What secular outfit could steer me toward getting wingnut Fundie minister off the radio locally?

[UTUSN]

I suppose he pays for his daily wingnut propaganda sprinkled with "scripture" with his fool donors' cash (doesn't earn a living).

He's been on the local radio wingnut outlet for years. So with our latest resurgence of railing that churches should PAY TAXES, what are the "rules" - didn't they used to be "not naming candidates/preferences" something non-specific?

Now that SCotUS has furthered even more the "church" thing, what are the rules? What happens when the non-allowed religions want to pray on the football field? What about kids being intimidated by the power of a Coach being peer pressured to participate? Or what if a kid refuses to join in? Am trying to get things clear.

So this buzzard has been spending all "his" cash for years vomiting wingnut crap, me snapping off the Off button. Need secular mentoring.

[lefthandedskyhook]

1. Radio is mostly syndicated now

You would most likely be up against a large corporation. There's everything from garbage to gems on the net if you dig

[UTUSN]

2. This is a local station, owned by a 15-venue outfit. Years back I filed a complaint with the (FCC?),

went nowhere. IRS also said "free speech".

[lefthandedskyhook]

3. It has happened all over

The FCC has been weakened. In a just world we would restore balance. My local paper was lost long ago. Good luck to you

[tirebiter]

4. Back in the days of the draft we had a number of liberal stations with anti draft language strained

through bible talk. Supported a lot of nonviolent law breaking. 1st amendment was our shield then, too.

[UTUSN]

6. Yeah, our rights mean their rights.

[Effete Snob]

10. Absolutely

A poor man has the same right as a rich man to buy radio airtime and say what he wants.

If you don't like what they say on FOX, you can simply buy the network, just like anyone else, and put yourself in charge.

[Effete Snob]

5. I believe that if he's paying for the airtime...

…then he can say what he wants, just like anyone else.

If he preaches at a church, that’s another story. But this radio program is not a church.

As long as he’s not selling sex, cigarettes or medicine - and since it is Utah I’d throw in advertising alcohol at a restaurant - it’s hard to imagine what he is doing that would give cause for any sort of government interference in the content of what he says.

[Qutzupalotl]

7. His right to speech is your right to speech.

Last edited Tue Jun 28, 2022, 11:33 AM - Edit history (1)

As the ACLU likes to say, the answer to objectionable speech is more speech, not less.

If it bothers you, turn it off, or stsrt your own podcast where you denounce him 24/7.

[Effete Snob]

9. "more speech"

It's a nice proverb, but it's not really true.

The loudest speech that attracts the most attention wins.

Nobody has time to consider rational arguments about complex topics.

There is no "speech shortage". There are gazillions of speakers saying anything their audience wants to hear, and they are not seeking out opposing views because they want "more speech" to reach an opinion.

The speech that wins is the speech that attracts the most attention and holds an audience. You can mutter what you like on, say, DU, in response to idiotic bullshit shouted into the right wing radio network megaphones, but the "more speech" idea is more like a religious belief than an experimentally proven principle.

In fact, some of the science on "more speech" proves otherwise:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5673564/

Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation

Mounting evidence suggests that the process of correcting misinformation is complex and remains incompletely understood (Lewandowsky et al., 2015; Lewandowsky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz, & Cook, 2012; Schwarz, Sanna, Skurnik, & Yoon, 2007). Lewandowsky and colleagues (2012) qualitatively reviewed the characteristics of effective debunking, a term we define as presenting a corrective message that establishes that the prior message was misinformation.

...

Contrary to expectations, however, the debunking effects of more detailed debunking messages did not translate into reduced misinformation persistence, as the studies with detailed debunking might also have stronger misinformation persistence.

Bottom line: the "more speech" thing is just something that children are told, like the tooth fairy. It is wishful thinking, but does not actually work in the real world.

[TheBlackAdder]

8. Create an audio clip for him to play. Set it up, with 30 seconds of a record played backwards.

.

Then ask rhetorically if people could hear Satan or demonic voices.

Then pause and say that everyone listening is now under Satan's control and there is no way to reverse it.

.