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

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.

So, let me get this straight. I can personally boycott anybody I please, but I should not be allowed to encourage enough other people to make a difference?

That is very specious. That's like saying I have a right to speak, but I have no right to use amplification equipment so that others can hear me.

You aren't, by chance, a supporter of John McCain's CFR, are you?

Shouldn't we have the freedom to speak against something or should that be illegal?

No one is saying that. You're free to speak your mind as much as you want. However, when you start using that cloak of freedom of speech to control someone else's freedom of choice, then I'll disagree with you.

Interesting article on this very subject

The problem with freedom in this country these days is that people seem to think their own personal freedom and choices are the only thing that matters. Freedom also means tolerance of others who are enjoying the same freedoms you are. If the person in the house next to me wants to watch the Playboy channel 24x7, subscribe to every porno mag known to mankind, and surf the net for porno, that's their right. It's not my "right" to not only choose not to do such things, but to also dictate to them what they can and can not choose to do in their own house, based on what I perceive to be my moral standards.

Personally, I have never watched this show, and I most likely will not. From the advertisements, it did not appear to be something I would choose to watch, nor would I allow it to be on with my son around. However, I also know that just because *I* may not like it, it doesn't give me the right to dictate to my neighbors that they can't watch it either.

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

That was something you most likely did not want to open up. Stalin did deny his people the right of free speech. But guess what, he also denied them the right of freedom of choice. In the case of media, if it wasn't "approved" by one group of people, it wasn't allowed to be viewed by anyone else. You know, sort of like the "victory" being proclaimed here. Oh, and under Stalin, from what I've seen from the source web site of the thread, you'd all be rounded up and either shot or put in a Gulag for being 'subversives' with your beliefs.

If you're going to bring Stalin into the argument, you have to acknowledge all of the evils he did as a dictator. Not just the select items which support your side of the argument. Censorship was what he did well, too.

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

While I don't watch the show, I cheered on Vince McMahon (sp?) with the WWF when the PTC tried the same stuff with him. Took them on and basically won. The PTC would dance around calling it a 'victory', when another sponsor would be already lined up for a highly rated television show. Eventually it got lined up with advertisers who did just like you said... didn't care if the PTC threatened a boycott and kept on advertising.

Censorship is telling people they cannot speak about something. So telling people that cannot speak out against smut on TV is censorship. The sponsors VOLUNTARILY agreed to remove their sponsorship. So unless you believe the State should force them to sponsor programs, you have no argument.

This is the marketplace at work. Freedom of speech in action.

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

One interesting thing I've seen. Those promoting censorship keep trying to say anyone against censorship is for the elimination of boycotts. Spin, spin, spin. Fact is, one group of Americans wants to attempt to dictate to another group of American's what they can and can not watch on television, based on the moral values of the first group. That's censorship, no matter how hard you try to dress it up as a 'fight for liberty' under the guise of freedom of speech.

So, let me get this straight. I can personally boycott anybody I please, but I should not be allowed to encourage enough other people to make a difference?

No, if you go back and re-read what I wrote, you'd see this that is not what I'm saying. What exactly is the difference you intend to make? If you want to warn parents of a show's content, organize an e-mail or mailing campaign and inform them of your opinion so that they can make an educated decision FOR THEMSELVES and THEIR CHILDREN (who by the way, will be fast asleep by the time this particular show airs). If you wish to eliminate the show (and that is where I am at a loss for words. If you don't like something that much, don't watch it), boycott the network; write letters to the network execs. This is the appropriate method. You don't extort the sponsors! But face it, the difference YOU intend to make is to impose your own morality on the rest of us. The funny thing is that its not even morality at all

That is very specious. That's like saying I have a right to speak, but I have no right to use amplification equipment so that others can hear me.

No, that's not quite accurate. Its like saying you have a right to speak, but you don't have the right to say to someone, "do this, or I'll hurt you in some way." That's blackmail. That's extortion.

You aren't, by chance, a supporter of John McCain's CFR, are you?

No I am not. But apparently I'm not a "real conservative" in your twisted worldview because I don't support censorship, blackmail, extortion, and other hobbies of X42 and his chronies.

. 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.

Although I may not totally agree with your point of view here, I must commend you for pointing out AppyPappy's hypocrisy. Yes, Pappy is more than happy to scarf down Woppers while sitting in his bed at a Marriott or Howard Johnson, as long as BK doesn't advertise on shows he doesn't like and as long as the hotel chains dont allow S&M type conventions there. But if you cross Pappy and do anything he dosen't like, he'll take his business elsewhere. Funny guy!

Its also amusing that people such as he spend their time finding out who is advertising durring tv programs they do not even want to watch. It must be some type of dimentia.

However, when you start using that cloak of freedom of speech to control someone else's freedom of choice, then I'll disagree with you.

No one is controlling your freedom to choose. In reality, the sponsors has the freedom to choose to drop their sponsorships. The program CHOSE to show that stuff. Citizens CHOSE to contact the sponsors. The Sponsors CHOSE to drop their sponsorships when the facts were given to them. The sponsors could have CHOSEN to ignore the citizens. Sounds like a whole lot of choice to me!

Unless you plan to demand networks show smut on TV and demand sponsors pay for it, I don't see where you are going with this.

And like a liberal, you want to stop people from standing up for what they believe

Huh? Please don't tell me you're going to launch into a "oh, I'm a poor, persecuted" martyr complex, garbage spew. You're fully free to change the channel anytime something comes on you don't want to watch. Enough people do it, it gets no ratings and gets replaced. Happens all the time. Instead, you'd rather attempt to dictate that anyone who MAY want to watch the program shouldn't be allowed, because YOU don't happen to like it.

Nothing scares a liberal more than conservatives standing up and opposing evil

And now you've resorted to name-calling. Nice. No, nothing scares me more then to see someone proclaiming to 'know' what is best for me to watch on television, and attempting to force their choices on me and others. While making feeble attempts to disguise such censorship under the flag of freedom.

Well, we ARE standing up now

Oh, you speak for all conservatives now? Did we take a vote? I don't recall being asked if I agreed with it, or if AppyPappy was my choice as spokesman. Or was this yet another item you've decided is "best" for me? Once again, go back and remember your Stalin reference. Didn't he also claim to be speaking for the masses, when making his decree's on what was 'best' for everyone else?

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.

My family spends $25-30 bucks a week at Pizza Hut.
I simply used my free speech to tell them "use my money to sponsor this garbage, and we'll buy elsewhere."
They're free to ingore that of course, but without my money.

No, I think you're not a real conservative because you believe in stifling AppyPappy's right to his freedom of the marketplace.

Calling a cat a dog doesn't make it a dog, as your calling it censorship doesn't make it censorship.

I wasn't going to call you an unreal conservative, but since you persist in trying to shut down others' rights to a free marketplace where they can make purchasing decisions based on their beliefs, you rather forced my hand.

I don't debate with unreal people of any stripe. I'd rather argue with a self-proclaimed liberal than with you.

"Fact is, one group of Americans wants to attempt to dictate to another group of American's what they can and can not watch on television, based on the moral values of the first group."

Another fact is that you would dictate what others' market decisions can be.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Censorship is telling people they cannot speak about something. So telling people that cannot speak out against smut on TV is censorship.

Yes, you're right. If I was telling you you couldn't speak out against "smut" on TV, then I would be guilty of trying to censor you. But that's not what I've been saying. Please re-read my earlier posts. But you've got to realize that what you're doing is not "speaking out against smut." What you are doing is trying to get a show cancelled via extortion because it offends you. That has nothing to do with free speech. By aiming to get the show cancelled, you are directly opposing the notion of free speech. Like I said before, if you want to speak out against a show, lead a protest, write letters voicing your concern (not your intention to extort), speak at a convention of like-minded hypocrites, etc.

The sponsors VOLUNTARILY agreed to remove their sponsorship. So unless you believe the State should force them to sponsor programs, you have no argument.

If the sponsors VOLUNTARILY agreed to remove their sponsorship, why on earth did you and your onemilliondads.com friends claim victory? You and I both know this is not true. They removed their sponsorship because they were harrassed and threatened by your group of quasi-Christians.

This is the marketplace at work. Freedom of speech in action.

This statement directly contradicts your former supposition that the sponsors voluntarily withdrew. It even said in your little press release that the company asked you to stop calling and sending e-mails. If your definition of freedom of speech includes the unalienable right to harrass and threaten someone, then yes, this is freedom of speech in action.

If the sponsors VOLUNTARILY agreed to remove their sponsorship, why on earth did you and your onemilliondads.com friends claim victory? .

Because we were the ones who alerted them. They probably assumed that no one cared. They were wrong.

We contacted Volkswagen about something and they said they didn't care. That is their right.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.