Victory! KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut Drop Sponsorship of Controversial Show

One Million Dads ^

[AppyPappy]

GREAT NEWS! ANOTHER VICTORY! KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, PIZZA HUT, AND TACO BELL SAY THEY WILL NO LONGER SPONSOR THE SHIELD! OneMillionMoms.com and OneMillionDads.com have won another victory! Earlier today the parent company Tricon Global called and said they would no longer sponsor the program. They asked that we please stop the e-mails! They got the message because you sent it! When we get involved, let our voice be heard with all the other OneMillionMoms.com and OneMillionDads.com, advertisers listen. Thanks to those who sent the e-mails. Thanks for getting involved. Just think of what an awesome influence we can have when we get more participating! So right now I'm urging you to send an e-mail to all your friends asking them to join OneMillionMoms.com or OneMillionDads.com. Ask them to take a stand for their children. Yes, we do accept and desire singles to participate. Our growth will come only as our members encourage others to join and participate. So please help us by inviting others to become a part of OneMillionMoms.com and OneMillionDads.com today! We have already thanked Tricon Global for you, so please don't send them any e-mails.

[ventana]

Bump. V's wife.

[chriservative]

I hate you.

[AppyPappy]

Then change the channel.

[chriservative]

Then change the channel.

You know, I was about to tell you the same thing! Instead of going around like Jesse Jackson and other LIBERALS, shaking down companies in order to impose your self-righteous beliefs, don't watch the show! You call yourself a conservative and you have all these happy quotes about liberty on your profile, but obviously you have no respect for the Constitution, the right to free speech, the freedom to associate, and the very idea of liberty itself.

[AppyPappy]

Hey, if you don't like the boycott, get the government to outlaw them. You can have smut on the air but you don't have the right to demand advertisers pay for it.

[chriservative]

Since you seem to take everything that Alan Keyes says as the word of God, I thought you might be interested on what he has to say about censorship/right to free speech:

"I think we have to approach questions that involve any suggestion of prior censorship or restraint with great care. We have to approach them with great care because we have to remember that sometimes people you like will control that censorship power, and other times people you really don't like will control it. Day one, they will be censoring the lyrics of this nasty music over here that encourages rape and sexual licentiousness, day two, somebody else gets elected and they will be censoring quotes from the bible on how homosexuality is an abomination. I feel safer in a country where nobody has that kind of power. Can't be used against me, and I won't try to use it for me. We will all, therefore, simply respect the fact that people get to say and do some things we don't like."

[zandtar]

Actually it's a pretty interesting debate. Yes, they do have the right to change the channel if they don't like what is on the television. However, they also have the right to inform an advertiser that because of their sponsorship of something an individual might not like, they will no longer be a customer of the product. Just as they can change the channel, they can also change their brand of soap, detergent, etc...

However, it also starts becoming very grey at that point. What of those who are not offended by it, and the above actions result in the termination of the said program. Is it one group exercizing freedom of speech? Or is it a group attempting to impose their own views of censorship upon others?

While I believe in freedom of speech, and that everyone can buy whatever products they choose, I must lean towards being against such forms of imposed censorship. You are most certainly entitled to choose whatever programs you want (or don't want) to watch in your own home, as well as the products purchased by you and those in the home. However, you cross the line when you're own, selfish views of freedom of speech start crossing into dictating what other people in other homes can watch on their own televisions. Don't have kids, oops too bad, we're deciding for you anyhow.

Personally, I don't think that when one group of people attepts to take away the right of choice from another group of people, it's hardly a "victory". Oddly, you'll notice, the same group of people who will declare how their "rights" are being tramped if the reverse is done to them.

[chriservative]

Ping!

[AppyPappy]

Yes but you feel people shouldn't have the right to free speech. That is why you would deny them the right to speak against smut on TV.

[zandtar]

That is why you would deny them the right to speak against smut on TV.

As opposed to someone else telling you what is "appropriate" for you to watch, based on their own core beliefs? I get the impression you seem to watch the freedom of choice for yourself, but not for those who may happen to not share the same beliefs as yours. Is that really freedom?

[AppyPappy]

Shouldn't we have the freedom to speak against something or should that be illegal? No one MADE these companies take away their sponsorship. They did it freely. Should the State intervene and make them sponsor these programs?

[chriservative]

You can speak against the so-called "smut" on TV all you want. More power to you!!! Get yourself a radio show, build yourself a website where you can rant and rave as much as your little heart desires, go hit the streets and picket and flyer and throw benefit concerts to help rid the world of ridiculously good television. That is free speech. But shaking down companies and threatening them with boycott, albeit legal, is nothing more than extortion. Do you not even feel the slightest bit of shame that you are no better than Jesse Jackson? With your seemingly inflated sense of moral superiority, I would have assumed that you would want to be better than that. My mistake.

[AppyPappy]

But shaking down companies and threatening them with boycott, albeit legal, is nothing more than extortion. Do you not even feel the slightest bit of shame that you are no better than Jesse Jackson?

And you are no better than Stalin when you deny people the right to free speech. You are opposing the right of people to speak against something. I thought that was the whole point of the First Amendment.

Can we criticize the government or is that wrong because Jesse Jackson does it too?

[E Rocc]

As opposed to someone else telling you what is "appropriate" for you to watch, based on their own core beliefs? I get the impression you seem to watch the freedom of choice for yourself, but not for those who may happen to not share the same beliefs as yours. Is that really freedom?

One wonders how they determined who was advertising on the show unless they watched it? "Haw-nest, Dear, Ah wasn't actually wahtchin that filthy, pre-verted, sinful, un-Gawdly TV show. I was seeing who was advertsing so we can boycott them".

There's also the question of what difference it makes to them who advertises if they don't watch the show.

It's busybodyism at best, censorship at worst. Neither is a trait of believers in freedom and individual perogative.

-Eric

[Cyber Liberty]

One of the great freedoms is freedom of the marketplace: The freedom to buy whatever you want from whomever you want. This boycott is a good example of the exercise of the power of the marketplace.

Pay no heed to those who would limit your freedom of the marketplace by eliminating boycotts.

[chriservative]

And you are no better than Stalin when you deny people the right to free speech.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! That was precious! Okay, its pretty clear you didn't do too well on the reading comprehension section of the SATs, so I'll spell it out to you in really small words so that you might understand. Extortion is not free speech. What you are doing is not free speech. If you launched a nationwide e-mail campaign or mass mailing to warn parents of the content which you deem objectionable on "The Shield," that would be free speech. But assembling your cohorts to spam companies' e-mail systems (which could in theory, shut down the server and affect the ability to conduct business and in turn damage profits), threatening to withdraw your patronage (which by the way, if you love your kids so much, then you shouldn't be stuffing them full of fast food anyway, but you're a self-proclaimed fatty or so your profile states, so maybe you missed that chapter in health class), and overall harassing them until you get your way, like an ill-disciplined child is most certainly not. You're twisting around words (again, like a liberal) and avoiding the facts.

[chriservative]

No one is trying to outlaw boycotts here. If AppyPappy is so appalled by Burger King's sponsorship of "The Shield," then he should exercise his disgust and not patronize Burger King. That's what the vegans do. But this is not the case here. AppyPappy is telling Burger King quid pro quo that if they do not withdraw sponsorship from "The Shield," he will not patronize them. AppyPappy is perfectly willing to chow down on some whoppers provided Burger King meets up to his moral standards. And in doing this, he is forcing his beliefs on people like me who A) like Burger King's food (on a rare occasion) regardless of who they sponsor and B) think "The Shield" is the best new show on television.

[AppyPappy]

And like a liberal, you want to stop people from standing up for what they believe. Nothing scares a liberal more than conservatives standing up and opposing evil. They prefer conservatives who turn their head and ignore it. Well, we ARE standing up now. We don't want homosexuality in schools, smut on TV or restrictions on our right to speak.

Tell your hero John McCain that we going to fight.