This message was self-deleted by its author

[DainBramaged]

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.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. That was an excellent move, my dear DainBramaged!

[Initech]

2. Better would be to use the parent blocker and permanently block it.

[DainBramaged]

3. I did

then swapped the remote

[DonRedwood]

121. I...I...I think I love you!

[truebluegreen]

4. Now that would be a richly-deserved response

to the 12-yr-olds who follow it.

[malaise]

5. Sweet

[Socal31]

6. Welcome to the world of lower blood pressue.

[freshwest]

9. No kidding! It's a matter of health!

[Mopar151]

7. First moron that calls the cable co. to complain

Wins "Dumbass of the Month"

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. No, that goes to the guy who's flipped through all the channels three times looking for it.

[rurallib]

8. there is a place in heaven for you.

[freshwest]

10. MY HERO! Who's Dah Man? You Dah Man!

[snappyturtle]

11. Whoa! great move.....congrats! Don't you just f-e-e-l good? nt

[Bobbie Jo]

12. LOL!

Doing your part, one $5 remote at a time.

Awesomeness!

[hrmjustin]

13. Good for you my friend!

[onehandle]

14. I did that at my old gym. Ten cable boxes/ten TVs. I blocked Faux and set a password.

The password was 'fauxnews.'

Heh.

[canonfodder]

15. That's sad

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]

16. I don't think it's force

it's more like a practical joke with a good hook on it.

[Rebellious Republican]

19. Best story I have heard in a long time!!!!!!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. Just making junkies go cold turkey....

I'm sure they would support that tactic.

[GETPLANING]

24. You can not have an honest conversation with someone who watches Fox News.

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.

[mr clean]

102. +1000

[avebury]

112. Agreed! nt

[Demoiselle]

233. Yes.

[barbtries]

270. agreed.

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]

291. That's a mighty big responsibility you've taken on there, deciding what others

may or may not watch. You must be really important.

[branford]

31. And free speech dies a little bit more . . .

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]

34. On the whole, I reluctantly agree with you . . .

But sometimes one gives in to guilty pleasures.

[branford]

49. I understand the schadenfreude, but we should strive to be better than that.

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]

50. It's not really the same . . .

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]

53. She never claimed that she asked her employer to change the channel.

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]

68. True, perhaps, but since I gave up my lease on the big glass house some time ago . . .

I'm withholding my criticism.

[FoxNewsSucks]

36. Not at all

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]

160. So if people want to block a known racist like Al Sharpton they have a right to do so

even if they intrude on other people's rights and property; because this is how we form a civil society.

[FoxNewsSucks]

284. Al Sharpton's show is not the equivalent of the entire Fox "news" network

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]

305. Would you gag a public speaker spouting Fox News talking points in the public square, to, ya know,

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]

308. No. For a change let the REPUBLICONS walk away.

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]

310. I'm afraid you're still missing it...

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]

323. Exposure to an opinion is not imposing an opinion.

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.

Well, sorry, but I and others have a "right" to turn that crap OFF.

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.

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.

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]

289. '...me or anyone else'??? And how do you justify to yourself that you can decide what others

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]

293. Not destruction.

See my other reply to you.

Why wouldn't you fire the employee who keeps putting the channel on something that offensive?

[Flatulo]

298. You really don't seem to understand that not everyone shares your tastes.

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]

303. So? Millions of people like Honey BooBoo

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]

309. You don't have the right to be free from offense in every public place. The owner of the TV and

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]

311. It's not a matter of whether you believe it is right or wrong, good or bad.

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.

[Hekate]

43. Okay

This is FOX we're talking about.

[MsPithy]

47. Yeeesh!

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]

52. Even hate speech is protected in the USA.

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]

58. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that

freedom of speech is absolute.

[branford]

60. What exception to First Amendment do you believe covers the OP's conduct?

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]

80. The exception is the fact that the OP isn't congress

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]

134. She violated the spirit of the First Amendment - freedom for each of us to choose what we watch.

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]

157. You asked what exception to the first amendment covered the OP's conduct - that was it.

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]

163. Thank you for your concern.

[jberryhill]

215. Or not to watch

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]

234. The actions described in the OP are not First Amendment violations.

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]

302. Consider a conservative standing on his soapbox in the public square spouting RW talking points.

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]

328. You're right - gagging is not the appropriate response to speech one opposes.

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]

329. Ok, so lets fine tune that a bit... Instead of

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]

330. I thought I was clear, but apparently not.

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]

332. Yeah, I hear you. I just want to play around with this

in my mind a little more.

I don't think it's a 1A issue either. More of a property rights thing.

[Flatulo]

239. The OP could close their eyes. Or walk way. Or quit.

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]

248. Um....

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]

251. She didn't change the channel. She rendered the TV inoperable.

That's not her private property.

[FoxNewsSucks]

285. Is the TV in the boss' office?

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]

287. The OP did not just change the channel - she rendered the TV inoperable by applying

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]

292. It's not inoperable.

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]

295. You really don't get it, do you? I'm not being snarky, but you really don't seem to

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]

166. How about the employer's right to say, "You're fired!"?

[whopis01]

294. Of course - goes without saying

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]

190. Shit, call the Constitution Police

[Nuclear Unicorn]

165. You have no right to say that.

(See how quickly it gets stupid?)

[Flatulo]

300. I don't believe this is a freedom of speech issue. It's just censorship and authoritarianism.

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]

88. And they are still

free to watch fox on THEIR own television.

[Trajan]

106. Freedom of Speech limits governments from ..

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]

114. ... and there are so many of them showing up at once....

... just in the past few days.

[AngryOldDem]

72. I've heard the same things said about MSNBC.

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]

231. But see the people who would want to block MSNBC couldn't figure out how to do it.

So all's fair in love and war.

[AngryOldDem]

232. Don't agree.

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]

51. It's action and at least not a tea bagger's threat to see Obama lynched.

[Egnever]

64. Stick around

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]

241. You'll learn even less watching The Three Stooges. Does that give the OP the right to police

what others are watching, on property that isn't theirs? No, I don't think so.

Censorship is bad. Always.

[DainBramaged]

73. Bullshit

Get off your horse

[Flatulo]

242. Looks to me like you're the one firmly planted on the horse.

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]

260. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

I guess you're the FAUX spoksperson in this thread?

[Flatulo]

277. No, but it looks like I'm one of the few with manners and sense.

[DainBramaged]

279. Benghazi!

[Niceguy1]

85. forcing one views

On another sounds like something a fox news viewer would do.

Uncool in my book.

[HERVEPA]

87. Then go to the library and get another.

[DainBramaged]

123. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Sheepshank]

125. no one is forcing anyone to watch anything a la Clockwork Orange

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]

243. Some people might enjoy Fox, others might enjoy MSNBC. Would you be OK if half the people

in the world went around blocking MSNBC on televisions that they didn't own?

[Trajan]

107. Ah ... A Gungeonite sneaking through the unlocked gate ...

I wonder - Does FR have a comparable forum where Liberals can go hang out?

[branford]

135. I don't know, do you?

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]

138. Blah blah blah

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]

146. Righty? Have you read my other posts on DU?

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]

152. Then they can watch the live feed on their computer.

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]

238. I've read your posts.

And I understand completely why you're hanging in the gungeon.

[billh58]

196. Well, aren't you

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.

[U4ikLefty]

179. +1

[Vincardog]

153. Have you attempt to change hearts and minds of any FauxSnewZ viewers? They get violent

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]

244. I most certainly have no objections to your conduct.

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.

[TBF]

237. lololol

Shall we buy you a pedestal?

[The Wielding Truth]

282. Fox News should have had it's license revoked a long time ago for fraud against the public.

[branford]

283. Having an opinion, even offensive or bigoted ones, does not constitute fraud.

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]

315. I disagree with the public airwaves being used to purposely lie and distort truth for political gain.

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]

316. Most mass media is not owned by the public, it's owned by its shareholders.

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]

318. The FAUX defenders still at it huh?

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]

322. Oh, so the TV was your private property, being used on your private property? No.

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]

325. Just fucking stop with the lectures

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

go bother someone who gives a shit


Poor baby


so easily brushed off....

[Flatulo]

327. Please stop sending me private messages. If you wish to address my posts, you can do so here.

Thanks.

[Flatulo]

321. Fox News is a cable channel. You can only access it via cable, satellite, or SiriusXM radio.

All are paid subscription services. The public airwaves argument doesn't hold any water.

[Politicalboi]

32. Why should someone be stuck watching Faux at work?

Have you ever watched that crap? Talk about forcing opinions on others. Faux does that ALL the time. Why make everyone suffer.

[deurbano]

44. That would be a hostile work environment.

[Hekate]

40. Welcome to DU. What drew you here?

[LuvLoogie]

57. One doesn't guide or persuade zombies trying to eat your children.

[Rex]

63. The touching concern is noted.

And forgotten.

[bravenak]

116. They can watch that bull jizz at home.

Away from sane individuals.

[Sheepshank]

127. just what are the viewers being forced to watch?

[Wait Wut]

132. Is it better to force FOX on someone...

...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]

136. The OP didn't just change the channel, she altered password and stole the remote.

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]

177. "go into battle with a thousand cats wearing a tuna hat"

I am on a quest to use that line in a conversation today, thank you, thank you, thank you!

[Berlum]

140. It's self-preservation. The right-wing nuts are the ones forcing FOX

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]

155. Oh, please...

[demwing]

170. No, not sad at all

Do you have an honest conversation with your kids about pornography - while leaving the porn channels unblocked?

Nope.

[Rex]

180. LOL!

KEWL STORY BRA!

[Maraya1969]

229. " Perhaps an honest conversation may have been a better tact. "

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

255. Drug addicts need to be taken off their drug of choice

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]

288. They really are addicts.

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]

17. Those drop ceilings have concealed a LOT of white powder over the years.

[Rebellious Republican]

18. Fuckin A, good on you, you REBEL!!!!!!

[spanone]

21. k&r...

balls of steel!!!

[Rebellious Republican]

22. Was laughing so hard, I forgot to K&R! N/T

[CK_John]

25. Please don't whine when you lose your job.

[Politicalboi]

33. Is the Faux police coming? Call Bill O'Lielly

[rdharma]

26. Good on you!

[BlueJazz]

27. Alright !...Somebody with Guts !!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I get Fox and CNN (which is almost as bad these days) forced on me in all kinds of environments

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]

54. I think the conventional wisdom is that people like the distraction of the television.

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]

99. Lots of places have TV in the break/lunch room. N/T

[Zorra]

29. I've done done something similar a few times in different places in the past 5 years.

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]

46. +1000

[lunasun]

30. One can take only so much brain torture

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

[Hekate]

41. Welcome to DU. What drew you here?

[pnwmom]

37. Hopefully there was no

videocam recording you doing that.

[Hekate]

38. Today you are my hero for performing a service to humanity

[NYC_SKP]

39. ROFL!

You're my hero!



I love it!

[deurbano]

42. Wish I could do that at my mom's house...

[mountain grammy]

45. Fox is mind numbing in it's hypocrisy, lies, complete distortion of American history and politics

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]

48. That's hilarious...

...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]

74. The horror of blocking FUCKED VIEWS oh the horror

lecturing me makes it all the better and proves there are advocates hiding among us.

[demwing]

185. Oh come on

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]

188. Me too LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

tears streaming down my face at the drama here.

[Flatulo]

247. Maybe some of us just have principles we stick to, even when we disagree with the outcome?

[DainBramaged]

259. awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

poor widdle you





awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

[Flatulo]

273. Here's how an adult would handle such a situation.. Y'kow, someone raised with taste and manners:

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]

55. Not a fan of the first amendment I see.

[Omnith]

59. I should decide what you watch and listen to.

You're right it is definitely elitism. I don't want "elites" of any stripe deciding what is appropriate for me to view.

[branford]

61. And who exactly made the OP the Queen and gave her the power to determine what anyone should watch?

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]

66. Welcome to DU. What drew you here?

[DainBramaged]

75. I ask the same question

I notice the word FAUX drew them, so I guess they are horrified we have choice and brain pan health in mind

[FSogol]

109. Let's use our liberal superpowers, sneak over to their house, and block it on their tvs too!

Whenever a thread like this comes along, it is hilarious to see the people who have no clue about the 1st amendment

[DainBramaged]

110. Me moran

Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Doh


sorry

[FSogol]

113. You completely misunderstood me. I'm glad you shut the crap off.

Just trying to ratchet their RW paranoia up a notch.

[DainBramaged]

120. My apologies

for being a Left wing truther LOLOL

[FSogol]

126. No prob.

[Leith]

250. Unless DainBramaged Did This as a Duties of a Government Official

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]

254. Are you sure you responded to the correct poster? I never said anything about the 1st amendment.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

256. Lots of people don't understand that private citizens aren't in a position to abrogate 1A.

I don't know why that is.

[Flatulo]

276. No, only you have choice. Everyone else bows to your wishes. Aren't you something!

[billh58]

227. Most likely the stench

in the Gungeon (or over at FR) got to be too strong.

[DainBramaged]

263. Nah,mention their god FAUX and the little lights go on in their heads

[hatrack]

199. Why don't you and Omnith get a room?

[Flatulo]

274. Well, her and the peanut gallery that's shown up to cheer on her poor manners,

authoritarian streak.

Fuck people like that.

[Hekate]

65. Welcome to DU. What drew you here?

[Omnith]

67. Thanks for the welcome.

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]

77. RealClearPolitics

[hatrack]

201. OFFS . . . .

[liberal N proud]

82. Blocking FOX isn't infringing on any first amendment rights

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]

92. actually

It is one employee taking it upin herself to decide what her coworkers watch....

[Lizzie Poppet]

96. Precisely...and it's a dick move.

Fox "News" sucks in every imaginable way, but the OP doesn't have the right to make that call for others.

[Niceguy1]

97. it is probably

Just a fantasy like the checkout line confrontation threads

[cordelia]

147. !

[Myrina]

105. No, not really - they can watch from their phones, or desks, or listen in their car ....

... if they REALLY need the Faux-fix during lunch.

I think it's a public service and probably helps digestion, too.

[OregonBlue]

108. If the other employees are watching for and she doesn't want to watch it then they are imposing

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]

115. I wonder as well

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]

149. Nailed it. I also (purely curious) looked at some of their posts. Am still wondering why they are on

a Democratic Board.

[billh58]

228. I thought maybe it

was "Bring a Troll to Work Week" or something...

[Bobbie Jo]

312. Dead give away....

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]

129. As opposed to those who force FOX down their coworkers throats?

Pot calling the kettle!

[Iggo]

181. Neither are you, I read.

[rexcat]

205. The First Amendment has to do with the government...

not a private citizen do something like this. My guess is you didn't do well in high school history class.

[Rex]

223. Who ordered the sour grapes!?

Anyone!?

[Rex]

62. Fuck the Pukes!

[dogknob]

69. Part of the appeal of watching FOX is knowing that others are hearing it...

...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]

70. they turn to channel to Faux news hoping it will stay on there

nt

[Mariana]

90. You're right.

They know it's offensive to many people, and they like that.

[Hekate]

117. Yes they do. I got Macy's to turn off FOX in the waiting area by the dressing rooms

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]

71. Sounds like a high school prank.

Did your coworkers appreciate it or even notice?

[sgsmith]

76. Hope you enjoy UC

Idiotic move on your part, which helps prove that dems/progressive/liberals are the type to control what you're allowed to see.

[DainBramaged]

79. Glad I pissed you off!!

[Rex]

164. Me too!

Shit look at all the mad troll...er...posters! You should do this kind of thread DAILY!

[DainBramaged]

167. And a few have already had pizza deliveries

brings all the dreck out don't it?

[Rex]

169. It does!

All because you shut off Foxnews! I LOVE IT!

[2ndAmForComputers]

240. You pissed off the right people.

And, of course, I mean "right" in more than one sense.

[FarPoint]

89. Obviously....

you really don't understand.

[Niceguy1]

94. could be insecurity

Or just the need to control others. Personally I don't feel threatened by beliefs that differ from my own.

[Sheepshank]

128. Hey Smitty....op didn't force anyone to watch anything.....

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]

139. If I posted in RW forums, my point would be no different if the situation were reversed.

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.

[Rex]

162. This one example? Thanks for the reply it is EXACTLY what a troll would type.

Enjoy your stay!

[DainBramaged]

174. So you're not a dems/progressive/liberals then I take it?

[Rex]

178. You turned off his FAVORITE channel!

[DainBramaged]

184. I know, they are SO fucking transparent

[rexcat]

209. Enjoy your short stay here..

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]

78. Do let us know the response.

[DainBramaged]

81. I'll find out today when I go in

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]

84. Good luck!

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.

[dorkzilla]

100. Whooooooopsie!

The cat threw me off! Lol!



Any feedback from work?

[pintobean]

83. Your coworkers are lucky

to have you acting as their big brother.

[samsingh]

86. good for you

[Mr Dixon]

93. COOL

[MineralMan]

98. I think all of us have fantasized about doing that.

Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 09:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Mostly, though, we don't act on those fantasies. Cool story, broham.

[branford]

278. Likely because you were raised with manners and respect for others.

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]

101. I went to my aunts house and she had on Faux news..

I said no wonder you've been making weird decisions lately.

[SummerSnow]

103. Hero time

[Myrina]

104. I wish I could do that !!

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]

150. that seems fair to me???

Nt

[madokie]

111. That has to be right up there with the best thing I'll read today

and I'm making that prediction early on.

[bravenak]

118. Helping out humanity.

One remote at a time.
They might as well just watch looney toons. Cause fox is full of strange characters.

[DainBramaged]

122. i FORGOT TO MENTION, I made the 'landing' channel MSNBC (nbc News or whatever)

so when the box is turned on they get Morning Schmoe

[bravenak]

124. Oh no!!

They might like Morning Joke. He an idiot.

[eShirl]

141. they might even think it's a new Faux morning show

[bravenak]

145. Rhinos and Dinos?

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]

119. NO comment as of two miutes ago (hehehehehe)

[arcane1]

133. Nice try.

No, I take that back, it's a terrible try

[Shankapotomus]

131. We need more

Democratic saboteurs like you. Thank you for your service.

[Common Sense Party]

137. I just blocked everything but the Spanish soccer channel.

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]

142. too drastic; they'll just get a replacement remote

[Common Sense Party]

144. And I'll melt the replacement remote in acid

after blocking everything but QVC and setting the password to the value of pi to the fourteenth decimal.

[hughee99]

148. Sweet. I think society would run so much better if more people "who knew better"

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]

159. LALALALALALALALALA

Puke don't play fair, go lecture someone else

[Throd]

151. If some teabagger blocked "Democracy Now", wouldn't that be a dickish maneuver?

[DainBramaged]

158. Dude, you don't work here, cast your asparagus elsewhere

(picture me holding my nose)

[Throd]

168. Would you answer my question?

[DainBramaged]

171. No I don't have to

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]

183. I'm not defending FOX news. You can't be so dense.

As you pat yourself on the back, remember not to squeal when some Republican pulls a similar stunt.

[DainBramaged]

186. Here, I'll reply in kind like I did just moments ago

I


don't



give


a


shit

[Throd]

192. OK, so you're just like the people you hate.

[DainBramaged]

194. Nope but since you don't get it, I think I'll just ignore you like the people who hate me

buh bye power ranger

[Throd]

197. I thought you put me on ignore when I didn't ejaculate for the new Camaro.

[GalaxyHunter]

219. wow.. How are they defending Faux news? I think you are putting words in their mouth.

[Rex]

172. So you are saying Foxnews is more important then his sanity at work?

Wow, the backwards bending and twisting all over Bill O' Reilly and Hannity's favorite channel!

My my my...

[Throd]

187. I'm not defending FOX. I'm condemning self-appointed censors.

[Rex]

189. Then you have a real problem with the federal government too, right?

Since you are against self-appointed censors.

[Throd]

193. In what context?

[DainBramaged]

191. Oh holier than thou are thee so keep the channel on

give us a break, your seriousness over this is telling

[Throd]

195. Yeah, fuck me for holding free speech in high esteem.

[Rex]

206. No it sounds like you are mad that he blocked Foxnews.

[Throd]

211. The fact he blocked ANYTHING is a dick maneuver.

[Rex]

214. WHY!?

Why is that a dick move? Is there a law that the channel MUST be on Foxnews? No, there is not.

[GalaxyHunter]

222. You are missing the point!!!!

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]

154. haha awesome, turn that shit!

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?

[GalaxyHunter]

161. wow...

[DainBramaged]

173. I guess you approve of Fucked Vews then?

[GalaxyHunter]

175. Nope. you couldnt be more wrong.

I just don't approve of the way you handled it. (like I said before, like a child would)