General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (DainBramaged) on Mon Aug 26, 2013, 02:31 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,636 posts)
Initech
(100,080 posts)
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)then swapped the remote
DonRedwood
(4,359 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)to the 12-yr-olds who follow it.
malaise
(269,054 posts)
Socal31
(2,484 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Mopar151
(9,987 posts)Wins "Dumbass of the Month"
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
rurallib
(62,423 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Doing your part, one $5 remote at a time.
Awesomeness! 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)The password was 'fauxnews.'
Heh.
canonfodder
(208 posts)Is that all you have to counter the right-wing-nuts?
Is it right to force your own opinion on others?
People do not like being forced. Perhaps an honest conversation may have been a better tact.
IMO, your action was counter to the ideals of DU,
Do not force, guide.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)it's more like a practical joke with a good hook on it.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts) Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I'm sure they would support that tactic.
GETPLANING
(846 posts)And, they will gladly force Fox News on you. Remember, Fox News is not news, it is right wing propaganda packaged as news.
Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable, even correct, to disable this propaganda programming wherever it is being broadcast.
avebury
(10,952 posts)Demoiselle
(6,787 posts)
barbtries
(28,799 posts)i've finally gotten the nerve to complain in public places and have been given the remote a couple times. the people who give it to me act as if they can't imagine why it matters.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)may or may not watch. You must be really important.
branford
(4,462 posts)I'm most certainly no fan of Fox, and choose not to watch it at home. However, intentionally preventing others from watching it is simply wrong. Fox has a right to broadcast, and people can choose to listen or not as they see fit. We live in a free country, and sometimes we are exposed to ideas or speech that we find abhorrent. That is one of the costs of our freedom.
The OP admitted that the television was not her property and she was not in her home. If she did not want to watch, she should have requested that her company change the channel. That's where her rights ended, and she began to infringe on the rights of others. To silence legal speech simply because you don't like it is most definitely not a liberal value.
If her company chooses to watch Fox, its their loss, but also their decision. The OP does not have the right to determine what her company, boss or other employees watch. Altering passwords or switching remote controls is malicious and juvenile. It's neither funny nor smart, and if you don't know why, you obviously slept through grade school social studies.
If your only response to speech that you don't like is to attempt to silence it, rather than act like an adult and attempt to change hearts and minds, you are either dreadfully misinformed or lack confidence in your purported principles.
Despite the silly rah-rah attitude of my fellow posters, I view the OP's action as little more than childish political tantrum.
I expect such conduct from the ignorant who cannot stand any challenge to their foolishness, including many of the right-wing. I believed my fellow liberals stood by their principles, were better informed, and above such petty nonsense. I sadly appear to be mistaken.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)But sometimes one gives in to guilty pleasures.
branford
(4,462 posts)Also, the OP didn't just change the station, she altered the password and hid or stole the remote. She acted no better than the people she claims to despise.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)Even places where those in control have no opinion one way or the other seem to think that Fox is the default position (or perhaps the lowest common denominator), and so it's easy to feel that Fox is being shoved down your throat wherever you turn.
Turning the other cheek is admirable, but often hard to do (otherwise why would we need reminders?) And a prank is not exactly a major crime.
branford
(4,462 posts)If she did, her "prank" might not have been "necessary."
I'm not hear to defend Fox, as I think the channel is social refuse. However, substituting your own judgment as to what people are allowed to watch is far more legally and socially offensive that anything spewed by Fox. Sometimes we just have to listen to garbage. We live in a free country; life goes on.
I also noted that she didn't just change the channel, she altered passwords and hid or stole the remote. Unless she promptly remedies her actions, the OP's conduct is no longer a simple prank. I doubt either she or anyone else would find it funny if her employer, quite justifiably, decided to punish her, or even terminate her employment. There is no "I hate Fox" exemption to at will employment.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)I'm withholding my criticism.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)I don't appreciate having Fox "news" forced upon me. I've changed the channel many times. Deleted it. Blocked it.
It's not news. It's lies, hatemongering and propaganda. You can watch it in your home if you want, but don't expect me or anyone else to put up with it anywhere else.
Change it. Always.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)even if they intrude on other people's rights and property; because this is how we form a civil society.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)Amazing, how many people on a supposedly liberal site defend and take as a given that a Foxtard Beckerhead has some kind of "right" to impose Fox upon everyone else within range of a public TV.
Well, sorry, but I and others have a "right" to turn that crap OFF. I can tell you from experience, deleting/blocking ends up being much the only way to go. Teabaggers are addicted to Fox. They don't give up, even if whoever put the TV in a public place, waiting room, or break room changes it.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)protect everyone who isn't as enlightened as you from hearing such horrible speech?
This isn't the OP's home we're talking about. It's her employer's TV on her employer's property. Since the employer hasn't blocked the channel, presumably he's at least OK with Fox being on. Don't people who want to hear Fox have the choice to do so? Whatever happened to just ignoring something you don't care for? Or walking away? Or just quitting?
No, the OP has decided that she is the champion of all that is right and good and has disabled the TV from ever tuning in to Fox again. Even when she's not around.
Waaaay over the top.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)I'm done ceding things to them.
Yes, I'd walk away from a public speaker. That's not the same thing at all as a TV in a break room, lunchroom, my place of work, etc.
Neither would I waste the time of anyone above the level of supervisor. They probably don't follow politics to know why anyone would either demand or object to Fox "news".
Public TVs can be put on a lot of other channels. That's all that need to be done. I'd still like you or someone else to explain why there's a God-given right for Foxwatchers to have it on everywhere at all times.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)There is no 'God-given right for Foxwatchers to have it on everywhere at all times', to use your words. And guess what? It's not on everywhere at all times.
But the owner of the business or property most certainly does have the right to broadcast it, 24/7 and at high volume. If you don't like it, there are NUMEROUS extremely effective actions you can take short of vandalizing the TV to avoid exposure.
You don't have to listen to it, but the onus is on YOU to avoid it, not on HIM to stop broadcasting it. You can boycott the business, leave the room, plugin your iPod, but if the owner wants to watch Fox News, it's his or her right.
The OP could have simply changed the channel, but she decided that NOBODY gets to listen to Fox on her watch, by God, and disabled the channel.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If you don't want Beck on the TV turn him off -- just make sure it is your own TV. You don't get to be a self-appointed censor of all social morality to physically impose your personal dictates on other people who are free to make up their own minds.
No you don't. My husband doesn't watch TV news from any network (neither do I) but if you messed with his stuff with that attitude he'd probably break your hand -- and I'd post his bail.
So, it's your opinion that Teabaggers are so mind-numbed they have to be governed with dictatorial power. That says so much about you and how their perception of you is probably validated. What do you do for an encore, burning Bibles while proposing using the military to go house-to-house looking for guns?
Try minding your own damned business for a change. You'd be amazed at just how significant a portion of the population that eagerly looks forward to you doing so.
Here's a hint -- they watch Fox because they reject you. Any channel on the satellite is four little button presses away. They choose not to watch MSNBC or any other station. And truth be told, I'd rather engage someone who chooses to watch Fox then someone who watches the bilge coming off of MTV.
Here's another hint -- if mere exposure to an opinion could sway them then the only thing you have proven is that YOUR fellows and followers are nothing more than mind-numbed idiots. If you want a camp filled with independent thinkers then be prepared for the eventuality you will require something beyond childish foot-stomping to win their affection.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)see and hear? That's a pretty awesome responsibility, don't you think?
Changing the channel is one thing, but blocking it and hiding the remote is destruction of property. If one of my employees did that, they'd be fired immediately.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)See my other reply to you.
Why wouldn't you fire the employee who keeps putting the channel on something that offensive?
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Millions of people watch Fox News. What you or I think of it is only important to the extent that we can decide to ban it on our own property.
What gives anyone the right to censor what others can see, even when the OP is not around to be offended? That's what the OP has accomplished by locking the TV.
I'm truly baffled that so many people here cannot see this as an authoritarian dick move.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)Millions more shop at wal mart and eat McDonalds. What does that have to do with anything, and why does that make it right for them to force me and others to watch with them?
What gives rightwingers the right to insist that Fox "news" saturate every public environment???? I'm truly baffled that so many people here willingly concede that.
Maybe the OP can give more details, but in my case, blocking Fox "news" isn't something I do right away. It's a last resort. Use after politely asking. I've only had to do it once, and that was what finally got the foxtard's attention. When it was reversed, I'm sure he puts it on when I'm not there. But not when I am. I only wish more liberals would speak up and complain about it, but sadly most do not. The teabag types don't hesitate to demand what they want, however, so politeness toward them from our side is generally wasted. (For additional examples, see the way the US Senate works).
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)the space in which it operates has decided to allow this channel to be broadcast. You can certainly avoid that space, or if that's impossible, request that the channel be changed or the TV turned off. If the owner decides that he really, really wants to broadcast Fox News, then you're just out of luck.
You most certainly do not have the right to disable the TV without the owner's permission. If he wants to broadcast Honey Boo Boo, that's his choice.
It's no different than a public speaker spouting RW nonsense. You do not have the right to gag him because you're offended. You can avoid him, shout louder than him, but you may not silence him.
branford
(4,462 posts)The simple fact is that people have the RIGHT to watch Fox if they so choose. You do not have the right to prevent them from watching it on their own television on their property, and no one has the right to determine what you watch. The devil himself could be speaking on Fox, and it would not matter in the least. That is the price we pay to live in a free society.
What I find most interesting is that even with your deep hatred for the channel, you nevertheless admit to still being VERY reluctant to change the channel, no less steal or hide someone else's remote and input your own password, just to avoid the channel. The thread is quite large, and the OP has certainly not been shy about posting. If there was any mitigation to her conduct, it would have been offered long ago. You know deep down that the OP could have handled the situation much better than she did.
The test of the conduct is simple, would you find the OP's conduct acceptable if the channel was MSNBC, PBS, ESPN, Nickelodeon or anything else? Would you tell a child that this is the appropriate way to act if you do not like what someone is saying?
I also find the complaints that "teabag types" behave just like the OP. Just as you would tell a child, "Do you want to be like them?" Bad behavior does not excuse more bad behavior.
This is FOX we're talking about.
Give it a rest, honey.
The Fox channel has no redeeming social value. None. They broadcast flat out lies and propaganda. They disseminate fear, anger and hatred, to advance the political party that has racism, misogyny, bigotry, religious zealotry, grinding poverty for the masses and evil at its core.
They should never be included under the umbrella of "free speech," they are nothing more than hate speech, or the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater, 24 hours a day. The fact that they are allowed to broadcast at all is a blot on civilized society.
Have you tried to "change hearts and minds," of any Fox channel viewers, lately? It is not possible. They are completely brainwashed by the constant repetitions of short phrases and the overwrought and frantic emotionalism.
They have been brainwashed to hate Obama so irrationally, 28 percent of Louisiana republicans think President Obama caused the failures of the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
So, give your sanctimony on behalf of Fox, a rest.
branford
(4,462 posts)Thank you, I'l keep my "sanctimony," but jettison any hypocrisy.
As I clearly stated, you do not have to watch FOX on you own television. I personally do not. However, neither you, I or the OP, gets to determine what people watch. To use a far more extreme example of my point, I'm reminded of the Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois many years ago. I lost many family members in the Holocaust, but I completely agreed with the ACLU that they had a right to march, despite their blatant bigotry. The answer to speech, even Nazis, is more speech, not censorship. We live by example. The OP simply proved that she had such little confidence in her purported liberal values that she feared them being challenged by the talking monkeys on Fox.
If you do not want to watch Fox when you do not legally control the television, the proper, adult response is to ask the owner to change the station to something mutually acceptable, and most people (or employers or business proprietors) will abide such a request. However, it was her employer's television, therefore they determined what to watch, and they have an absolute right to watch Fox, MSNBC, ESPN, PBS or anything else they choose. If your the boss, you can set the channel. It's really that simple.
What I find most disturbing is that the OP didn't just change the channel, a minor, very temporary act of rebellion, but she altered passwords and hid or stole the remote control so that her company could not reset the channel to their preference.
The OP eliminated her employer's choices, and substituted her own. To me, that's no better than the actions of many conservative neanderthals that most here on DU despise, including me. I do not seek to become what I detest.
I will never alter my very liberal beliefs concerning free speech because I'm offended by some morons on a cable "news" channel. The fleeting sense of schadenfreude is not worth the obvious hypocrisy.
If you excuse the OP's behavior, don't act surprised or offended when conservatives seek to deny you choices or silence your speech because they are offended.
MsPithy
(809 posts)freedom of speech is absolute.
branford
(4,462 posts)It's been a long while since my law school constitutional law classes, but I cannot think of any First Amendment exceptions that (i) prohibits Fox news from broadcasting, (ii) prevents anyone from watching on their own television, (iii) permits someone to unilaterally prevent someone from watching Fox on their television, or (iv) allows someone to alter another's passwords or steal or damage their property because they are offended by someone's speech. There is certainly no "listening to Fox is cruel," "Fox is a bunch of bigots" or "Isn't watching Fox like yelling fire in a crowded theater" exception to the Constitution.
We agree that Fox news is generally offensive and we do not wish to watch it. That does not give you or I the right to prevent anyone else from watching it. Everyone has a right to be a fool.
The television at issue was owned by the OP's company. She could have requested that they turn the channel or turn-off the television. However, the decision what to watch ultimately belonged to the company, not the OP. Instead of acting like an adult, even even just changing the channel, she altered passwords and hid or stole the remote control. How is that ever acceptable conduct from a responsible adult, not less a liberal who believes in free speech?
What's done is done and I certainly do not wish for the OP to be disciplined or fired by her employer. However, if she is ever disciplined, it would be entirely justified.
whopis01
(3,514 posts)or some other legislative body passing laws.
The first amendment has no bearing in this case whatsoever.
Neither the tv not the location were the property of the OP - so with that in mind the OP could be guilty of vandalism, theft, violating an employee agreement, etc. But in no way is this a first amendment issue.
branford
(4,462 posts)I'm perfectly aware her conduct did not involve government action. However, saying her behavior only amounted to vandalism, theft and violating her fiduciary obligations as an employee is hardly an enthusiastic defense. These criminal statutes are applicable because the First Amendment does not protect the OP. Protesters have often tried to argue that their vandalism and related conduct is protected speech. They have yet to be successful.
I doubt any here on this thread defending her actions would be nearly so enthusiastic if her employer were liberal, and a conservative employee not only changed the channel from MSNBC, but altered passwords and stole a remote to ensure that the employer could not return to their channel of choice. Do I even need to raise the issue of substituting one's judgment for others in other matters such as the abortion debate?
whopis01
(3,514 posts)You appear to be laboring under the false assumption that I was defending the OP. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion.
I also noticed that you changed the basis of the argument from earlier your posts where appeared that the "freedom of speech" argument applied to the right of Fox News to broadcast and the OP violating that freedom by shutting it down and preventing others from watching it. As you said, "To silence legal speech simply because you don't like it is most definitely not a liberal value.".
Now you are implying that the OP was invoking the first amendment in the act of protest against Fox News and that some would argue that vandalism and related conduct are covered under the first amendment.
I just wanted to be clear because you seemed to think I was defending the actions taken by the OP - specifically you claimed that was "hardly an enthusiastic defense". I was in no way defending her actions, and I believe if you were to re-read what I posted that you would find it obvious that I was not. I was merely pointing out that this is not a first amendment issue.
Even arguing it as the "spirit of the first amendment", really falls apart when you look too far into it. At least in my opinion. Here is why;
It is not clear from the post who was putting on Fox News. It could have been the employer or it could have been another employee.
In the scenario where the employer is the one wanting to watch Fox News, you claimed that the owner of the TV had the right to decide what was on it. "However, it was her employer's television, therefore they determined what to watch, and they have an absolute right to watch Fox, MSNBC, ESPN, PBS or anything else they choose. If your the boss, you can set the channel." Clearly you believe that their right to watch what they want to watch stems from their ownership of the TV and their position as the boss, not from any first amendment right.
And then there is the scenario where it was another employee (assuming the employer had no opinion on the subject). You could have two people where they each want to watch a different channel. If the OP succeeds and makes sure that it isn't on Fox, then they are the one violating the spirit of the first amendment. However if the other person succeeds, then the shoe is on the other foot. Either way you end up with one broadcast or the other being shut down and having their first amendment rights violated. At best you cycle back and forth, time sharing who is getting violated and who isn't.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The OP doesn't want to watch it at work.
Is that okay with you, or is there some requirement the OP do so?
The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak. It does not guarantee the right to an audience.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The First Amendment only applies to the government restricting speech. Unless the OP was acting in an official government capacity, it is not a First Amendment issue.
In a broader sense yes, it is better to counter bad ideas with good ideas than to try and censor them. However in the context of Fox News and it's traditional target audience, the "marketplace of ideas" isn't really a concept they take to heart. "Marching orders" is more to their liking. In this particular case, actually removing Fox News from their information diet is likely to encourage, rather than limit, the uptake of ideas.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)In fact, the same kind of speech one might hear on Fox News. People are walking by but not paying much attention.
A good liberal comes up behind the speaker, and gags them so they cannot speak.
Aside from the issue of assault, would you be OK with this?
How is this different from the OP's actions?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I am a firm believer in free speech, even for people saying things I hate. I just don't think blocking a cable channel as a prank qualifies as a First Amendment issue. It's not the way to counter Fox News' bullshit, either.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)gagging him, you cut the power to his microphone.
He can still speak all he wants, but no one can hear him.
Is this OK?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I do not think it is the right response to silence opposing speech, whether by gagging or other means. We should instead confront and refute it.
That said, I don't think an individual blocking a cable channel is a First Amendment violation. But it's not a hill I'm ready to die on - I understand and agree with your sentiments.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)in my mind a little more.
I don't think it's a 1A issue either. More of a property rights thing.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)If I were the owner of the company and the OP was vandalizing my property to push an agenda, I would fire him or her.
Unless being free from Fox News was a precondition of his or her employment, I see no implicit right to decide for everyone else what is and isn't suitable TV fare.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If your employees don't have enough authority to change the channel on a television set, then just what sorts of things ARE they authorized to do?
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)That's not her private property.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)Or is it a break room where a TV is provided for everyone?
If it's the boss' TV, then they can decide what channel it's on. If it's a public TV provided for a breakroom, lunch room, or waiting room, then EVERYONE has a say in it. Not just the Fox Teabag sheeple - who ALWAYS squawk the loudest.
I don't really care what channel it is changed TO, but if I'm present, it WILL be changed away from Fox "news".
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)a channel password (lock) to Fox News, then hid the remote in the rafters. That's destruction of property that is not hers. Assuming she takes the password to the grave, the TV will never again be able to tune to that channel.
Not OK.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)If you buy a used TV, previous passwords and parental codes can be reset. It's not in the manual, you just have to google it and watch the YouTube videos.
It's a few more steps than using the menu add/delete channel commands, but it is in no way "vandalism" or "destruction". Perhaps you should seek out some Hannity fans to commiserate in your pearl-clutching.
And again, why is it some kind of assumed right for Foxtards to force that channel onto everyone else in a public type of situation? Put the TV on another channel. Any channel.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)understand that there are some people on the planet who may actually want to watch Fox News. I assure you that they exist.
If you don't like Fox News, when you walk into an empty public place, you simply change the channel. If there are other people in the public place, you ask politely if anyone minds if you change the channel. 99% of the time no one will give a fuck.
If there is someone there before you who actually does want to watch Fox News, you suck it up until they leave, then you change the channel.
Anything else is bullying, authoritarian behavior that should be beneath anyone with even a smattering of manners.
And programming the TV so that absolutely NO ONE can watch Fox News, whether your precious sensibilities are around to be offended or not, is simply over the top.
Any employee of mine who brought such authoritarian behavior into MY business would be canned.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)whopis01
(3,514 posts)From the OP it isn't clear to me that the employer was the one wanting the tv on Fox - so they might not be that upset about it.
But either way I the the poster certainly runs the risk of pissing off their employer and losing their job.
hatrack
(59,587 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)(See how quickly it gets stupid?)
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)The issue isn't whether Fox has any redeeming value or not. One could argue that the Three Stooges have no redeeming value. The issue is that when the OP is not around, someone may want to watch Fox, either alone or with the consensus of others in the public space. Their choice. Theirs alone. The OP has decided that nobody shall watch Fox, ever.
The employer, the owner of the TV, seems to have decided that it is OK to allow Fox to be broadcast into their business. What gives the OP the right to remand that call? It's easy to just change the channel, but she decided that the TV had to be physically disabled from even tuning to it, ever again.
That's just shitty manners.
mercuryblues
(14,532 posts)free to watch fox on THEIR own television.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)interfering with the free discourse of ideas in the public sphere ...
It does NOT pertain to homeowners or business owners in the home or place of employment ...
Something stinks in these responses ...
Hekate
(90,714 posts)... just in the past few days. 
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)So, if someone took exception to that being broadcast anywhere, you'd have no problem with someone doing what the OP did? It works both ways.
Maraya1969
(22,483 posts)So all's fair in love and war.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)I gather that the OP doesn't own the business or the TV, or pays for the cable. Therefore, he was highly presumptuous to take it upon himself to decide what is "fit" viewing and what is not. Not defending Fox at all -- I've been in gyms, waiting rooms, etc., where it was on, and I just tune it out. I'm not going to police people's viewing habits in a public place or business. If it bothers me that much, I make it known to whoever's in charge. I don't do what the OP did.
And if, by chance, "the people" did figure out how to block MSNBC, the outrage (especially here) would be deafening. Not trying to start an argument, but merely pointing out that censorship is censorship.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)This place can be every bit as bad as freepervile just around different issues. After years of reading posts here I have come to the conclusion that critical thinking is not something either side can claim as theirs.
That said it was fox news a channel it has been proven you will be less informed if you watch than someone who doesnt watch news at all. He was doing the place a service by making sure its workers were better informed!
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)what others are watching, on property that isn't theirs? No, I don't think so.
Censorship is bad. Always.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Get off your horse
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)You seem to think that it's your prerogative to censor what people see and hear.
If that isn't a high horse attitude, I don't know what is.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I guess you're the FAUX spoksperson in this thread?
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)On another sounds like something a fox news viewer would do.
Uncool in my book.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)sheesh.....some peace and quiet from the blaring lies and false outrages are a little slice of heaven. FWIW...fox viewers in public areas force their stations on patiently waiting customers all the time. OP is not requiring that viewers be subjected to anything specific...fox viewers in the car shops, and other waiting rooms do exactly that....force a viewer to watch.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)in the world went around blocking MSNBC on televisions that they didn't own?
Trajan
(19,089 posts)I wonder - Does FR have a comparable forum where Liberals can go hang out?
branford
(4,462 posts)Is that really the most erudite response you could muster?
Yes, I support the Second Amendment (with my whole 5 posts in the gun forum), as well as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eight, Fourteenth, and every other guaranteed right derived from the Constitution, such as the right to privacy and a woman's right to have an abortion. I will not engage in selective hypocrisy concerning the Second Amendment, and interpret it differently, because it deals with a subject matter that is uncomfortable to many other liberals. It should be interpreted is the most expansive matter to guaranty the maximum personal liberty, just like every other amendment. If you are unclear about my the nature of my very liberal interpretation of the Constitution, you might want read the writings of noted liberal Harvard legal scholar Lawrence Tribe.
Similarly, I will not excuse the OP's action just because I do not like Fox.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)You're not the first interloper here, and you won't be the last ...
It is noted that you didn't respond to my other post, and then you blame me for not responding to your assertions with a more erudite response .... It's pretty obvious you are not seeking such a response ...
Righties don't last long here ... you will be no different ...
branford
(4,462 posts)Heck, have you really paid any attention to my posts in this thread?
My point is that we each have the right to watch what we want on our own property, whether it be MSNBC, Fox, ESPN, Sesame Street or anything else. To deny others that right is abhorrent. Moreover, everyone in this country has these rights, even those with whom we disagree. No one has the right not to be offended.
If you do not agree with that simple axiom about the First Amendment, you are the one who is most certainly not liberal.
I think that you and others believe that my disapproval of the OP's conduct is some sort of "defense" of Fox. That is simply absurd. I do not make an exception to my classically liberal beliefs for Fox or anything else, that would only make me a hypocrite.
If you do not understand my arguments, I would suggest you read about the ACLU's defense of the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The work teevee is not the property of the person who wants to watch fox. Another employee doesn't want to see that crap. So it's blocked. They can watch on their computer if its so important to them. They're free to do that. Others are free not to watch it. Finally!
TBF
(32,064 posts)And I understand completely why you're hanging in the gungeon.
billh58
(6,635 posts)just so special? What would we poor downtrodden unwashed do without your expertise on all things Constitutional? We all benefit from your Libertarian guidance and counseling, and look forward to more of your wisdom when you deem us worthy of receiving such knowledge.
All hail Branford. We are not worthy.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)in response to reason. I make it a habit of having the channel changed every time I see it on in public. Every Bar, Restaurant, Airport and waiting room. IF the RW crap is on the TV I ask to have the channel changed, if they will not change it they do not get my business.
If you see this as a defect in me, you have the right to what happens in your own mind.
I have no responsibility for what happens between your ears.
branford
(4,462 posts)If you see something on the T.V. that you do not like, you REQUEST that they change the channel. If they refuse, you take your business elsewhere. Freedom and democracy in action!
Your conduct is legal, civil and mature. Why would I offer any objection?
However, your actions are most definitely not similar to the OP. She did not request anything. She then not only changed the channel on her employers television, what would be a incredibly minor action, but then instituted a password and stole or hid her employer's remote so that they could never choose to watch a channel simple because she objected to it. I doubt many here at DU would ever find that acceptable is the channel was not Fox.
Most importantly, you appear to have read my comments as some defense of Fox. That is not correct. My values of freedom of speech and choice (and the law itself) far transcend my dislike of Fox or anything else I may find offensive.
If my liberal values had an exception for Fox, they would NOT be liberal values.
Shall we buy you a pedestal?
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)We do not round-up or silence journalists and entertainers (redundant, I know) in America.
However, you already knew that.
We live in a free country. One of the costs of such freedom is that we are exposed, generally quite often, to ideas and speech that we find utterly offensive and with no redeeming value. Life goes on.
You should read about the ACLU's successful defense of the Nazi's right to march in Skokie, Illinois.
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)Editorial commentary and opinions are different from NEWS reporting. Any journalistic enterprise that purports it's self as " News" is obligated to the truth if they wish to use the public mass airwaves. Despite the rulings of recent court cases that failed to defend those who have fought for truth in main stream mass media, I believe in the publics right to have News Media do diligence in finding the truth and not purposely dispensing propaganda in the guise of trusted news program.
Freedom to express you opinion is so different from relaying important information to our public over mass media. I would hope you would understand that and remember that mass media is owned by the public.
branford
(4,462 posts)AWe have some public televisions and radio (e.g., PBS and NPR), but they are certainly what we in the USA consider the mass media. It's not even close to other countries like Britain which has the BBC, which represents a continually decreasing share of the airwaves.
Whether for good or ill, most media, including news stations and newspapers, are for-profit enterprises and little more than entertainment. However, we are not forced to watch or listen to any of these outlets, and we have more than ample sources for information, particularly since the advent of the internet. We choose to what we want to consume from innumerable sources.
All news stations distort the truth to some extent, it matters very little if the station is Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, RT (owned by the Russian State), Democracy Now!, or anything else. Each of us simply agrees, more or less, with the editorial slant and story choice of certain channels. I prefer the liberal stations, but I am under no illusion that the information I receive is slanted and edited to meet certain preconceived notions.
As for the "truth," I'm a lawyer and I often tell many shades of the truth, as do my adversaries. All the information is accurate, but it is certainly not the same. "Truth" is not as black and white a concept as you would like to believe. The world and people in general are not that simple. Context, history, belief and other matters determine what we perceive as the truth.
Regardless, I do not want a government bureaucrat determining what is, or is not, the truth. That has never worked out to the benefit of the people. I'll keep our current system, warts and all. The Founders were wise when they passed the First Amendment. It is certainly not perfect, but it's pretty darn good given human instincts and frailty.
Lastly, as it relates to the OP, it is always better to be exposed to more sources of information, not less. Also, not one of us is so wise and powerful that we get to decide what you, I or the OP get watch or listen to. Such arrogance is antithetical to a free and open society.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)
We have scratched a raw nerve and no ammout of excuses will put them back in sleeper mode.
They can bitch and moan all day long, but on private property when we have the remote, WE are in control.
Fuck FAUX.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)What you did was no different than me coming into your home and blocking HGTV.
The level and volume of your insults in lieu of a reasoned defense of your actions speaks volumes about your own principles. But you already know that.
DainBramaged, I've read and enjoyed plenty of your posts here, and I think you're an OK guy/gal with the (usually) good intentions, but I'll always, always, always stand up and defend people's right to watch what they want on their TV and on their property. Simply changing the channel would have solved your problem. What you did was wrong, and insulting people who are pointing it out just shows how desperate you are to defend your own actions. You had no right to apply such censorship in the workplace.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)
go bother someone who gives a shit
Poor baby
so easily brushed off....
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Thanks.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)All are paid subscription services. The public airwaves argument doesn't hold any water.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Have you ever watched that crap? Talk about forcing opinions on others. Faux does that ALL the time. Why make everyone suffer.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts) 
LuvLoogie
(7,011 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)And forgotten.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Away from sane individuals.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)...that knows it's garbage?
If they can't learn to change the channel to something unoffensive to all, this is the best way to deal with it. Like you would a spoiled child.
When was the last time you tried to 'guide' a FOX News fanatic? I'd prefer to go into battle with a thousand cats wearing a tuna hat.
branford
(4,462 posts)I don't care what was on the television, Fox, MSNBC, Sesame Street or anything else. Her conduct was simply inappropriate and unbefitting a responsible adult.
What I find most disturbing is that the OP apparently did not even ask her employer to turn the channel, and more importantly removed their ability to watch what they want on their own television.
As I see it, the only spoiled child was the OP.
demwing
(16,916 posts)
I am on a quest to use that line in a conversation today, thank you, thank you, thank you!
Berlum
(7,044 posts)on everyone else in the office. It is honorable self-defense to block their fear & hate propaganda assault (R).
Surprising that you don't believe in self-defense. Do you just let bullies push you around? You really need to find some courage somewhere in yourself. Good luck, canon fodder. You are going to need it.
Iggo
(47,558 posts) demwing
(16,916 posts)Do you have an honest conversation with your kids about pornography - while leaving the porn channels unblocked?
Nope.
KEWL STORY BRA!
Maraya1969
(22,483 posts) 
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)You can't have a realistic discussion about recovery when you are still pumping their veins full of heroin.
I can talk for four hours to someone about how they are misinformed about the AHCA, Benghazi, or the GOP Congress, and it will be wiped away in five minutes by that kid diddling racist Sean Hannity.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)I had a few confrontations at the gym with a Beckerhead teabagger who always put Fox "news" on the TV in the weight room while hogging the machine under the TV. One time I said that when I changed the channel it was like pulling the needle out of an addict's vein. He actually said "I'm not addicted, I just want to watch it." He actually said that. I then said, 'and I'm sure you can quit any time you want, right? Isn't that what addicts always say?'
You're right about talking with them. In 2005, a rightwinger waited in a grocery store parking lot to confront me about my "George Bush Is a Lying Sack of Shit" bumper sticker. Unlike today's foxtards, he actually ended up being fairly rational and we had a discussion for 45 minutes. He liked Bill O'Reilly, said he wasn't a republican, but a "conservative" and I asked him what that meant to him. Issue after issue, I made him realize we agreed. When I left, he shook my hand and apologized for the namecalling he started out with.
I have no doubt that later that evening, when he turned on Billo the Clown, he was completely reprogrammed.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)
spanone
(135,844 posts)balls of steel!!!
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts) CK_John
(10,005 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts) rdharma
(6,057 posts)
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts) Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)including doctors' waiting rooms, airports, and restaurants.
Why is there TV in a workplace at all?
I'm self-employed, so my exposure to other people's media is minimal, but a friend of mine said that all TV and radio were banned in his office, because they were the source of too much contention.
branford
(4,462 posts)That way, you don't have to actually have a conversation with other human beings, or worse, read a newspaper or magazine.
Given the polarity of peoples political views and overall tastes, I would expect that televisions use will continue to diminish in the workplace and public areas in order to eliminate the obvious strife. It doesn't matter if it's Fox, MSNBC or Sesame Street, someone is always going to be offended.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Blocks are still in place.
No one had ever set passwords, so I figured I would take the bull by the horns...I mean, ya know, like, think of the children!
And is blocking out the spawn of Goebbels really so wrong?
,
mountain grammy
(26,623 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)I watched 1/2 hr about 6 mos. ago and am still traumatized.......no kidding I remember the subjects covered
just defending from the assault of garbage above + beyond normal job duties imo
carry on
Response to DainBramaged (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hekate
(90,714 posts) 
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)videocam recording you doing that.
Hekate
(90,714 posts) NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You're my hero!
I love it!
deurbano
(2,895 posts)mountain grammy
(26,623 posts)and has changed America for the worse. I'm still amazed at the number of people I know and thought were fairly smart, who have bought the bullshit mountain hook, line and sinker. You did the right thing, and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise. This network has been crammed down my throat more than I can stand. If I walk into a business with Fox news on, I leave. I don't want to spend a dime in a place that promotes the hate and fear spewed daily on fox.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and watching the shocked reactions of a few posters on this thread makes it even more so.
My rule, when I still got cable TV, was "No watching Fox News in my living room." If a guest wished to watch Fox News, they could go into the guest room, close the door and watch it in there. But I simply will not allow it to be foisted on me in my own home.
(I never had the need to block it though because only one guest actually watched it sometimes, and since he was not really a strong political junkie, the only thing I could figure was he was a leg man)
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)lecturing me makes it all the better and proves there are advocates hiding among us.
demwing
(16,916 posts)A low post count supporter of Fox News? That could be any one of us....
Ah fuck it, I tried to keep a straight face.
Couldn't.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)tears streaming down my face at the drama here.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)poor widdle you
awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)You walk into an empty waiting room etc where Fox is on - you change the channel.
You walk into a room with people already there where Fox is on - you ask if anyone minds if you change the channel. 99% of the time, no one is going to mind. You change the channel.
You walk into a room with people already there where Fox is on - you ask if anyone minds if you change the channel. 1% of the time, someone will mind. You hold your nose and wait until that person leaves, then you change the channel.
What is so difficult about this? Do you feel the need to act as the final authority on every peon's viewing habits? Or do you just think that you're so much smarter than everyone else, that no one will be able to figure out on their own that Fox is pure entertainment?
I know you've painted yourself into a corner with this OP and can't back down now, and I expect you'll respond with more raspberries, but really, what's so wrong with my approach?
Omnith
(171 posts)Response to Omnith (Reply #55)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Omnith
(171 posts)You're right it is definitely elitism. I don't want "elites" of any stripe deciding what is appropriate for me to view.
branford
(4,462 posts)The OP has the right to watch what she wants on her television, and her employer has the right to choose what it wants on its television. That is the very essence of the First Amendment.
The only "elitist" in this thread appears to be the OP. She decided that she alone would determine what would be "best" for everyone to watch.
Hekate
(90,714 posts) DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I notice the word FAUX drew them, so I guess they are horrified we have choice and brain pan health in mind
FSogol
(45,488 posts) 
Whenever a thread like this comes along, it is hilarious to see the people who have no clue about the 1st amendment
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Doh
sorry
FSogol
(45,488 posts)Just trying to ratchet their RW paranoia up a notch.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)for being a Left wing truther LOLOL
FSogol
(45,488 posts)
Leith
(7,809 posts)It has nothing to do with the first amendment. So you can stop pretending that you know more than others how the 1st amendment applies. It is not between individuals. It is the government restricting speech. Get it?
Bravo, DB! The bravest I got was changing to the Game Channel saying that I was on break and news was too depressing.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I don't know why that is.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)in the Gungeon (or over at FR) got to be too strong.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)
hatrack
(59,587 posts) Flatulo
(5,005 posts)authoritarian streak.
Fuck people like that.
Hekate
(90,714 posts) Omnith
(171 posts)Not to detract from the thread topic but since you asked. I came here because I'm basically obsessed with politics and the DU talks about politics plenty. I used to be on the RealClearPolitics site a lot, but whenever you want to post its with a different log in credential. Here it is a lot easier.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) hatrack
(59,587 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)It is limiting the access at your locality to a propaganda machine. No one is being stopped from saying anything they want, just can't watch anything they want at work.
Give me access to a remote for a few minutes and I will block FOX, like every hotel room I stay, GONE! The hotel or next guest is just as capable of returning it to the lineup.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)It is one employee taking it upin herself to decide what her coworkers watch....
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Fox "News" sucks in every imaginable way, but the OP doesn't have the right to make that call for others.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Just a fantasy like the checkout line confrontation threads
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... if they REALLY need the Faux-fix during lunch.
I think it's a public service and probably helps digestion, too.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)their views on her. Turn about is fair play.
Lighten up. It was a wonderful, fun prank.
Seems some people here are Faux supporters who are totally overreacting.
I presume however that they would be upset if MSNBC was forced on them.
Given their reactions, I wonder why they are even here at DU.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)There's a pack that showed up very suddenly in this thread, but when I checked (purely curious) on the start-dates of a few of the ones with a couple of hundred posts, they also started quite recently.
Hence my question: "What drew you here?"
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)a Democratic Board.
billh58
(6,635 posts)was "Bring a Troll to Work Week" or something...
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Absolutely no sense of humor. 
I thought it was priceless, and the thought of DB climbing the rafters with the remote is a scream.
Love me some DB.
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)Pot calling the kettle!
Iggo
(47,558 posts)
rexcat
(3,622 posts)not a private citizen do something like this. My guess is you didn't do well in high school history class.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Anyone!?
Rex
(65,616 posts)
dogknob
(2,431 posts)...kind of like people who think farting in an elevator is funny.
I live in coastal Orange County, CA and I'm not making this up. People who like FOX get off on exposing others to it against their will.
pstokely
(10,528 posts)nt
Mariana
(14,858 posts)They know it's offensive to many people, and they like that.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)I finally called the store manager and said it was truly offensive and to just run CNN.
But when I'm stuck in a waiting room and that nauseating propaganda organ is going, there's no escape. I appreciate good service providers or I wouldn't be where-ever-it-is, but oh my gods.
I wish I knew how to do that blocking thingie myself!
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Did your coworkers appreciate it or even notice?
sgsmith
(398 posts)Idiotic move on your part, which helps prove that dems/progressive/liberals are the type to control what you're allowed to see.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) Rex
(65,616 posts)Shit look at all the mad troll...er...posters! You should do this kind of thread DAILY! 
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)brings all the dreck out don't it?
Rex
(65,616 posts)All because you shut off Foxnews! I LOVE IT!
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)And, of course, I mean "right" in more than one sense.
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)you really don't understand.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Or just the need to control others. Personally I don't feel threatened by beliefs that differ from my own.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)can you say that about all the required Faux News watching the public is subjected to in so may waiting room areas? Why don't I see you post vehemently about public RW indoctrination?
branford
(4,462 posts)The OP altered passwords and stole her employers remote in a intentional attempt to deny them the ability to watch the channel of their choice. How is that ever OK?
My feeling would not change if the OP's employer were liberal and the television was set to MSNBC, Democracy Now!, RT or even Sesame Street, and a conservative employee changed the channel, altered the password and stole the remote.
The employer had the right to watch whatever it wanted on its own television, just like the OP can choose to watch what she wants on her television. She apparently didn't even bother to ask her employer to change the station.
Additionally, your allegation of RW indoctrination in waiting rooms is absurd. You are not forced to go to any of those commercial establishments, and can either ask them to change the channel or take you business elsewhere. It really is that simple.
I'm saddened by reading so many posts here on liberal DU that seem to believe that we have a right not to be offended or can substitute our judgment for others on matters of speech and other important constitutional concerns. I expect such ridiculousness from nutty members of the right-wing, but it appears that hypocrisy is alive and well even among those who otherwise agree with me on other social and financial matters.
Response to sgsmith (Reply #76)
olddots This message was self-deleted by its author.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Enjoy your stay!
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) Rex
(65,616 posts)
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) rexcat
(3,622 posts)as a reminder this is a place for people who support liberal and progressive ideas. Moderates are tolerated but conservatives are not. Of course conservatism is a mental disease that can be helped with medication and intensive therapy.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)NO BODY under 60 watches that shit, and they turn it WAY up when they put FUCKED on so we'll see if it is quiet.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)And good on ya, girl.
I'm opening a restaurant and the debate as to whether or not to put a tv in the waiting area was put to rest when I realized some asshat would turn on Fox, thus enraging me and exposing me as a card-carrying "libtard". Not that I'm not proud to be one, but I'm trying to leave politics out of my business.
Response to dorkzilla (Reply #84)
DainBramaged This message was self-deleted by its author.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)The cat threw me off! Lol!
Any feedback from work?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)to have you acting as their big brother. 
Response to pintobean (Reply #83)
Name removed Message auto-removed
samsingh
(17,599 posts)
Mr Dixon
(1,185 posts) 
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 10:32 AM - Edit history (1)
Mostly, though, we don't act on those fantasies. Cool story, broham.
branford
(4,462 posts)I fully understand both the frustration and the fantasy. However, do you believe that the OP acted like a responsible adult? Would you ever teach a child that this was the right way to behave?
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)I said no wonder you've been making weird decisions lately.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts) Myrina
(12,296 posts)Somehow, some way, one of the Facilities IT geeks programs the cafeteria tv's so they show CNN from 11-12 and Faux from 12-1 every day. Grinds my grits to even have to go there for a soda, I wish I knew how to change - or could bribe the geek who does - the programming.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Nt
madokie
(51,076 posts)and I'm making that prediction early on.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)One remote at a time.
They might as well just watch looney toons. Cause fox is full of strange characters.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)so when the box is turned on they get Morning Schmoe
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They might like Morning Joke. He an idiot.
eShirl
(18,494 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)With meek Mika and Joe Schmoe. Guest starring Harold third way Ford. I can't take that show. I yell at my teevee and expect answers.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Response to DainBramaged (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
arcane1
(38,613 posts)No, I take that back, it's a terrible try
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Democratic saboteurs like you. Thank you for your service. 
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I buried the remote in a vacant lot across the street.
Faux Noise, M$NBC, all that cable "news" crap is nothing more than this:
Lots of noise and feces-flinging, but not something I want in my workplace or in my living room.
eShirl
(18,494 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)after blocking everything but QVC and setting the password to the value of pi to the fourteenth decimal.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)would just start making decisions for those who don't, and not giving them the option to make up their own mind (or even have any discussion about it). This always works out for the best. 
.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Puke don't play fair, go lecture someone else
Throd
(7,208 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)(picture me holding my nose)
Throd
(7,208 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Defending FAUX on DU is tantamount to defending MSNBC on Free Republic.
It has NOTHING to do with free speech, it has everything to do with mental health
Have a nice dayzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Throd
(7,208 posts)As you pat yourself on the back, remember not to squeal when some Republican pulls a similar stunt.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I
don't
give
a
shit
Throd
(7,208 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)buh bye power ranger
Throd
(7,208 posts)GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Wow, the backwards bending and twisting all over Bill O' Reilly and Hannity's favorite channel!
My my my...
Throd
(7,208 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Since you are against self-appointed censors.
Throd
(7,208 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)give us a break, your seriousness over this is telling
Throd
(7,208 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts) Throd
(7,208 posts)Why is that a dick move? Is there a law that the channel MUST be on Foxnews? No, there is not.
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)but I'm sure you know that.
They are saying it's a dick move to block a channel and somehow you read it as saying it's a dick move to block faux news.
but i'm sure you know that.
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)while I agree with changing the channel, I feel it's kinda childish hiding the remote and buying a new one..(wahhh I don't like the channel so ill hide the remote so no one can turn it back on!)
you wont get in trouble or anything for stealing the original remote and hiding it?
Response to GalaxyHunter (Reply #154)
DainBramaged This message was self-deleted by its author.
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)I just don't approve of the way you handled it. (like I said before, like a child would)
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)not a whit. Maybe in 10 years if you're still here with me I would, but right now, dust in the wind....
BuhBye
Transparant as piss
we see you
all of you
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)if that's how you are, I don't care because I don't have to deal with it.
I'm glad I work with adults who act like adults, not like children.
BuhBye
Rex
(65,616 posts)Kewl story though!
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)I meant it's childish that they changed the channel and then hid the remote!
that's what I meant was childish, Rex.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) GalaxyHunter
(271 posts) Rex
(65,616 posts)over a station that really has no right to call itself a news channel.
The twisting and bending over backwards for Foxnews is FUCKING HILARIOUS!
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)name to the Fox and Friends Entertainment channel for Morans.
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I have been laughing my way through this thread over an over again. Can we do this once a day? Where did all of these Fox News junkies come from? Thank you, I'm having a lovely time and I want to commend you on your public service. You're making some people pretty mad. You're awesome.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)and it always draws out the worst of us........
Thanks t's been fun, so far no complaints today so since I'm off for a few dys we'll see what happens next week
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Just put up the same thing next week and we can cull the herd a bit more.
I need laughs regularly or I get pissy.
Rex
(65,616 posts)for a bit. I want to know how many more are FURIOUS that he blocked FUXNEWS!
libodem
(19,288 posts)I complained at my bank because Faux was on. It worked. Now, I don't have to see it when I'm waiting.
I'm glad you blocked it and I'm strongly against censorship. In this case it is a public service.
Man, oh man, this has drawn the under the bridge dwellers. Wow wee. We can't say tarbaby here, but boy are they touching this and getting stuck!!!
branford
(4,462 posts)You asked your bank to change the channel, and they complied. Hooray, for civil discourse! That appears to be far more than the OP even attempted. Your parents raised you with manners. Don't you believe that they OP should have acted as you did?
Do you believe that you had a RIGHT for Fox not to be on the bank's television? If the bank had refused to change the channel, do you believe you had a right not to be offended? Doesn't the bank have a right to determine what they watch on their own television on their property? If you do not agree with the bank's choice of programming, couldn't you simply take your business elsewhere?
Everyone loves the First Amendment and claims to be against censorship, at least until faced with something they find very offensive. Only then do we invent exceptions to protect our delicate sensibilities. We don't need the First Amendment to protect speech that we agree with. Simply ask the ACLU about Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois.
I'm confident and secure enough in my beliefs that some morons on Fox are just noise to be ignored. Maybe it's just the trial lawyer in me, or that I live and work in a place as loud and diverse as Manhattan, but if I acted, even occasionally, like the OP when something seriously offended me, I would find myself in prison or an asylum.
Look, I completely agree with your opinion about Fox. However, our opinion about Fox is not at all the point. I object to substituting my judgment over someone else, particularly about something so fundamental as what to watch or listen to. I do not get to determine what is "best" for you or anyone else. That appears to be the conduct and beliefs that many conservatives adhere to, and I thought that we at DU categorically reject.
If you claim to object to censorship and value free speech, but make an exception for Fox or anything else just because you disagree of find it offensive, your are a hypocrite or do not fully comprehend the values you claim to advocate.
When some Republican claims they want to enact some awful legislation that would impeded liberal views or actions, such as the recent laws concerning abortion clinics, don't act surprised when they too claim is just a "public service."
If standing-up for free speech rights, even those with which I completely disagree or reject, makes me a troll, I will wear such a badge proudly, as I imagine would most of my ACLU brethren.
Demoiselle
(6,787 posts)I would have thought that asking for freedom from political cant in a place of business is a perfectly legitimate request.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)The first amendment says the government shall not pass laws restricting speech. What someone is or isn't forced to listen to in a non-public location is totally irrelevant as far as the first amendment is concerned.
branford
(4,462 posts)The OP's employer had the constitutional right to watch anything it wanted to on its television on its property. That is precisely the reason that the OP conduct could actually be considered illegal, and certainly more than sufficient grounds for discipline or termination, even in a non at-will state, at the discretion of her employer.
However, mention of the First Amendment was simply a reference to the principles embodied in our Constitution and drive our society. You do not get to determine what I watch or listen to, and I do not get to determine what you watch or listen to. We similarly do not have a right not to be offended. These are undeniable liberal principles.
If the OP simply changed the channel, I would not have bothered to post about such a minor and temporary transgression. However, she not only failed to even request that her employer change the channel or seek a compromise, but then set a password and stole or hid the employer's remote control to ensure that only the OP could fully choose what the employer wished to watch on its own set. Do you really find this to be acceptable? Would you excuse it if a conservative employee at a liberal employer acted similarly?
My liberal views on free speech and choice do not have a Fox News exception.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) branford
(4,462 posts)I'm advocating the liberal values of freedom of speech and choice. If liberal values have an exception for Fox news, they are not liberal values. The fact that you objected to Fox is completely irrelevant.
May I ask, did you even request that your employer simply change the channel or seek some form of compromise?
Do you really believe that you had the right to institute a password and hide or steal the remote so that your employer could never choose what they want to watch on their own television?
Would you object if guests in your home did to you, what you did to your employer, just with a channel you prefer?
Does blind hatred of Fox permit conduct that would clearly warrant punishment if committed by an errant child?
Would it still be considered funny if a conservative employee with a liberal employer did the same thing, except the channel was MSNBC or PBS?
I just simply do not see Fox as sufficiently significant to act like a hypocrite or as justification for acting like those I claim detest.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)goodbye.
OH and
Benghazi!
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Too much fun!
Rex
(65,616 posts)YOU BLOCKED FUCXNES WHY DO YOU HATE OBAMA!?!?! 
bravenak
(34,648 posts) Rex
(65,616 posts)
Peaceplace80
(38 posts)I value my hands! Her work environment would of been worse, she would of been subjected to Fox and her angry co workers.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Hurray for you. I'm to damned passive to take up arms against hate tv (and radio) but I thinks about it, I does.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I sometimes think about calling into some of our right wing hate radio talk show programs around here and confronting the nonsense. But I don't have the courage.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I find that alarming.
Hekate
(90,714 posts) 
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)you're so unhappy
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)Thanks for this OP. Because of the discussion I IDed 2 who will be ignored from now on.
I suppose that is violating their right of free speech- Well I think what I did is as much speech as burning a flag.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I do see some condemning the OP for deciding what content is acceptable.
I have a problem with somebody blocking channels they don't like. FOX, MSNBC, Nickelodeon, The Weather Channel, that station where you can buy crappy jewelry...
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)They're objecting to someone making a dick move. Duh...
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I want to see them! :chuckles:
Mr.Bill
(24,303 posts)I'm going to start doing this on TVs in public places, like waiting rooms at auto service centers, doctor's offices, etc. If the remote is there, I'll just but a password on that channel.
First stop, a little good natured fun at my rich Republican brother's house.
kimbutgar
(21,162 posts)Luckily where I work only cnbc is on and that's only sometimes because my boss thinks cnbc anchors are idiots.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts) 
LaPera
(6,486 posts)until they turn the channel and tell them them will not only lose my business but people i know as well as others who are sick of Fox' lies distortions and bullshit!
agentS
(1,325 posts)I would have sued under the grounds that being subjected to FOX News is akin to Racial and Sexual harassment. Even if I were white, I would have sued for both reasons (FOX News being an embarrassment to white people everywhere). Heck, I would throw in a RICO charge just to get 'discovery' against the network.
Based on some of the posts here, it seems like FOX in the workplace makes for a hostile work environment and probably an EEOC issue (while I don't have a problem with the camera angles on the FOX news beauty queen reporters, I bet someone somewhere would).
If the boss complains about the remote hack job, threaten to sue or tell him you were preventing a lawsuit.
branford
(4,462 posts)Any attorney (and I should know, I am one in NY and NJ) who would institute an action based on your reasoning would be incompetent, and likely face sanctions, particularly in federal court. In my career, I've both assisted clients with claims before the EEOC and related state and city agencies, and defended companies against charges, and even the very, very liberal employees of these agencies would tell you how they've heard the Fox news allegations for years, and ask if you had any real evidence of discrimination or a hostile work environment.
Although if the OP were disciplined by her employer, and she raised your defense, I would certainly like to see the bemused reaction of her boss and the company's counsel.
Simply, you cannot claim a hostile work environment solely because you have to listen to the daily programming of a cable news network, even Fox, and claims of racial or gender bias in the workplace are not a legal defense to vandalism and related charges.
I represented both women and minorities in real bias cases, and advice like yours will not effectively serve either of these groups.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)It's about shutting off bullshit propaganda to make MY work environment (and dozens of others) less hostile listening to Right wing bullshit and excuses like yours.
Get off your horse and get lost
OH and I almost forgot
Benghazi!!
branford
(4,462 posts)I do not want some unfortunate reader to take the poster's advice and needlessly lose their job.
I thought you were done with me. It even sounded like a promise. Oh, well . . .
You also appear to constantly exclaim "Benghazi!" on quite a number of threads on DU, rather than engage in the actual points of discussion. If it's a nervous tick or some type of disorder, it might be a good idea to seek medical advice.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)Parental controls/passwords can be bypassed and reset.
The original remote wasn't destroyed, and had it failed would probably have been replaced by one of those cheap remotes anyway. That's all a lot of hotels have.
For every non-republican: if you have an iPod touch or iPhone, get one of these
http://www.amazon.com/Potato-Technologies-Universal-Remote-Control/dp/B003FRTGEQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377226958&sr=8-1&keywords=flpr+universal+remote+control
This app turns your iPod or iPhone into a universal remote. If you have one of the new ones, you'll need the USB adapter. It is the old USB. Best thing I ever bought. TVs, Cable boxes, Satellite boxes and all kinds of other remotes. Guaranteed to reduce your blood pressure in public places where there's a TV.
branford
(4,462 posts)First, the OP hid or stole the remote control as well as changing the password. That is not OK, even for a child.
Are you really claiming that since the password might be reset, and another remote or substitute purchased by her employer, that it excuses the behavior? Is it a general defense or only if one's actions are in response to Fox News?
I understand that you hate Fox (your name and avatar are certainly a giveaway), and you wish to mitigate the juvenille conduct of the OP, but I believe you know better. It's like telling a judge your not guilty of vandalism because it wasn't that difficult for the store to paint over the graffiti.
You can certainly hate Fox (I'm no fan) and still believe that the OP could have handled the situation in a far more mature and respectable manner.
agentS
(1,325 posts)Stranger cases have come before the court.
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20111119/NEWS01/111190352/Webster-Electric-Cooperative-lawsuit
Woman sues Webster Electric Cooperative, manager and board.
It's likely the same circumstances in this case are not applicable in the case of the OP, but if the employer is showing FOX News, there's bound to be other problems going on in the office that he/she can take advantage of in a potential lawsuit.
I guess that's the key part here- is an employee who is not in the media required to listen to offensive material in unrelated workplaces? I could see a lawsuit not working for a member of MediaMatters. But for the cashier at a Mom & Pop... I know they're not blasting porn on the speakers, but FOX is pretty damn deep in Mein Kampf territory.
Nonetheless, it's a long shot, compared to some of the cases seen here. http://www.workplacefairness.org/court-cases?state=LA
billh58
(6,635 posts)been pointed out in this thread, there are absolutely no Freedom of Speech issues here. The First Amendment only applies to government interference with speech in a public venue, and there are even exceptions to that principle (certain forms of hate speech, the famous "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy, disturbing the peace, etc.). The question of whether or not an employee can alter a piece of equipment is strictly a work-related issue and has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's "rights."
The same principle applies in a private home, or on a private Internet discussion web site. Take DU, for example: The owners and admins set the rules for what can, and can not be posted on this web site, and there is no such thing as "freedom of speech" on DU. The same applies to most private venues with few exceptions (shopping malls, and other "private" but open to the public venues).
So for all of the FAUX supporters on DU, and those participating in this thread in particular, please take the time to try and understand your righteous rants before you make utter fools of yourselves. Fuck FAUX Snooze and those who support it by watching it, or defending it in a private venue like DU.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I do see some condemning the OP for deciding what content is acceptable.
I have a problem with somebody blocking channels they don't like. FOX, MSNBC, Nickelodeon, The Weather Channel, that station where you can buy crappy jewelry...
If I had a TV going at my business, I would put on something mundane and non-controversial just to avoid shitstorms like this.
billh58
(6,635 posts)out elsewhere in this thread, the people who consider themselves "victims" of the OP's decision (prank?) have avenues for redress through their owner/management chain-of-command. Businesses and private homes are not democracies.
Your statement that you would decide what was acceptable to be shown on your own business TV is exactly what is going on here and in that case you would be "deciding what content is available." If the owner of the TV has no problem with someone blocking FAUX Snooze on the company TV, then they are giving the act tacit approval as is their "right."
And yes, those who are complaining so loudly about the blocking of FAUX Snooze in a private setting ARE indeed defending that scum-bucket piece-of-shit organization and its right-wing owners and supporters. This is nothing even close to the ACLU defending the KKK and Nazis -- it is support of evil propaganda.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)FAUX tells them so....
LVdem
(524 posts)I did that in the hotels we stayed at last fall before the election.
Fun with remotes.
livingwagenow
(373 posts)
Neoma
(10,039 posts)Calling that bunch mentally ill, insults mentally ill people. They're more evil than crazy. Because I for one, don't want to be compared in any way shape and form to that group.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)how sad for all of you. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, nothing, but like most wingers, you think you're smarter than the rest of us.
How sad you think you're right.
billh58
(6,635 posts)these FAUX Snooze defenders have absolutely no sense of humor, and sincerely believe that "free speech" applies in private venues. Congratulations not only on your stand against this propaganda arm of the neoconservative assholes in this country, but on your outing of DU's own Tightie Righties.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I lied and threw my co-workers under the bus while mocking the mentally ill. Cool Story.
Response to DainBramaged (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Stupid fuckers all.
FreeRepublic, America's excuse for school dropouts to practice spelling on public computers.
HI ASSHOLES!
And they made it easy to pick out who they are here....
