From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Christian Action Network (was Re: Sinead O'Connor's Freedom of Speech)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:06:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship

As quoted from <1992Oct9.055834.9483@scic.intel.com> by sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley):

> >In article <1992Oct7.162814.1220@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
> >> The Cute Bald Chick didn't refuse to appear with ADC because she found
> >> him offensive, but because she found him wrong.  Andrew Dice Clay
> >> attacks people who can't hit back (women, gays, and so forth) to make a
> 
> In article <12664@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Gays can't hit back?  Today's Santa Rosa Press-Democrat (10/8/92,
> >p. A1) tells about what happened when Christian Action Network's
> >anti-Clinton ad ran on TV channel 50 here -- the station withdrew
> >from its contract (I didn't even know they could do that) to run
> >the ad, after having run it for three days.  They insist that the
> >threats of boycott from the homosexual community didn't have any
> >effect -- they just changed their mind about whether the ad met
> >their broadcast standards -- three days after they started running
> >it, and the phone calls started.
> >By the way, no other TV station in the Bay Area would run the ad.
> >Don't tell me that gays don't have a lot of power.
> >Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
> 
> I haven't seen the ad in question, but I presume, from the nature of the
> post, that the ad attacked Clinton on the basis of his stance on gay
> rights.  Lets assume for a moment that, improbable as it may seem,
> the Chritian Action Network really withdrew the ad due to reasons other
> than "threats of boycotts".  What could those reasons possibly be?

I think you've misinterpreted Clayton's message.  It seems pretty obvious to 
me that Christian Action Network SPONSORED the ads, not that they operate a
TV operation that RAN them.  It would appear that Ch. 50 decided that the 
supposed pressure from gays outweighed the limited revenue from CAN's ad.  And
that is exactly the point.  It shows that Nihilges has lied/hallucinated yet
once again, and that gays DO have the power to make their opinions felt.

> to pull the ad?  But then, Mr. Cramer explicitly states that it _must_
> have been due to the gays.  But what of all the religious organizations
> in Oregon opposing Measure Nine?  I get it now!  All those organizations
> must be controlled by gays!  Its all a great conspiracy!  (smileys for
> the sarcasm impaired)  Why look for an evil plot when simple disgust
> for bigoted hatred can explain it?  I'll close this with a quote from
> Abraham Lincoln, also from the Voters Pamphlet:

So what if it WAS gays who influenced the change?  Isn't that their right,
just as it's the right of gunowners to ream out Michael Gartner for trying to
run HCI propaganda as news?  I thought that's what freedom of speech was all
about, the right to speak and the right to express displeasure with that 
speech.   Seems like the system's working to me.  That's why Nihilges hates it
SO much.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,alt.sex