Another Plan to Kill Free Speech

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Are people still claiming that climate change is a hoax? Really?

Im willing to believe that the climate is changing, but I am not willing to shut up the people who say it isnt.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Of course not, that would be silly and somewhat totalitarian. And although I believe in Climate Change, I don't think that man's imprint is as big as Mr. Gore would like me to believe.

IMO it's a more natural set of events that are occuring. But that's another thread.

What I'm suggesting is that we simply make it illegal for media to outright lie to you. That's different than having wrong information mind you.

It's just becoming all too common for companies to lie to you on purpose, in order to sway your opinion. The government tends to do that these days as well.

It just needs to end.

~Tenth

reply to post by Skyfloating


Like the kind of "diversity" you get from the big talk radio shows or the evening news?

They have been dominated by right wing interests for over a decade now.

Sure, there's plenty of diversity on the internet but one shouldn't be forced to hunt down the facts for themselves when it comes to the news.

In short, I don't care to have my news filtered by a General Electric subsidiary newscorp editor.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals


Like the kind of "diversity" you get from the big talk radio shows or the evening news?

They have been dominated by right wing interests for over a decade now.

From what I can tell, the only News-Station dominated by right-wing interests is Fox.

And liberal talk-radio has been attempted, but not yet successfully. Its a domain of the right, just like Hollywood (for example) is 80% a domain of the left.

Shutting others up is not a solution. A solution would be to get a stronger voice.

People always want intervention, when they think the intervention is a good idea.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I don't suppose I've made a good case here - what it boils down to is the concept of the commons - those things held in trust by the government for the public. The airwaves are part of that public domain that the government through the FCC have to license and regulate. The TV and radion stations are given permission to use a part of the broadcast spectrum which is a 2 part deal - the 1st part is commercial interests which dictate advertising and editorial content. The 2nd part is what they do for the public in return, which at present is nothing.

The Fairness doctrine was instituted to ensure that no single political point of view (or other issue of public importance) could be presented ad nauseum without some opportunity for opposing interests to state their case.
Someone might own a TV station but they don't own the airwaves it's transmitted over.

I'm not willing to trust a commercial interest to present more than one side to a story and neither did our government back in 1947. At present most media outlets are owned by a few corporations who have unfailingly done nothing but present information (or propaganda) that is in their best interests which is not synonymous with the public interest.

reply to post by seabag


While I agree that there are (especially those named above) toxic political commentators, I wouldn't support this and I'm left so

Constitutional freedoms need to come before being politically offended.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by seabag

 

Im sorry, you are mistaken. All the fairness doctrine does is make sure that issues are seen from both sides, that is needed for anyone to use critical thought and decide how they feel about something. This will be a wonderful thing for the people that follow those you listed and faux news.

If they want it seen from both sides then push their own talk shows, commentaries, etc.......

Its already fair, its just that no one wants to hear their bs so that want to silence the opposition.......

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Not just dissenting political views, but more importantly scientific facts and opinions. When the Fairness Doctrine was in place, a news network or talk radio host would have to state that the opinions of views expressed in the program are not the only ones - for instance: A news host is covering a story that the scientific community agrees Monsanto Milk or GMO crops are 100% safe. Is that a true statement? ALL scientists agree? No, but as they present such a story we might not be told that little fact. Under the Fairness Doctrine they would have to state that other scientists do not agree Monsanto Milk or GMO crops are safe. They don't have to launch into any sort of discussion about such dissenting opinions, they just have to admit they exist.

This prevents massive conglomerates backed by billionaires overwhelming the media outlets (or as we have today, outright owning them) with their own personal views and opinions. How could, say, a publicly funded talk program with very limited range or budget possibly compete with the big boy networks? The Fairness Doctrine served a valid purpose, especially back in the day when you only had 3 television networks and few national radio programs. At least today we have alternative media to present ALL the facts when the big networks lie. (example: a watchdog Web site tracking the constant flow of lies from certain major cable news networks.)

Again, the Fairness Doctrine never required "equal time" for dissenting opinions as stated in the article from WND.com, that's just bogus information from a biased source. It's too bad a Fairness Doctrine doesn't exist for Web sites, at least then WND.com might have been forced to acknowledge the truth about Obama's position as well, that he came out against the Fairness Doctrine when he was a senator and again after taking office.

this is infuriating, how can they pass things that we didn't give them permission to!!!!!!!!!


NOBODY CAME TO MY DOOR AND ASKED ME IF I WAS OK WITH THIS.


GOVERNMENT, GET OUT OF MY HOUSE. STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO DO!!!!!!!!


we the people, FUS-RO-DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by seabag

 

Im sorry, you are mistaken. All the fairness doctrine does is make sure that issues are seen from both sides, that is needed for anyone to use critical thought and decide how they feel about something. This will be a wonderful thing for the people that follow those you listed and faux news.

If they want it seen from both sides then push their own talk shows, commentaries, etc.......

Its already fair, its just that no one wants to hear their bs so that want to silence the opposition.......

edit on 2-2-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

100% true, everybody is like "wow mainstream media sucks, and is boring, biased etc."

Lets go to ATS! fair balanced (and crazy lol hehe) FUN news from the people for the people.

Government: shut down ATS because we want them to watch our brainwash news.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Just a quick example: back when the Busheviks were pushing all their Iraq has WMD tales how likely would it be for the same corporation who owns Raytheon and a major tv network to present anything that might make the case for war less likely?

People still don't seem to get it - this isn't about the Constitution or freedom of speech, it's about public property and what is best for the public.

linkreply to post by Benevolent Heretic

WND is a crap source. Their agenda is far too important to have any respect for the facts. Obama doesn't support the fairness doctrine any more than Ron Paul does.

All media peddle crap! You just don’t like the crap WND is peddling, so WND’s crap is unacceptable to you.

Remember in 2004 when CBS worked with a democrat candidate to destroy Bush by using completely fabricated records? They didn’t verify anything…they threw it out there to screw Bush. This is just one example, but I’m sure you don’t consider what CBS peddles to be crap.

CBS this week said documents cited in the 60 Minutes story, which suggested lapses in the president's military record, could not be authenticated. CBS News anchor Dan Rather, the reporter of the story, apologized, while CBS News said the story was a mistake and promised to name an investigative panel.

Mapes declined Tuesday to discuss the matter. CBS News said in a statement: "It is obviously against CBS News standards to be associated with any political agenda. As to what actually happened here, it is one of many issues the independent review will be examining."

Republicans saw the story as evidence that CBS News was coordinating with the Kerry campaign to attack the president. The chair of the Republican National Committee demanded answers.

This would never pass, thankfully.

I hope you’re right but that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to back door this program or some version of it.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

What I'm suggesting is that we simply make it illegal for media to outright lie to you. That's different than having wrong information mind you.

It's just becoming all too common for companies to lie to you on purpose, in order to sway your opinion. The government tends to do that these days as well.

It just needs to end.

That sounds good, in theory, but the people who would be deciding what is or isn’t a “lie” are the same people orchestrating the lies!



People should be allowed to say what they want. It’s up to the reader (or viewer) to determine if it’s reliable or not. We can’t stop people from saying things we don’t like or that we believe to be inaccurate…that’s unconstitutional. Any version of the so-called "fairness doctrine" should be as unacceptable as SOPA. There is nothing "fair" about telling people what they must say.