Interesting Comments by Colion Noir About Ad Banned By NFL

[columbus]

OK you win

Again.


Feel free to explain your point again, maybe I'll get it.
I agree with the black dude who mostly posted the video. I also agree that a private enterprise has no obligation to broadcast opinions of any sort. If the NFL doesn't want to air the ad on their show, they shouldn't have to. It's not interfering with anybody's rights if they don't. I don't care if somebody wants it. The NFL doesn't owe anybody airtime.

I do see it as rather hypocritical to air a politician's ad, where he touts gun control in his platform, then refuse a similar ad from a gun supplier because "The NFL doesn't want to politicize our advertising." But I fully expect hypocrisy from huge American institutions, from the NFL to the White House.
This country was founded by slave owners who wrote "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". I fully expect gigantic hypocrisy from big American institutions.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not how Free Speech works. lmao

Uh oh....we've been found out.
Was it cuz we call each other "Komrad"?
Bozhe moi!

 

[Stevicus]

So why is rejecting ads for arms manufacturer Daniel Defense hypocritical; a rejection that's now 7 years old?

And if you really care, here's the skizzy on it all from Wikipedia.

"In December 2013, Daniel Defense was involved in controversy when it submitted an advertisement to several local Fox stations for broadcast during Super Bowl XLVIII. The stations rejected the advertisement, citing NFL advertising policy which states: “Firearms, ammunition or other weapons are prohibited; however, stores that sell firearms and ammunition will be permitted, provided they sell other products and the ads do not mention firearms, ammunition or other weapons.” Daniel Defense responded to the rejection by criticizing the NFL's policy and Fox's decision, asserting that its ad did not contain any firearms, and that it also sells outdoor equipment, not only firearms, and accordingly falls within the exceptions in the policy. The NFL responded to the claims by denying any involvement in the rejection of the advertisement, but it did confirm that its policy does ban advertisements with firearms in them and in the end the advertisement was not accepted."​

.

After watching the video, I noticed the commercial had the Daniel Defense logo with a picture of an assault rifle. So, their ad obviously did contain firearms, so if that's the rule, then that's the rule. They probably could have slipped by if not for that logo. The rest of the ad only had vague, nondescript references to "defense" and "protection," but the logo was pretty obvious.

Of course, the NFL policy could still be criticized as hypocritical, depending on their reasoning behind the policy. But I wouldn't speculate as to what that reason might be.

 

[Stevicus]

Again.


Feel free to explain your point again, maybe I'll get it.
I agree with the black dude who mostly posted the video. I also agree that a private enterprise has no obligation to broadcast opinions of any sort. If the NFL doesn't want to air the ad on their show, they shouldn't have to. It's not interfering with anybody's rights if they don't. I don't care if somebody wants it. The NFL doesn't owe anybody airtime.

I would agree with this, although I was wondering how that actually worked. According to the information posted by @Skwim the company submitted the ad to "several local stations."

My impression is that the network apparently sets aside a certain portion of commercial time for local stations to broadcast local commercials.

If there's a local business that the NFL doesn't like, could they tell the owner of the local affiliate that they're not allowed to broadcast their commercials during the Super Bowl? Do they have to clear all local commercials in advance, or how does that actually work?

I do see it as rather hypocritical to air a politician's ad, where he touts gun control in his platform, then refuse a similar ad from a gun supplier because "The NFL doesn't want to politicize our advertising." But I fully expect hypocrisy from huge American institutions, from the NFL to the White House.
This country was founded by slave owners who wrote "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". I fully expect gigantic hypocrisy from big American institutions.
Tom

Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that the NFL even cares who the network contracts as advertisers. It would seem that it would be more a reflection on the network than on the NFL itself.

 

[columbus]

Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that the NFL even cares who the network contracts as advertisers. It would seem that it would be more a reflection on the network than on the NFL itself.

Honestly, you've asked a lot of questions here I simply don't know or care about. I don't watch much TV. The only football game I've watched in 30 years was a Superbowl game that I only went to watch because the guy hosting had a wife who could really cook up a storm. She promised, and delivered, totally awesome snacks and treats!
Patriots v Buccaneers
I bet a dollar on the Buccaneers because the Patriots were heavily favored. And I won! I got to eat a bunch of his food and then take his money!
I liked football better after that. For about a month. Then I forgot about it.

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah. Football commercials.
Let sigh.....
Tom

 

[sun rise]

But it isn't Joe-citizen's call to allow it or not. If I'm not mistaken, it's the network, the stations, and the NFL who have the last word on what does and does not get aired on their programs. Just like any other business that can disallow using its facilities to promote this, that, or the other thing.
.

Sure. I was just giving my personal opinion.

 

[sun rise]

That's not how Free Speech works. lmao

Free speech does not work by allowing free speech???

 

[Skwim]

Sure. I was just giving my personal opinion.

That you call an assertion "I'd allow that commercial on the grounds of free speech." an "opinion" is far beyond the definition of "opinion":

o·pin·ion
/əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

.​

 

[columbus]

Free speech does not work by allowing free speech???

Free speech does not work by forcing people to broadcast your message. It just means that the government can't prevent you from saying what you believe, or punish you for saying it.
Free speech rights don't entitle you to any particular platform, much less one that is totally private property. The guy is totally free to express his opinions. He can do it anyway that is in agreement with the other parties involved. He can tweet or post YouTube or write letters to the editor or rent a stadium for a rally.
But he cannot force other people to help against their will.
Tom

 

[esmith]

Free speech does not work by forcing people to broadcast your message. It just means that the government can't prevent you from saying what you believe, or punish you for saying it.
Free speech rights don't entitle you to any particular platform, much less one that is totally private property. The guy is totally free to express his opinions. He can do it anyway that is in agreement with the other parties involved. He can tweet or post YouTube or write letters to the editor or rent a stadium for a rally.
But he cannot force other people to help against their will.
Tom

Are you saying that broadcast stations are totally private property?

 

[columbus]

Are you saying that broadcast stations are totally private property?

I don't think that there's much in the world that's totally private property.

And I understand why the FCC had the rules that they did when the only broadcast media was TV/radio. But that was then and this is now. In the internet age, a lot of the fairness policies are beyond obsolete. They've been weaponized into the opposite of their intentions.
Tom

 

[esmith]

I don't think that there's much in the world that's totally private property.

And I understand why the FCC had the rules that they did when the only broadcast media was TV/radio. But that was then and this is now. In the internet age, a lot of the fairness policies are beyond obsolete. They've been weaponized into the opposite of their intentions.
Tom

Reason I was asking is that in actuality as you probably know that even though a broadcast station can be private property the transmission of their programming is over public airwaves subject to the rules and regulations of the FCC.

 

[columbus]

Reason I was asking is that in actuality as you probably know that even though a broadcast station can be private property the transmission of their programming is over public airwaves subject to the rules and regulations of the FCC.

Does anybody still watch TV over the airwaves?
Do you think that last century's issues are still the same today?

The way I see it, the ability of individuals to express their opinions has expanded so hugely with the internet, compared to 50 years ago, that the old rules don't apply any more.
Now they're anachronistic legalism used to subvert the original intentions.
Tom

 

[esmith]

Does anybody still watch TV over the airwaves?
Do you think that last century's issues are still the same today?

The way I see it, the ability of individuals to express their opinions has expanded so hugely with the internet, compared to 50 years ago, that the old rules don't apply any more.
Now they're anachronistic legalism used to subvert the original intentions.
Tom

Well I guess if you live in an area that has cable and can afford it you get you TV over cable. However if you are one of the approx 56% of the people living in the US that does not have access to cable, or can't afford it, your internet, and TV comes over the public airwaves.
Now I understand where you liberal bias comes from....you are one of the 44%.

Just so you know where I'm getting my figures from: Topic: Cable TV in the U.S.

 

[columbus]

Now I understand where you liberal bias comes from....you are one of the 44%.

Ha ha ha!
I'm not even allowed to post in the liberal forum, much less the feminist forum.

I get away with posting in the conservative forum occasionally, because conservatives are more liberal than liberals.
Oftentimes, not always.

And I avoid cable news like the plague, I've got internet service from Walmart and TracPhone. I've got RF, who needs Fox or CNN?

Heh. What you mistake for "liberal bias" is educated nuanced objectivity.
I'm pretty sure your religion taught you that was sinful.
Tom

 

[esmith]

Ha ha ha!
I'm not even allowed to post in the liberal forum, much less the feminist forum.

I get away with posting in the conservative forum occasionally, because conservatives are more liberal than liberals.
Oftentimes, not always.

And I avoid cable news like the plague, I've got internet service from Walmart and TracPhone. I've got RF, who needs Fox or CNN?

Heh. What you mistake for "liberal bias" is educated nuanced objectivity.
I'm pretty sure your religion taught you that was sinful.
Tom

Wow, pulling your leg sure invoked a different response that I thought

 

[columbus]

Wow, pulling your leg sure invoked a different response that I thought

C'mere you big hot daddy you.
Pull this...
Tom