals on me or the rest of the world. Who do you think you are?

I don't cheat because I don't want to cheat, not because it's morally wrong. That's completely subjective and has little to do with anything.

May as well be spouting on and on about religion.
Click to expand...


Seriously? What about lying? Do you find that morally wrong? What DO you find "morally wrong", besides the heinous evil that is religion, of course?
 
Capt Caveman said:
Which makes you a friggin troll. No one cares for you here, yet you insist on posting in every thread, even when you don't have a clue.

I'm guessing negative attention is better than none?
Click to expand...

Maybe try adding me to your ignore list then? I don't give a shit what you think about me.
 
neckarb said:
1. Cheating isn't wrong when both members of the relationship know about it, I.e. in an open relationship or swinging
Click to expand...

It isn't cheating in that case.

2. Morality is too relative and there are no set rules to it, so It shouldn't come into it.
Click to expand...

That's funny, because I could swear you were the buffoon in P&N arguing with several of us about free speech in the US and saying that we shouldn't be allowed to say things because they're "hateful" or "immoral."

I suggest you work on the consistency of your positions.
 
IndyColtsFan said:
It isn't cheating in that case.

It's still adultery and the guy at the beginning of this discussion started by saying adultery.

That's funny, because I could swear you were the buffoon in P&N arguing with several of us about free speech in the US and saying that we shouldn't be allowed to say things because they're "hateful" or "immoral."

I suggest you work on the consistency of your positions.
Click to expand...

I was, and I still think that, but if you guys are adopting everyone should be allowed to say anything anywhere (except threats or shouting fire in a crowded place) then this is a double standard, I'm trying to point out that freedom of speech in america is flawed and here's a good example of that.
 
Somehow I don't think our founding fathers were considering superbowl commercials when they protected free speech.
 
I don't think it's the actual ad that was rejected, but the website. The ad was sexy, but not THAT much sexier than other Super Bowl ads. But, the website is for married people to fucking cheat on their spouses. What company wants to be associated with that?
 
CRXican said:
Somehow I don't think our founding fathers were considering superbowl commercials when they protected free speech.
Click to expand...

True, but they also didn't think of the internet or the radio etc etc. They probably weren't even thinking about the WBC.
 
neckarb said:
I was, and I still think that, but if you guys are adopting everyone should be allowed to say anything anywhere (except threats or shouting fire in a crowded place) then this is a double standard, I'm trying to point out that freedom of speech in america is flawed and here's a good example of that.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't a double standard and if you knew anything about how our Constitution works, you'd know that. The Constitution only guarantees protection of free speech from the government. Fox is an independent and private company. They are not obligated to accept any and all advertising without having any input.
 
IndyColtsFan said:
No, it isn't a double standard and if you knew anything about how our Constitution works, you'd know that. The Constitution only guarantees protection of free speech from the government. Fox is an independent and private company. They are not obligated to accept any and all advertising without having any input.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, what about the body that governs all TV censorship, I can't remember the name but I heard about it recently.
 
neckarb said:
Fair enough, what about the body that governs all TV censorship, I can't remember the name but I heard about it recently.
Click to expand...

Please read up on why/how the FCC was established. Just because the FCC rules something doesn't mean it is Constitutional, however. Their rulings can and are challenged in court and that can be said of laws made by Congress (like the recent example of the health care law). AFAIK, the only rules/regulations that can't be overturned by the Supreme Court are those rules/laws/etc passed via Constitutional Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled that expression/speech may be subject to certain criteria to see if it qualifies for protection under the First Amendment.
 
IndyColtsFan said:
Please read up on why/how the FCC was established. Just because the FCC rules something doesn't mean it is Constitutional, however. Their rulings can and are challenged in court and that can be said of laws made by Congress (like the recent example of the health care law). AFAIK, the only rules/regulations that can't be overturned by the Supreme Court are those rules/laws/etc passed via Constitutional Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled that expression/speech may be subject to certain criteria to see if it qualifies for protection under the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

OK so from what your saying the government has deemed censorship of swearing and sex is constitutional, but censoring the WBC wouldn't be?
 
neckarb said:
OK so from what your saying the government has deemed censorship of swearing and sex is constitutional, but censoring the WBC wouldn't be?
Click to expand...

WBC?

And no, that isn't what I said. What I said is that the Supreme Court established some tests to determine if certain forms of speech can be protected by the First Amendment. One such test is the test of community standards.
 
IndyColtsFan said:
WBC?

And no, that isn't what I said. What I said is that the Supreme Court established some tests to determine if certain forms of speech can be protected by the First Amendment. One such test is the test of community standards.
Click to expand...

Westboro baptist church

That seem bizarre to me, that speech like the WBC could be accepted on TV, but swearing couldn't, as the WBC do get on TV from time to time spreading their crap. I would argue that saying "God hates fags" or "Soldiers deserve to die in Iraq" is way more offensive than saying fuck in pulp fiction....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top