StevenSeagal Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Wait a sec. So if the left does it, it makes the right doing it fair game? Or are they both wrong? You can't excuse the right from it by using that excuse. As for the media thing: politics aside, is it, or is it not, acceptable for the government to use public airwaves to deseminate propaganda? Isn't the supposed "left wing media" been a major complaint of the right for many years? Regardless of who is using the airwaves for propaganda- should this be legal or not? If not, is it a prosecutable offense? If so, why is this "suppression of free speech"? There are infinite channels for that, this is simply a check on government power- isn't that what conservatives want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 That's what we need: 24/7 of Barney crooning "I love you, you love me". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) Wait a sec. So if the left does it, it makes the right doing it fair game? Or are they both wrong? You can't excuse the right from it by using that excuse. As for the media thing: politics aside, is it, or is it not, acceptable for the government to use public airwaves to deseminate propaganda? Isn't the supposed "left wing media" been a major complaint of the right for many years? Regardless of who is using the airwaves for propaganda- should this be legal or not? If not, is it a prosecutable offense? If so, why is this "suppression of free speech"? There are infinite channels for that, this is simply a check on government power- isn't that what conservatives want? propaganda = a point of view you disagree with broadcast on the public airwaves. all broadcasts dealing with a controversial issue have a POV and will offend someone, and cause some disagreement/outrage. this whole debate is good fodder (by extension) for why the gov't should not be funding PBS, NPR or any other "public" broadcasting. Edited September 27, 2006 by KaskadskyjKozak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 I just watched "Good Night, and Good Luck" last night (film about Edward R. Murrow). He had some very insightful and poingiant things to say about "editorializing" and "impartiality" in the media and the media's responsibility as society's watchdog against excessive and non-transparent governmental power (fascism). I recommend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 propaganda = a point of view you disagree with broadcast on the public airwaves. all broadcasts dealing with a controversial issue have a POV and will offend someone, and cause some disagreement/outrage. this whole debate is good fodder (by extension) for why the gov't should not be funding PBS, NPR or any other "public" broadcasting. We're talking about the GOVERNMENT using the airwaves to sell it's agenda. In fact, the privately owned channels are free to provide whatever sort of propaganda and opinions they like, and it should stay that way. But if the government is hijacking the airwaves through whatever means to influence public opinion, that I think is fairly obviously quite a different story, don't you? The line is getting blurred now because many of the public channels are owned by individuals or groups heavily influenced by lobbyists and political heavies. As for Murrow's words, indeed, this comes down to individuals with a conscience making brave decisions to be impartial and factual in reporting the news- even at the risk of offending those who find the truth incompatible with their political or financial goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enelson Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 i just think it's hilarious that the public actually bought into being completly distracted by how clinton handled osama. i mean seriously, who cares about clinton, that is the past. we now need to hold our current representatives accountable for their actions regarding the current situation. americans can be so easily distracted. this was a political move! a blatant one! oh, and i just want to say, no matter what bush says, he is a representative of us all (not you our canadian friends, lucky), he is not the decider. find ways to hold him accountable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Some of the comments in this thread are clearly prosecutable offenses under Canada's anti-sedition laws. Consider yourself forewarned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 i just think it's hilarious that the public actually bought into being completly distracted by how clinton handled osama. i mean seriously, who cares about clinton, that is the past. we now need to hold our current representatives accountable for their actions regarding the current situation. americans can be so easily distracted. this was a political move! a blatant one! oh, and i just want to say, no matter what bush says, he is a representative of us all (not you our canadian friends, lucky), he is not the decider. find ways to hold him accountable. w/o getting into the argument of who's fault it is... it is still fair to question past (at least recent past) presidents that certainly had a hand in shaping the current president's situation. focusing ONLY on bush is just as much of a distraction if clinton also has some fault. question both sides, man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Or perhaps the law outlawing the dissemination of what the government deems false news... "Criminal Code PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT Nuisances Spreading false news 181. Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 177." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Some of the comments in this thread are clearly prosecutable offenses under Canada's anti-sedition laws. Consider yourself forewarned. I read somewhere recently that in Canada is was illegal for religious organizations to publicly say that "homosexuality is a sin". The great white north is so progressive... and free... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallShoes Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 My buddies didn't die face down in the muck just so some draft-dodger could wag his boney finger in the face of Chris Wallace! "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. " -Voltaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enelson Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 i just think it's hilarious that the public actually bought into being completly distracted by how clinton handled osama. i mean seriously, who cares about clinton, that is the past. we now need to hold our current representatives accountable for their actions regarding the current situation. americans can be so easily distracted. this was a political move! a blatant one! oh, and i just want to say, no matter what bush says, he is a representative of us all (not you our canadian friends, lucky), he is not the decider. find ways to hold him accountable. w/o getting into the argument of who's fault it is... it is still fair to question past (at least recent past) presidents that certainly had a hand in shaping the current president's situation. focusing ONLY on bush is just as much of a distraction if clinton also has some fault. question both sides, man i certainly agree with questioning both sides. however in this case the hype hardly had anything to do with a potential solution! that is what we need, a potential solution and that is what americans need to focus on, not just, "well, why didn't you have osama assinated bill? that would sure have made our lives easier in afganistan" isn't the big issue now iraq? not to down play other international situations but, maybe looking at bill's report to the incoming admin about the situation in iraq would have been a better topic of discussion if you wanted to "fairly question the recent past" as you would say. i just hope we could question the things that are relevant and matter. criticize bill all you want, (espeially that he couldn't get a hotter intern than monica ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallShoes Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Or perhaps the law outlawing the dissemination of what the government deems false news... To Our Resident Whack MC, Just want to point out that the U.S. also has slander and libel laws as well as a form of speech called "fighting words" which is not protected by the first amendment - although it is difficult to show that certain speech qualifies as "fighting words". If they are "fighting words" (which are words that "must 'reasonably incite the average person to retaliate' and risk 'an immediate breach of the peace'") then they are prohibited. Free speech isn't completely free, just like the right to bear arms has it's limitations too - a US citizen isn't allowed to have a nuclear warhead. Sure it's an extreme example but it demonstrates that there are limits to any right. Just where exactly the line is drawn - well, the devil is in the details. Food for thought. Or beer for thought. I like beer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 This is true, but it's all about how precisely defined the restrictions are, and how much leeway the government has when interpreting these laws. There are restrictions on speech everywhere, yes, but it's quite ironic to hear folks from Canada decrying the creeping fascism and complacency south of the border, when Canadian population currently lives with a set of statutes restricting both speech and expression that's considerably more onerous than anything than citizens of the US have to contend with. This is especially humorous when you consider the likes of our resident wingnut/mountainguide, who, in addition to lacking the critical faculties necessary to asses the validity of the claims put forth in "Loose Change," is fretting about the prospect of the US invading Canada to get our hands on it's resources. Aside from the fact that Canada can't seem to turn over it's resources to us fast enough, with no more coercion necessary than paying the market price, its seems clear that on balance the scope and range of the political liberties enjoyed by the average Canadian citizen would only increase as a result of such an invasion. Look out, we're coming to take your "Hate Speech," and sedition laws off of the books. Better arm yourselves, oh wait.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 what are you talking about jay? in reference to billy C's interview? I believe he is referring to a certain DNC Kool-Aid guzzler named Crux - who just recently proposed putting network executives in prison for an ABC docu-drama written and produced under the protections of the first amendment. Post #601332 - written by Crux: Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes. Any modicum of respect I had for the guy evaporated with this paragraph. True colors revealed - and I don't think Crux is alone in his interpretation of what 'free speech' really means. Scary shit if the Dem's take charge. Really. Amen brother. The fascists are on the left - listen up TREETOAD, i'm talking to you. JEEZUS!!! Read up on what the label fascism really means. It applies in part to either side of the political extreme....a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.... sounds like you listen to too much one sided talk radio vitriol ah definitions, definitions. they never stopped you left-wingers from throwing the term around indiscriminantly. what comes around, goes around. the idea that government should censor speech is supported in actuality by repressive regimes on both sides of the traditional political "spectrum" (I don't believe there is such a thing as a traditional two-dimensional political spectrum - too simplistic). Crux's suggestion above is clearly a proposal that moves towards repression, whether it is of the "fascist" or "left-wing" variety. "there ought to be limits on freedom" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 "there ought to be limits on freedom" with the specifics of said-limitation defined by you and your chosen political party, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 YEAH. Your a facetioust. and OMG This too You feel it beeyotch???? I thought so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Here you go little buddy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 and it's "you're" not "your" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 this thread is so yore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 oh yeah, well your a facetioust too then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 wtf is that? Is it dirty? should I be gettin' aggro? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 and it's "you're" not "your" Seem's you're mistaken, Oly. Looks right to me: ...with the specifics of said-limitation defined by you and your chosen political party, of course. ... Maybe being an administrator gives you license to constantly grab the condescension accusation from your small quiver - but it doesn't enable you to change the demonstrably correct into the incorrect, or render you innocent of the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 you been checking out my quiver when I'm using the john or something? how would you know? i can show you if you're really interested in what one looks like, but you can't touch. I was correcting myself, you facetioust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 This is especially humorous when you consider the likes of our resident wingnut/mountainguide, who, in addition to lacking the critical faculties necessary to asses the validity of the claims put forth in "Loose Change," is fretting about the prospect of the US invading Canada to get our hands on it's resources..... Well said! His sincerely great contributions aside - his politics and conspiracy rhetoric are truly pathetic and sad. BTW; who's that old Canadian lady on TV that's always showing off the latest and greatest rectal vibrator? Doesn't that violate Gov't Canada's decency laws? Yuk! And the Canadian radio that seeps across the border has aboot as much flavour and variety as ice-milk. Great stuff...if you're trying to fall asleep! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.