Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: Are we at a cross roads?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    10-22-01
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    38,200

    Are we at a cross roads?

    The "tech giants" have all cut off Parler, a "free speech" free for all and potential alternative platform for trump. It had become a sanctuary for those who would violate the Capital and the very institution of our country.

    Now there is gnashing of teeth and whining about the infringement of free speech---thank goodness

    I am as concerned with limits on free speech as most of you--but there comes a point were "free speech" becomes poisonous--and we have excided that. Talk of "putting a bullet in the noggin" of an old woman is simply beyond the limits of a civilized society.

    I am also encouraged by Simon & Shuster standing up to the "traitor" hawley---we need more companies to take a stand. (as a side note I think he should be expelled)

    My first reaction to Kevin's call to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine left me cautious---but I am warming to that suggestion. In short, the doctrine is:

    The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.

    That would make the current ability of anyone to isolate themselves to a singular thinking---as it relates to our current situation----at best difficult. Rather than listen to lies about a stolen election from morning to night they would be exposed to "the rest of the story"---even as declared by AG Barr et al. Those that attacked the Capital live in an altered reality--and based on our options of communicating today that is easily done.

    I'm not sure how the doctrine would apply to someone like limbaugh but I can see it causing Fox and CNN to shift their programing.

    As I say that, I think about all the attacks against the NYT---by those who have never picked one up in their lives. Their hatred comes from their rabid right sources---and they buy into it. I do not see the Fairness Doctrine impacting "responsible speech" on either side of the aisle----my two daily papers (the NYT and the WSJ) could continue holding their current (and vastly opposite) biases, but they could not cross the line to inflammatory rhetoric---and there I get back to the point of beginning---who determines were the line is?
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
    "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
    “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis

  2. #2
    Join Date
    04-23-02
    Location
    SW Colorado
    Posts
    4,959
    Just to be clear, you are asking if it’s ok to restrict free speech? Or have you already determined that, and are asking how?
    "Back after 5 years. I thought you had died.

    don"


    Splitting my time between the montane and the mesas

    The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    10-22-01
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    38,200
    Quote Originally Posted by CactusCurt View Post
    Just to be clear, you are asking if it’s ok to restrict free speech? Or have you already determined that, and are asking how?
    I am still struggling with that question----so let me turn it over and ask you---can we afford to willingly expose ourselves to treason? Because that is exactly what happened here.
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
    "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
    “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis

  4. #4
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    The Fairness Doctrine would ensure that if Limbaugh gets four hours of prime time venom, it gets balanced by other shows showing the opposite side of the issues. It would at least break up the 24/7 flow of right wing hate radio. I used to find farmers in the winter that had the radio in the shop tuned to Limbaugh, then Levin, then whomever, and they'd just have it playing in the background all day long while they fixed equipment. When all you hear is that, it becomes ingrained.

    The FD comes from the idea that having a license from the government to use the public airways meant having a duty to the public for education. Broadcasting used to entail having a public responsibility.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    10-14-01
    Location
    TEXAS!
    Posts
    14,571
    My recollection of the fairness doctrine was that if a station sold or gave away airtime to a political candidate or party it had to sell or give away equal airtime to an opposing candidate if they wanted it. It did not mandate that they air an opposing view unless the other side wanted the airtime. I don't think it applied to talk show commentator like Limbaugh. Of course that is only what I understood it to do.

    I would like to see it come back, but I'm not sure it should apply to talk shows.
    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible - Arthur C. Clarke

  6. #6
    Join Date
    10-30-01
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    30,650
    An interesting and timely discussion - which is causing me to examine where I stand on this issue.

    Threads like this advance the issue before us. I think that is excellent.

    Hunter
    I don't care if it hurts. I want to have control. I want a perfect body. I want a perfect soul. - Creep by Radiohead

  7. #7
    Join Date
    11-14-01
    Location
    Apache Junction, AZ
    Posts
    25,675
    Not sure if that should apply to private companies such as twitter, FB and Instagram since they can and should censor what they what posted to their sites.
    Fred

    "Everyday I beat my own previous record for number of consecutive days I've
    stayed alive."

    'Take care of yourself, and each other.'

  8. #8
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    The Fairness Doctrine covered broadcast licenses, not cable. There was no Internet at the time. What it would do to talk radio is require hosts to allow rebuttal, if it is requested.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    I'm all for repealing Section 230. Trump wouldn't be, if he understood the issue beyond just being butthurt and wanting to hit back at tech companies.

    It would mean Twitter moderating everything that is posted. They cannot possibly do that and so would go out of business, to my everlasting delight. And all the BS, the lies, the snark, everything, would go splat. It would take away the ability to cocoon yourself away from alternate viewpoints, which I see as the root of our problems.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    10-14-01
    Location
    TEXAS!
    Posts
    14,571
    Repealing Sec. 230 would also kill this site as I am not going to be liable for what our quadrennial presidential candidate (or anyone else) says. If it is repealed, the site will be shut down immediately.
    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible - Arthur C. Clarke

  11. #11
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    I understand that. I would be sorry to see it go. Truly.

    Back in 2013, there was a government shutdown. I was a federal employee. The posts here were about how federal employees were overpaid, useless layabouts and if the shutdown caused them pain, who cares, they are dead wood anyway.

    I reminded people that I was a federal employee and they were talking about harming me monetarily.

    "So what?" was the response. I was collateral damage. I had been at this site from the beginning and while I had my run-ins with members, I never until that moment understood how I was viewed. I've never forgotten that people who had known me for years, even if they disliked me, would be willing to harm me financially as if I were nothing.

    The lesson I took from that was that while this is a great place and you do a wonderful job, we all need to keep in mind that we had lives before the site and we will have them after.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    10-20-02
    Location
    16 miles west of the White House, Northern Virginia..
    Posts
    4,529
    I remember the discussion on government shutdown.. there can be so many complex sides to a story that don’t always get desiminated.. the federal employees get their missed pay but it’s the collateral damage that is crushing..

    Imagine the oil industry in Texas shutdown the same way (except gas stations).. all of the major oil company employees would get delayed back pay but what about the restaurants around the oil locations? And the delivery services and taxi drivers and 7-11 owners.. and contractors.. no customers.. it affects the entire community..

    And a lot of people don’t realize how much $$$ is wasted shutting down and then starting back up again..

  13. #13
    Join Date
    04-23-02
    Location
    SW Colorado
    Posts
    4,959
    I see it as a restriction on speech. Whether I approve of the speech mustn’t matter or we are truly f’d.

    Nobody will be able to see the picture of you lying in front of the tank.
    "Back after 5 years. I thought you had died.

    don"


    Splitting my time between the montane and the mesas

    The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    There was no guarantee that we'd be getting our pay. We had in past shutdowns but that was questionable during this one, due to Cruz and other Tea Party folks being against it. The shutdown was for three weeks. A great many government workers are at the GS-5 or GS-7 level, which are the the bottom of the pay scale. They had families to provide for and many lived paycheck to paycheck, as do most low-income workers.

    They were as nothing to people here. I was nothing. It stung but it told me a lot about how I should view this site and the people here. I don't say that it was necessarily bad, mind you. It probably was a useful lesson not to get too emotionally invested. As I have been told many times, "it's just the Internet". The episode gave me perspective and for that, I appreciated the opprobrium I took.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Quote Originally Posted by CactusCurt View Post
    I see it as a restriction on speech. Whether I approve of the speech mustn’t matter or we are truly f’d.

    Nobody will be able to see the picture of you lying in front of the tank.
    The Fairness Doctrine stemmed from the idea that the airwaves were owned by the government. You had to get a license to use them and essentially therefore had a duty to the public for letting you use them. Part of that was met by performing a public service for your free use of the air - public education in an even-handed manner, which is a societal good.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •