POL--FoxNews.com Is this REALLY Front Page News
 

As of this posting, this story is one of the three main headlines on foxnews.com's home page:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246279,00.html

Is this REALLY one of the three most important things happening in the world right now? A mayor of a town of 2,800 people has proposed a clearly unconstitutional ordinance. This ordinance has not passed. Even if it did pass, it would never survive enforcement in the courts. And, hell, even in the unlikely event that it did pass and even if it did somehow get enforced, it is a freaking city ordinance in a town of 2,800 people. It's less than a non-story on the national level. Hell, it's probably not even one of the fifty most newsworthy things going on in Texas right now, let alone one of the three most important things going on in the country right now.

I propose that this "story" is being placed on the front page of foxnews.com for the primary (if not sole) purpose of furthering the idea that the "PC Police" are out in force to throw us all in jail if we don't say and think just what they want. It's crafty, because it manages to project this image without actually saying anything false, so it can't be attacked for veracity.

Can anyone else think of another valid reason why "Mayor of small town says something asinine" (which probably happens every day in small towns around the country) warranted top-three billing on Foxnews.com?

Question.

How does this relate to the "non swearing" ordinances that are in place in towns like Virginia Beach. Constitutionally wise. Are those laws legal, and if so, then couldn't you conceivably bundle the n-word in a list of fineable(sp--is this even a word) offenses?

I didn't know that certain places had non-swearing ordinances.

Those strike me as fishy, but I am far from a First Amendment expert, so maybe they do pass muster.

I would still think that the N-word would be harder to ban as a single word. There seems to be an argument that if you are banning swearing generally, you are simply trying to project a family friendly image or something like that. If, however, you ban one word chock-full of social, political, and historical connotations, then you are actually banning those social, political, and historical ideas--which seems a lot worse to me.

This may come as a surprise, but I notice this all the time. :)

This mayor is acting niggardly

umm...not according to the definition of "niggardly" that I was taught.

I haven't been to the site in ages, but was this the lead story in their Tongue Tied segment? That used to be a weekly "feature" on the front page.

I'd rather they run this than yet another story accusing Obama of being a radical muslim.

Yahoo! News (which dwarfs FoxNews in visitors) Top 5 headlines right now include;

R.I. school bans talking at lunch
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/...s/silent_lunch
By JUSTIN M. NORTON, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 25, 6:22 PM ET

Someone sure got a scoop there!

Point?

Eh.. that Yahoo, well basically all newssites, really race to create news rather than report newsworthy items. Had nothing to do with you really, rather a sarcastic comment at what some sites consider news.

That was what I was driving at as well, just to break up the illusion.