Banned MTV Ad

These Pics Are From An MTV Ad Banned By The American Goverment...

How can the government ban something? This is free speech.

That's just messed up. And I guess freedom isn't so free anymore, huh?

I personally don't get the ad. It seems that MTV was planning to get the ad banned. It is fucked up that it was though.

i've been asking this question as soon as i learned what the first ammendment was. fuck the FCC. if you wanna protect your kids from seeing bad shit on tv, then fucking use the parental controls. thats what they're there for >.<

Said By Aron Schatz

How can the government ban something? This is free speech.

He might mean they were discouraged by the state department or something. The FCC has no say over cable and neither does any branch of the Federal gov't.

Look, I'll be the first to say that GW is a moron and the federal gov't is WAY too powerful but there are still limits. I mean, soon there won't be but for now there are limits.

The FCC is a useless organization. They used to be good, making sure spectrum was handed out and licensed. Now they went into censorship and such. I totally agree that it is up to the parents to shelter their kids.

That add is very rediculous, and not suprising its banned

Said By Tornado

I personally don't get the ad. It seems that MTV was planning to get the ad banned. It is fucked up that it was though.

It's irony - showing how people are obsessed with 9/11 and how bad it was, but the deaths of that don't compare to the deaths of other things, things you can change, when you can't change 9/11. That was then, the rest is still now.

It is a sensitive topic though... Essentially those ads are saying that 9/11 is nothing compared to those things.
Poverty and starvation are one thing, but comparing the AIDs epidemic to 9/11 doesn't seem right to me.

Pardon, darling, but why doesn't the AIDS epidemic compare to 9/11? A whole lot of people suffer and die of AIDS/HIV or related illnesses. I fail to see how their deaths are different than the deaths in 9/11.

I don't mean any disrespect. I like the ad, it's meant to shock you. 9/11 was a tragedy, yes. And so is people dying in poverty. So is people dying of AIDS. It's meant to incite you to say "Goddamn, this is a problem". To act against it. People were enraged by the deaths of 9/11, but continue to ignore the deaths of things that we can work to prevent. They want to let you know, hey, this is a problem, let's fight it too

Said By ArtemisPanthar

Pardon, darling, but why doesn't the AIDS epidemic compare to 9/11? A whole lot of people suffer and die of AIDS/HIV or related illnesses. I fail to see how their deaths are different than the deaths in 9/11.

I don't mean any disrespect. I like the ad, it's meant to shock you. 9/11 was a tragedy, yes. And so is people dying in poverty. So is people dying of AIDS. It's meant to incite you to say "Goddamn, this is a problem". To act against it. People were enraged by the deaths of 9/11, but continue to ignore the deaths of things that we can work to prevent. They want to let you know, hey, this is a problem, let's fight it too

Same thing with Global Warming and crushing national debt, if it doesn't affect me, why the hell should I care? However, notice how politicos make the sheeple care about things that don't matter to them at all but that they can offer a believable quick fix to: IE, videogames and Rock&Roll.

Poverty, AIDS, Global Warming and so on are all big problem that will take a lot of time and effort to fix. And, just as you said, the government prefers to reference easy things. Things that aren't problems (comparitively) like video games and music. The government wants to look powerful and to see it fighting something big and losing, they believe it'll make them look weak and we'll lose respect (in reality, the whole macho 'lets go to war' attitude is what makes me loathe my country. A valiant fight to save the common people from poverty, AIDS, etc would gain much more respect in my eyes. But who cares what I think?). By fighting against smaller things, it makes it look like they're doing something. Of course, that's not exactly the issue with the terrorism crusade, but it's close.

What confuses me is...people seem to think terrorists come from somewhere. Like there's a country Terrosia where all the Terrorists hail and by overpowering them we won't have to deal with terrorism EVER AGAIN. But it's a state of mind. Anyone can be a terrorist, by definition, it's using fear to influence the government to act in your favor. Mostly attacks on civilians. Like 9/11 or, oh, say dropping a few nuclear bombs on two cities in Japan? (Or is it OK when we do it?) Or when people bomb abortion clinics because they don't agree with what they do, in hopes that the fear of dying will force the operators to close down. Stuff like that.

How did you get to be so smart?

Said By Aron Schatz

How did you get to be so smart?

Lets just say she was inspired by a certain episode of Family Guy.

Said By aphremen

Said By Aron Schatz

How did you get to be so smart?

Lets just say she was inspired by a certain episode of Family Guy.

Nope =D I was born smart. Or something.

What episode of Family Guy? o_o

I agree with the message being spread. That a lot more people die every day of hunger, or homelessness or AIDS than died in the twin towers,but I think the government reasoning behind it is because that's not appropriate to show it like that.

I remember the day of 9/11 and for the week following the news kept showing over and over the planes going into the towers. It's too much,kinda like with the hurricane katrina thing.I personally got tired of seeing the same old thing on the news about katrina(I'm from New Orleans).People should understand what happened, but have some respect for the people that died when that happened. People instantly died when the planes hit those towers and I don't think it's fair to their memory that it's shown like that.

It's kinda up and down with me.I do think the message is good,that more focus should be put on stopping homelessness and hunger and AIDS than on fighting terror. But the way they want to get the message across is kinda inappropriate.

Wow. I'm less and less impressed by our government all the time. like has already been said, this is free speech. Which means.......

THE FRICKIN GOVERNMENT JUST WENT AGAINST THIER OWN DOCUMENT, WTF!!!!!!!!!!

The sad part is there probably isnt a government in the world that isnt messed up in some way or another.

I did not take any offense to your post whatsoever Artemis, in fact it was very insightful. I see your point: Death is death. Whatever the cause. And I know there are faultless contractors of the disease, such as babies who inherited it from an HIV positive parent, people who failed to inform partners of their condition, or who were given bad blood in a blood transfusion, but a sexually transmitted disease (even one so grave as AIDS) is very much in a different class than that of terrorism in my eyes. I don't think it's fair to compare those assassinated to those who died as a result of a reckless lifestyle.
The damage AIDS has caused to our country and those around the world is largely self-inflicted. It seems like hitting below the belt to me... There are different ways to make an impression on the seriousness of AIDS and I think that one was wrong.

Though I may not completely agree with the subject of the ads I am disturbed that they were recalled. That kind of censorship is a breech of our constitutional rights.

I need a link to the evidence that this campaign existed and was censored, or else it didn't happen.

Again, I don't buy it, this is well within the realm of urban myths since no government agency has authority to censor cable TV, although the state department can make suggestions like when they suggested radio stations not play "Imagine" and several other songs after 9/11.

Riiiight, wreckless lifestyle. Because when all the information you have to go on is a myth that having sex with a virgin will cure you of HIV and the Catholic Church keeps on telling you that you're better off with AIDS then you would be after having sex with a condom, you have a choice and have clearly chosen the less responsible method.

Not everywhere in the world is America.....





Yet.

Said By aphremen

Riiiight, wreckless lifestyle. Because when all the information you have to go on is a myth that having sex with a virgin will cure you of HIV and the Catholic Church keeps on telling you that you're better off with AIDS then you would be after having sex with a condom, you have a choice and have clearly chosen the less responsible method.

That is not "all I have to go on". I don't associate virginity with 'no AIDS' and I am most definitely not Catholic.

1) Though sexual promiscuity is the not the only way to contract or spread AIDS, it is the most common.
2) The other half of the 'wreckless lifestyle' I was citing was the use of contaminated drug needles or syringes.

You're hurting my feel goods Aphremen.

Said By Jenocide

Said By aphremen

Riiiight, wreckless lifestyle. Because when all the information you have to go on is a myth that having sex with a virgin will cure you of HIV and the Catholic Church keeps on telling you that you're better off with AIDS then you would be after having sex with a condom, you have a choice and have clearly chosen the less responsible method.

That is not "all I have to go on". I don't associate virginity with 'no AIDS' and I am most definitely not Catholic.

1) Though sexual promiscuity is the not the only way to contract or spread AIDS, it is the most common.
2) The other half of the 'wreckless lifestyle' I was citing was the use of contaminated drug needles or syringes.

You're hurting my feel goods Aphremen.

I didn't mean YOU you I meant the proverbial you, as in the majority of people who have AIDS which is impoverished Africa. Africa/=America where we have (relatively) excellent sex education and (relatively) easy access to preventative measures against AIDS.

in case you didn't know, the 40 million people sure as hell could not be reffering to the US, if that many people in the US had AIDS it would be 1/4. That means having AIDS would be as nearly a common phenomenom as supporting president Bush.

HIV and other STDs (or STIs or whatever the kids are calling it these days) are often caught through....cross-contamination, I guess you could say. If person X is in a monogamous relationship with person Y and has no reason or doesn't wish to take the precaution of using condoms etcetc/only protect yourself from pregnancy via the pill or so, so they assume they're safe. However, if person Y has sex with person A, B, and C OR just A (and A happens to have HIV) OR is involved with drug use completely outside person X's knowledge, then person X can easily get infected through no fault of his own. And it does happen a lot, considering how easy it is for someone to cheat (even once) and then come back.

I suppose I just have a different opinion than you do, which isn't surprising. I think there's something to be said for suffering, and like you said death is death and I really can't bring myself to say one is worse than the other. Of course, given how exploited 'terrorism', perhaps I'm just reluctant to give it any sway? I don't know.

Like Aphremen said, though, a majority of the cases are in Africa, and they happen for largely different reasons than they do here.

Said By ArtemisPanthar

HIV and other STDs (or STIs or whatever the kids are calling it these days) are often caught through....cross-contamination, I guess you could say. If person X is in a monogamous relationship with person Y and has no reason or doesn't wish to take the precaution of using condoms etcetc/only protect yourself from pregnancy via the pill or so, so they assume they're safe. However, if person Y has sex with person A, B, and C OR just A (and A happens to have HIV) OR is involved with drug use completely outside person X's knowledge, then person X can easily get infected through no fault of his own. And it does happen a lot, considering how easy it is for someone to cheat (even once) and then come back.

I suppose I just have a different opinion than you do, which isn't surprising. I think there's something to be said for suffering, and like you said death is death and I really can't bring myself to say one is worse than the other. Of course, given how exploited 'terrorism', perhaps I'm just reluctant to give it any sway? I don't know.

Like Aphremen said, though, a majority of the cases are in Africa, and they happen for largely different reasons than they do here.

Well, it's like rape. Clearly, it is always the fault of the woman because she MUST have done something to tantilize the man implicated in the rape. He's just a victim of his hormones! @_@

Said By aphremen

Well, it's like rape. Clearly, it is always the fault of the woman because she MUST have done something to tantilize the man implicated in the rape. He's just a victim of his hormones! @_@

Off-topic, but I know someone like that. Some 'good Christian man' my aunt was dating said that, partially in reference to my cousin (who dresses like a whore but that's no excuse). She's trying to date him again but honestly, I don't think such creepy, amoral people are worth it

Said By ArtemisPanthar

STDs are often caught through....cross-contamination.

I thought I had mentioned that but I went back to check my post and found that I had forogotten to.

Most of the 'good Christian' men and boys I have encountered scare the bijeezus out of me. If I ever have children they're going to follow whatever religion their father has (if he even has one) because I just don't have faith anymore. I have been thoroughly screwed over by Christianity in my short life.

Okay I also agree, Fuck the FCC if you don't want your kids to see something on your T.V. turn the T.V. off that simple, the FCC is just a scapegoat for parents who can't ... well parent their kids. Those adds are kind of fucked up though.

I like the message this ad send out and I think it is the only decent ad I have seen from MTV despite the fact that it is banned. In Australia, we get freaking ads showing these cartton males and females, where the female is depressed, grows breasts and is suddenly happy, while the advertisement is trying to warn viewers that what is about to be shown contains obscenity.
I also don't really see WHY the government would want to ban that commercial. Yes, it compares the tragedy of 9/11 to STI's; but is extremely meaningful as it shows that if people cared so much about the death of thousands of people, then the same can be done with STI's.

i dont get it. why really should it be banned?