I once had a discussion about a show called "Work It" that LGBT media watch dogs and rights organizations accused of being transphobic and they attempted to convince the network to never air the show; the network did air the show but due to low ratings it was cancelled and pulled off the air after two episode were broadcast. One person said that such groups should be banned because they are attempting to limit artistic freedom and dictate what shows people can and cannot watch.
The principle of freedom of speech is one of those funny things That has to be granted equally to everyone or to no one. Otherwise it's useless.
It wuld appear that "LGBT" was correct in their determination that the show was a loser and could not be repaired: public opinion clearly supported their decision.
Thirty-five years ago there was a program called "Soap," about a daytime drama that featured every sort of idiocy that exists. The producers manipulated a snowstorm of controversy to pique interest in the show, hoping that curiosity over the uproar would prompt viewers to tune in.
"Soap" was a loser any way one considered it. It was dull, parochial, favored every form of depravity that existed, and was to say the very least, irrational and preachy.
I watched one episode and my wife awakened me fifteen minutes after the show ended: it had bored us both to sleep.
"Work it" seems to have been the same sort of loser. Whoever produced it will have come away with a nasty financial loss and a severe injury to their reputation.
Andrew, your incorrect spellings make it quite clear that your conclusions are also incorrect. Any way we consider it, yours is very sloppy work, hence rejected. To be a published author in a free nation one must write professionally, not as you do.
As to the First Amendment. Kindly note that it protects us from the abuses of cults such as atheism, noting that atheists are the first to impose atheism, enforce censorship, and mandate propaganda. These abuses are totalitarian in nature hence intolerable in any form.
In 1965, president Johnson struck a bargain with the Soviet Union: they would allow Time magazine to be sold on their newsstands, and we would allow Soviet Life to be sold on ours. More as a joke than anything else, I actually bought a copy. It was as dull as the critics warned.
People here read a few paragraphs of Soviet Life and returned it to the rack, thinking that it was as dull, parochial, and preachy as anything else that ever came out of a leftist country. We returned over 95% of their copies unsold, and told them to hire professional writers.
Soviets to the contrary stampeded their newsstands to get so much as a peek at Time and the very few who offered the best bribes to their black marketeers were able to rent photocopies of Time for 150 Rubles a month -- about the same as a factory laborer's salary. Even so, the Soviets intercepted over 98% of their copies of Time and said that they could not give them away, claiming that the magazine was poorly written.
Such are the censorship games that leftists have always played. They were unconvincing then, and they are unconvincing now. Games will only prove that you are so unskilled that you cannot compete in the real world. Atheism takes a very severe toll on the intellect.
Censorship is a fact of life. Time your shots and send your work to the appropriate market.
For example, romance will always sell as 80% of the book and Kindle market goes to women.
Realize that some markets have always been turkeys: atheism has to be the worst as it has the very smallest market share. You might as well try to encourage drunkenness at an AA meeting as try to sell an atheist manuscript to a mainstream audience.
I sell mostly to the History Channel and Military Channel, as a resource writer. It is a tidy living if your work measures up.
The First Amendment gives one the right to "advocate" for anything they want. Even if ( or even particularly if ) that things one wishes to advocate for is illegal and/or unconstitutional.
A privet sector party can ask any other privet sector party to choose not to air and/or participate in the views of another. That is not the same as the state denying the rights of privet citizens.
The First Amendment only denies the State the right to censer others. Neither a TV station nor any other news out-let is required to let anyone air their own privet massage or manifesto on that companies time and dime in the name of Freedom of Speech.
The First Amendment grants us the right to write and read anything we wish. However, there are those among us who practice censorship and prejudicial reporting by "culling" what they will present.
The practice is reprehensible as it creates a wholly unbalanced perspective of recent events. That may as well be outright propaganda.
It is for us to refuse half-truths, distortion, and deception created by unprofessional writers in our press. Professional writers are proud of their work and will never tolerate spin, slant, or prejudice.
Unprofessional writers are infamous for these practices and soon enough find themselves blacklisted. That means no respected publication will ever handle their work again. "Underground" presses of course are so prejudicial that no reasoning entity takes them seriously.
That is how it is, and that is how it should be.
Advocate for censorship all you will: know that only leftists do so, because they live on lies and they are terrified that their lies will be exposed.
The Soviet Union did that. They had two newspapers. One was Izvestia. That means "news." The other was Pravda. That means "truth."
"There is no Pravda in Izvestia and no Izvestia in Pravda."
That is what leftist governments all do especially if they push atheism on people.
Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:
Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them