A conservative advocacy group is taking some of the credit for NBC's decision to cancel its new television series, "The Book of Daniel."
The American Family Association (AFA) called for a boycott of the "anti-Christian program," even before the first episode aired.
The main character, Daniel Webster, is a drug-addicted Episcopal priest who regularly speaks with an unconventional, white-robed Jesus. Webster's family includes a homosexual Republican son; a drug-dealing daughter; and an adopted son who is sleeping with the bishop's daughter.
According to AFA, "NBC didn't want to eat their economic losses" after a number of sponsors dropped the program.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
From the story:
"Americans want decent programming that tells a good story, not offensive shows that insult their moral and religious values," said Randy Thomasson, CCF president."
It's called "voting with your dollars". I do it all the time.
They didn't threaten the network with violence over their displeasure with the subject matter of the program, they simply threatened to pull sponsor support.
If the network really wanted to air the show, they could've eaten their losses and run it anyway.
Voting with your dollars is a great thing.
NBC is a business and they're obviously looking out for their bottom-line. And I think Thomasson is correct. I think alot of Americans are sick and tired of the warped crap that the TV networks and Hollywood continuously spew out and they have the right to vote with their dollars and say enough is enough.
If NBC really wants to air the show, go ahead. I have no problem with it, but some people obviously do. But at least they achieved their goal without threats of violence as insulted Muslims have done over Muhammed cartoons in Europe.
Not all Muslims have threatened violence. Some nations like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Libya have reacted diplomatically, by recalling their ambassadors and closing embassies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4673908.stm
The point of the NBC story, however, is that they recognized the potentially negative reaction, and decided it wasn't worth it. The owner of France Soir newspaper agreed in the cartoon case when he fired the editor who published the cartoons.
You really have to decide if it is worth your economic or physical well-being when you exercise your right to free speech by insulting a people's religion.
I'm with Nadir on this one, and soundly so. Six, the opponents here are doing much more than "voting with their dollar." They are advancing an organized movement to prevent the rest of us from viewing what they find "offensive." For free speach to exist it requires two things:
1) The First Ammendment, or something like it, that prevents the government from banning speach.
2) Public toleration for speach that offends them, which prevents private citizens from banning speach.
Without (2), (1) is nullified and useless. The opponents here are violating (2) in order to render (1) meaningless. They not only want to turn the channel, they want to prevent you and me from having the choice to watch.
I agree with Nadir also that the people who support this banning are in a very poor position in opposing the muslim speach banners. I agree with you that these christian speach police are not carrying their tyranical efforts to the point of violence and property destruction. In that regard, they are less retarded than the muslims. However, they share with the muslims a demand for speach bans. They are detestable, backwards, and uncivilized, in my view, the lot of them. These christians also desearve to have people like me bombard them with blaspheme, as surely as did Woolworth's lunch counters desearved sit-inners.
Post a Comment