It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
FCC Should Clamp Down on Inflammatory Rhetoric Says Dem Lawmaker
page: 13
share:
FCC Should Clamp Down on Inflammatory Rhetoric Says Dem Lawmaker
politics.blogs.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
January 10, 2011
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said in a Monday afternoon conference call that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should work harder to sanction broadcasts that could incite people to violence.
"No one owns the airwaves," Slaughter said, "They are owned by the people."
Noting that she was not up on the current state of FCC regulations, Slaughter thought that during the recent health care debate, "she really heard" exhortations to violence...
Freedom of speech? No. This is the jackboot of Congress on people, where the 1st amendment is under assault.
Congress is basically saying they can do whatever they want and not get angry feedback from people. They can ignore the will of the people and no one is allowed to 'yell' at them. How loudly can you type, how strong can you make your words be to make your anger heard? If your words are too strong, you'll get arrested for protesting the actions of Congress, or the Executive office.
A good percentage of posts on ATS help people vent their anger, from either side of an opinion. Venting is healthy. Speaking out is healthy. Repressing speech, not so healthy.
politics.blogs.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Congress is basically saying they can do whatever they want and not get angry feedback from people. They can ignore the will of the people and no one is allowed to 'yell' at them. How loudly can you type, how strong can you make your words be to make your anger heard? If your words are too strong, you'll get arrested for protesting the actions of Congress, or the Executive office.
A good percentage of posts on ATS help people vent their anger, from either side of an opinion. Venting is healthy. Speaking out is healthy. Repressing speech, not so healthy.
politics.blogs.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
That won't grow legs.
Freedom of speech is a core value of the US. Should something be done about hate speech and violence stoking? nothing offical...that is controlled by the people to basically ignore and boo.
If the hate speech is too loud, counter it with louder voices of reason..publically humiliate those whom push hate and violence..point them out and put lights of shame on them...but no, no law to infringe no matter how pathetic the talk is.
But I am all for the protest barrier for funerals...that is the one area I fully agree on where things can bend..just funerals.
Freedom of speech is a core value of the US. Should something be done about hate speech and violence stoking? nothing offical...that is controlled by the people to basically ignore and boo.
If the hate speech is too loud, counter it with louder voices of reason..publically humiliate those whom push hate and violence..point them out and put lights of shame on them...but no, no law to infringe no matter how pathetic the talk is.
But I am all for the protest barrier for funerals...that is the one area I fully agree on where things can bend..just funerals.
Your constitution has prevailed through worse crises. I'm sure--or rather, I sure hope--people will see the folly this would be, once emotions cool
down a tad. This is just the nature of politicians, sadly; no tragedy must go unexploited. In a perfect world, people would simply stop
watching/listening to ramblings of lunatics, rendering their words powerless. Today, however, the crazier you are, the more people watch/listen and
spread your word.
It's sad, but that's entirely on us--there's no way around that. We pay the lease on our freedoms from time to time, but the only way to avoid that is to give them up. I don't think any American would stand for that, especially in this day and age.
Edit: It took me so long to post that I missed SaturnFX's contribution above... I think it's safe to say I agree, and I duly tip my hat, thus:
*tips hat*
It's sad, but that's entirely on us--there's no way around that. We pay the lease on our freedoms from time to time, but the only way to avoid that is to give them up. I don't think any American would stand for that, especially in this day and age.
Edit: It took me so long to post that I missed SaturnFX's contribution above... I think it's safe to say I agree, and I duly tip my hat, thus:
*tips hat*
edit on 12-1-2011 by TedStevensLives because: addition
reply to post by dbriefed
One of the primary reasons that I am against the "Progressive" movement is the continuous push for limiting speech (and many other rights). Over and Over and Over again, all we hear from these people is barring the freedom of speech based on hate speech, fairness doctrine (opposition political speech), internet regulation (to hinder speech they don't like).
What I do NOT understand is how the "footsoldiers" or "kool-aid" drinkers who support them actually go along with this. Do they NOT understand that these same regulations and suspension of rights can be used against them as well?
I don't get it. Who in their right mind would honestly want to shut down free speech and the free exchange of information we have on the internet?
One of the primary reasons that I am against the "Progressive" movement is the continuous push for limiting speech (and many other rights). Over and Over and Over again, all we hear from these people is barring the freedom of speech based on hate speech, fairness doctrine (opposition political speech), internet regulation (to hinder speech they don't like).
What I do NOT understand is how the "footsoldiers" or "kool-aid" drinkers who support them actually go along with this. Do they NOT understand that these same regulations and suspension of rights can be used against them as well?
I don't get it. Who in their right mind would honestly want to shut down free speech and the free exchange of information we have on the internet?
edit on 12-1-2011 by infolurker because: (no reason given)
It's unconstitutional, besides, if they did that, FOX News would have to shut down.
Free speech must be paramount, however, people need to cut out the violent rhetoric, and those that preach it, need to be exposed for who they are and shunned.
Free speech must be paramount, however, people need to cut out the violent rhetoric, and those that preach it, need to be exposed for who they are and shunned.
Hate speech has the potential to originate from anyone of any party affiliation. Hate speech is good for society in the fact that normal people will
be able to identify and separate themselves from the "looney goons" and make a mockery of them.
The people who want to limit speech are the ones who spew most of the hate in what they say.
Just my opinion. Nothing more.
The people who want to limit speech are the ones who spew most of the hate in what they say.
Just my opinion. Nothing more.
Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by dbriefed
One of the primary reasons that I am against the "Progressive" movement is the continuous push for limiting speech (and many other rights).
One of the primary reasons that I am against the "Conservative" movement is the continous push for establishing a christian theocracy (and many other fanatical standings)
Meh, if we are going to paint an entire political movement on some fringe voices, we can go that route I suppose.
Why do conservatives want to outlaw homosexuality?
Why do conservatives want to bomb mecca?
again, I say if you want to paint an entire movement on some lonely fringe voices, that is a double edged sword.
Liberals, for the most part, rabidly protect the freedom of speech, expression, etc...(if you instinctively want to say "no they dont" to this, think...bullwhip held by buttcheeks as art that libs said is fine and cons said no, it shouldn't be allowed)
It's not how or if they say anything or nothing at all. It's if they tell us the damn TRUTH! We, the people of this great nation, deserve more than
just entertaining rhetoric from well-paid talking heads.
Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by dbriefed
I don't get it. Who in their right mind would honestly want to shut down free speech and the free exchange of information we have on the internet?)
In this age of egocentrism, it seems few people can see beyond the needs of the self. People are easily scared and they care more about their hides than rights they don't perceive as crucial. People aren't generally worried about police brutality until they get tasered, and they don't care about free speech because they've never had anything to say.
Edit: is it just me or is my reply in a tiny little font?
edit on 12-1-2011 by TedStevensLives because: weirdness
reply to post by SaturnFX
Cool, But let's stick with the "free speech" here since that is the topic.
I personally do not like the commentators on MSNBC or most on the Huffington Post and I do not agree with many of their opinions or the political spew that floods from these sources BUT I fully believe they have the right to continue to express their views on the air without being told that they are "offensive" and should be shut down or regulated as to what they can and cannot say. The "fairness doctrine" is turning the channel. Yes, it is really that easy as nobody can say we do not have choices in News in this country.
On the flip side of the coin, the "other side" wants FOX News shut down or regulated, Talk Radio shut down or regulated, and "hate speech" laws implemented (And Who again gets to "define" what is hate speech?).
The problem is this attitude is NOT just the so called "fringe" of the left but appears quite mainstream to me. This talk coming from the rank and file.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
Cool, But let's stick with the "free speech" here since that is the topic.
I personally do not like the commentators on MSNBC or most on the Huffington Post and I do not agree with many of their opinions or the political spew that floods from these sources BUT I fully believe they have the right to continue to express their views on the air without being told that they are "offensive" and should be shut down or regulated as to what they can and cannot say. The "fairness doctrine" is turning the channel. Yes, it is really that easy as nobody can say we do not have choices in News in this country.
On the flip side of the coin, the "other side" wants FOX News shut down or regulated, Talk Radio shut down or regulated, and "hate speech" laws implemented (And Who again gets to "define" what is hate speech?).
The problem is this attitude is NOT just the so called "fringe" of the left but appears quite mainstream to me. This talk coming from the rank and file.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
Its a disturbing trend, where our so called "representatives" are handing off responsibility to these governmental agencies.
Got a problem with the TSA, cant help you, talk to the DHS. Got a problem with food raids, cant help you, talk to the FDA. Got a problem with your web site being shut down, cant help you, talk to the FCC...
This allows them to have zero culpability. In which case I have to question the continued need for "elected representatives" when they no longer control policy.
And what exactly is "inflammatory" rhetoric? Let me take a wild guess:
1) 9/11 Truthers.
2) Anyone questioning the "authority" or legitimacy of the "Federal Reserve".
3) Anyone who suggests that izrael is controlling American foreign policy via AIPAC and dual
izraeli/American citizens in the government.
4) Anyone who questions climate change.
5) Anyone who is not supportive of "Health care" for everyone.
6) Anyone who is critical of ANY elected representative.
7) Anyone who is not supportive of the so-called "war on terror".
8) Anyone who openly speaks about our government's illegal activities with regards to the installation of dictators, assassinations, drug dealing, use and sale of WMDs etc.
9) Any dissenting views.
Got a problem with the TSA, cant help you, talk to the DHS. Got a problem with food raids, cant help you, talk to the FDA. Got a problem with your web site being shut down, cant help you, talk to the FCC...
This allows them to have zero culpability. In which case I have to question the continued need for "elected representatives" when they no longer control policy.
And what exactly is "inflammatory" rhetoric? Let me take a wild guess:
1) 9/11 Truthers.
2) Anyone questioning the "authority" or legitimacy of the "Federal Reserve".
3) Anyone who suggests that izrael is controlling American foreign policy via AIPAC and dual
izraeli/American citizens in the government.
4) Anyone who questions climate change.
5) Anyone who is not supportive of "Health care" for everyone.
6) Anyone who is critical of ANY elected representative.
7) Anyone who is not supportive of the so-called "war on terror".
8) Anyone who openly speaks about our government's illegal activities with regards to the installation of dictators, assassinations, drug dealing, use and sale of WMDs etc.
9) Any dissenting views.
edit on 12-1-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by infolurker
On the flip side of the coin, the "other side" wants FOX News shut down or regulated, Talk Radio shut down or regulated, and "hate speech" laws implemented (And Who again gets to "define" what is hate speech?).
The problem is this attitude is NOT just the so called "fringe" of the left but appears quite mainstream to me. This talk coming from the rank and file.
My opinion, I want Faux Noise to be shut down also, but not from some rule..just people waking up and realizing they are catagorically lying to their viewership and distorting any truth they do say to such a way that makes it laughable.
Shut it down via ratings drop from people waking up.
I imagine the other side want the same thing about MSNBC.
Finally, I think when someone on the air provably lies under the guise of truth (not satire), they should be fined,,either side of the aisle...after a number of willfully knowing lies, licensing should be revoked for a time until they get their #$%^ together.
Freedom of the press is great..freedom of speech is great, libel is a crime
reply to post by SaturnFX
OK I know "one line" responses are frowned upon here but I just have to say that is absolutely fantastically put. I honestly don't think I could have said it better myself, which is saying quite a lot (I'm my own biggest fan).
*tips hat*
OK I know "one line" responses are frowned upon here but I just have to say that is absolutely fantastically put. I honestly don't think I could have said it better myself, which is saying quite a lot (I'm my own biggest fan).
*tips hat*
reply to post by pikypiky
The Media is OWNED or controlled by the bankers. US media is nothing but a propaganda outlet.
JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...
Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership: www.globalissues.org...
Who controls the media: www.nowfoundation.org...
Interlocking Directorates: www.fair.org...
It's not how or if they say anything or nothing at all. It's if they tell us the damn TRUTH! We, the people of this great nation, deserve more than just entertaining rhetoric from well-paid talking heads.
The Media is OWNED or controlled by the bankers. US media is nothing but a propaganda outlet.
JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...
Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership: www.globalissues.org...
Who controls the media: www.nowfoundation.org...
Interlocking Directorates: www.fair.org...