The Liberal Left's commitment to the Freedom Of Speech.

[ReverendHellh0und]

No liberal wants to take away Fox News' ability to broadcast. You can disapprove of something without wanting to ban it. Novel concept for you, I'm sure, but most other people get that fundamental concept.

ah hem,......


https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=UTF-8#q=petition to get fox news off the air

 

[eohrnberger]

Google the Family Research Council sometime.

Googled them. Not many hits, as in not much news coverage of them, guess they must not be doing all that much that's news worthy or something, so can't be much impact, right?

Interesting to note that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies them as a hate group. Sure. More like just a conservative group they hate, I'm guessing due to differing opinions, positions, and values.

Not in any practical sense, no.




And that is just bull****. Remember Disney boycotts? Remember Vann Jones?

Vann Jones, as a government employee in a leadership position, is quite different than the CEO of a company, isn't it?

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and the American Family Association voted to boycott Disney over opposition to the Disney offering domestic partnership benefits to gay employees and over opposition to the ABC show Ellen, in which the host, Ellen DeGeneres, came out as a lesbian; Both boycotts were withdrawn in 2005.[5][6]

Criticism of The Walt Disney Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The boycott didn't get very far, so had no significant impact that I can determine.

 

[TeleKat]

No one is outright banning speech either so you are creating a false equivalency.

I wasn't the one that brought up gun bans. :shrug:

and how many of them are carrying "assault weapons" or machine guns? A large segment of liberals clearly do want a ban some some types of guns and are unapologetic about it.

A large segment does not mean all.

They have it wrong as well, no matter their political leaning

Sure, I was just establishing that because there are those who want to turn this into a partisan whine-fest about liberals. As if their Tea Party idols don't support the same ****.

There are elements of free speech that can cause a safety risk but we allow those and fight for their constitutionally, because of that whole freedom idea

Sure, and I've already said that I am personally against all forms of gun control.

Free speech and the right to keep and bare arms are both explicit rights in the constitutions, no such explicit protections exists for marriage and drugs. Once again you are arguing a false equivalency

Ah, yes. The whole "it's not written in the kawnstitushun" BS. My rights don't come from a piece of paper, and that's all the constitution is, they are derived from the ownership of myself. I have the right to do whatever I want so long as I do not infringe on others' right to do the same. I may say what I wish, eat what I wish, smoke what I wish, and marry whomever I wish. The constitution was not written to be an arbitrator of rights, but rather a reideration. So the fact that weed and marriage are not mentioned does not make them any less a right to engage in.

 

[ocean515]

I wasn't the one that brought up gun bans. :shrug:



A large segment does not mean all.



Sure, I was just establishing that because there are those who want to turn this into a partisan whine-fest about liberals. As if their Tea Party idols don't support the same ****.



Sure, and I've already said that I am personally against all forms of gun control.



Ah, yes. The whole "it's not written in the kawnstitushun" BS. My rights don't come from a piece of paper, and that's all the constitution is, they are derived from the ownership of myself. I have the right to do whatever I want so long as I do not infringe on others' right to do the same. I may say what I wish, eat what I wish, smoke what I wish, and marry whomever I wish. The constitution was not written to be an arbitrator of rights, but rather a reideration. So the fact that weed and marriage are not mentioned does not make them any less a right to engage in.

What if the way you go about eating and smoking infringes on my rights? What protects me from you?

 

[Deuce]

We aren't talking about axe murders.

No, we're talking about a guy who donated to a group actively working to suppress the rights of others. I am allowed to disagree with him, but you think I'm not actually allowed to act on that disagreement by boycotting his company because it's "not related."

If there's a mob dishing out punitive punishment, I'm inclined not be believe in anything, nor support anyone, nor contribute to anything. Is that really what you are after?

Bull****.

Indeed you do. Without dispute.

Your posts contradict this. You think I shouldn't be able to boycott with the goal of targeting one specific person.

There's a difference between boycotting a business and organizing and calling for the ouster of the CEO, when you don't even have a say in the company, i.e. voting stock.

Is there? A boycott can cause thousands of people to lose their jobs. I get it: the CEO is sacrosanct. The grunts can be punished, not the management.

 

[iliveonramen]

It cannot honestly be denied that liberals in this country, in large part, have been actively seeking to deny the rights of Americans to freely express beliefs and opinions which thee liberals find disagreeable, and to see that those who dare to publicly express such opinions face adverse consequences for doing so.

So the Dixie Chicks didn't face adverse consequences for their opinions? Free speech is protected in this country as is speech that criticizes other speech. Both sides do it because that's how debate works.

 

[eohrnberger]

No, we're talking about a guy who donated to a group actively working to suppress the rights of others. I am allowed to disagree with him, but you think I'm not actually allowed to act on that disagreement by boycotting his company because it's "not related."

No, that's not what I'm saying. That what you think I'm saying. A post above says that if I disagreed with a company's position on something, and I felt strong enough about it, I'd sell off their stocks if I had any, and wouldn't buy their products. Your saying that I don't support this is putting words in my mouth.

Bull****.

Your posts contradict this. You think I shouldn't be able to boycott with the goal of targeting one specific person.

Not what I'm saying.

Is there? A boycott can cause thousands of people to lose their jobs. I get it: the CEO is sacrosanct. The grunts can be punished, not the management.

The CEO would be called to account before the board of directors and the stock holders, as he should be, as no doubt with a wide spread boycott sales and profits would go down. The board can make the decision if they should fire the CEO or not. This is my understanding how corporations operate.

If this is the aim, to fire the CEO, the boycott would be the mechanism to do so, not a direct attack on the individual, calling for his ouster.

What if a small number of people with an axe to grind, or perhaps just for the fun of it, targeted a specific individual, called him out on a fabricated violation of some obscure Social authoritarian's 'rule' and ginned up an Internet campaign that lots of people were taken in by, calling for his ouster?

We are already see this sort of gross manipulation, or at least attempts to do so, already now by both the right and the left extremes.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

So the Dixie Chicks didn't face adverse consequences for their opinions? Free speech is protected in this country as is speech that criticizes other speech. Both sides do it because that's how debate works.

Who wanted to take the dixie chicks off the air?


If someone acts like an asshole, we are free to call them, or they in this case, one.


Saying we should remove so-and-so from the air because we do not like thier message, that's limiting freedom of speech.


The left as I linked to, does exactly that.

 

[iliveonramen]

Who wanted to take the dixie chicks off the air?

You must have a short memory. Country music stations that played their music were bombarded by phone calls and emails to pull their music. PR events had bulldozers smash their records.

If someone acts like an asshole, we are free to call them, or they in this case, one.

Not sure how that contradicts my post.

Saying we should remove so-and-so from the air because we do not like thier message, that's limiting freedom of speech.


The left as I linked to, does exactly that.

Anybody can start a petition and get some signatures....as evident by these petitions to get rid of Al Sharpton, fire Keith Olbermann an get MSNBC off the air

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...ie=UTF-8#q=petitions to get msnbc off the air

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You must have a short memory. Country music stations that played their music were bombarded by phone calls and emails to pull their music. PR events had bulldozers smash their records.

Freedom of speech. did they petition the FCC?

Not sure how that contradicts my post.


Anybody can start a petition and get some signatures....as evident by these petitions to get rid of Al Sharpton, fire Keith Olbermann an get MSNBC off the air

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...ie=UTF-8#q=petitions to get msnbc off the air

"the fairness doctrine".


The links I provided show petitioning to the fcc.


The fairness doctrine was an attempt to censor right wing radio.

 

[Deuce]

No, that's not what I'm saying. That what you think I'm saying. A post above says that if I disagreed with a company's position on something, and I felt strong enough about it, I'd sell off their stocks if I had any, and wouldn't buy their products. Your saying that I don't support this is putting words in my mouth.



Not what I'm saying.



The CEO would be called to account before the board of directors and the stock holders, as he should be, as no doubt with a wide spread boycott sales and profits would go down. The board can make the decision if they should fire the CEO or not. This is my understanding how corporations operate.

If this is the aim, to fire the CEO, the boycott would be the mechanism to do so, not a direct attack on the individual, calling for his ouster.

What if a small number of people with an axe to grind, or perhaps just for the fun of it, targeted a specific individual, called him out on a fabricated violation of some obscure Social authoritarian's 'rule' and ginned up an Internet campaign that lots of people were taken in by, calling for his ouster?

We are already see this sort of gross manipulation, or at least attempts to do so, already now by both the right and the left extremes.

So I can boycott a business and possibly cost thousands of jobs, but it's wrong of me to go after one guy's job. Why do CEOs get this extra level of protection?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Not in any practical sense, no.




And that is just bull****. Remember Disney boycotts? Remember Vann Jones?

The best example is the Dixie Chicks

 

[eohrnberger]

So I can boycott a business and possibly cost thousands of jobs, but it's wrong of me to go after one guy's job. Why do CEOs get this extra level of protection?

The CEO of a company answers to the board of directors and the stockholders. Not to the general public.
The company as a whole answers to the general public to some extent as well as their customers to a far greater extent.

The leaders of companies should be allowed to operate their companies as they wish within applicable law and within their established policies and procedures.

What chaos would ensue if every CEO of every company had to curry favor with every member of the general public? It's not practical.

 

[iliveonramen]

Freedom of speech. did they petition the FCC?

Talk about moving the goalpost. You asked if they tried to get the Dixie Chicks off the air...they did.
Calling your local radio station is more effective than petitioning the FCC.

"the fairness doctrine".

You mean the thing abolished in 1987?

The links I provided show petitioning to the fcc.


The fairness doctrine was an attempt to censor right wing radio.

Then those petition writers are just as uninformed as rightwingers that always trot out that red herring.

The fairness doctrine was passed in the 40's when people only had access to a very limited range of information. It's irrelevant now since the media landscape is a completely different world.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Talk about moving the goalpost. You asked if they tried to get the Dixie Chicks off the air...they did.
Calling your local radio station is more effective than petitioning the FCC.

That's not moving goal posts.

One is petitioning government, the other is whining to other people. Big difference.

You mean the thing abolished in 1987?

the one left wing politicians fought to bring back for several years.

Then those petition writers are just as uninformed as rightwingers that always trot out that red herring.

The fairness doctrine was passed in the 40's when people only had access to a very limited range of information. It's irrelevant now since the media landscape is a completely different world.

FCC finally kills off fairness doctrine - Brooks Boliek - POLITICO.com

Seems relevant enough to be talked about.

 

[Crovax]

I wasn't the one that brought up gun bans. :shrug:

You made the silly claim that liberals have the view "You can disapprove of something without wanting to ban it."

I simply pointed out this wasnt a true statement. The majority of liberals can not disapprove of "assault weapons" without wanting to ban them.

A large segment does not mean all.

I never said it did, in the same sense you claimed that liberals dont want to ban things they disapprove of, I made a counter statement

Ah, yes. The whole "it's not written in the kawnstitushun" BS. My rights don't come from a piece of paper, and that's all the constitution is, they are derived from the ownership of myself. I have the right to do whatever I want so long as I do not infringe on others' right to do the same. I may say what I wish, eat what I wish, smoke what I wish, and marry whomever I wish. The constitution was not written to be an arbitrator of rights, but rather a reideration. So the fact that weed and marriage are not mentioned does not make them any less a right to engage in.

And back in the real world that is not how things work nor how the founders of America intended them to work

 

[TeleKat]

You made the silly claim that liberals have the view "You can disapprove of something without wanting to ban it."

That's actually not what I said at all.

I simply pointed out this wasnt a true statement. The majority of liberals can not disapprove of "assault weapons" without wanting to ban them.

And I pointed out that they don't want to ban them out of disapproval, it's safety issue. doesn't mean they are right about that, but the intentions are far different than something like a gay marriage ban.

I never said it did, in the same sense you claimed that liberals dont want to ban things they disapprove of, I made a counter statement

Again, that's not actually what I said.

And back in the real world that is not how things work nor how the founders of America intended them to work

The founders also intended people to be able to own slaves, for only land owners to be able to vote, and women to have basically no rights. Frankly, the founders are dead. Have been for a while. So what a couple of dead, genocidal racists "intended" has no hold on me. You're damn right, the founders didn't "intend" for sodomy to be legalized or gay marriage to be recognized. They didn't intend for alot of things that has advanced this country and humanity in general. That's because the vast majority of them weren't freedom lovers, they were tyrants establishing a tyrannical government. Like all throughout history. The few that weren't like that were shoved aside and disregarded as radicals and sinners.

 

[cpwill]

Public or private campuses? It makes a difference.

Not inasmuch as it speaks to "commitment to free speech". However, it is both public and private campuses.

Hardly any one actually.

:lol: oh, hardly anyone. I had no idea that Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, and Dick Durbin were "hardly anyone".

The 2004 MEDIA Act to Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

But so, in other words, yes, in fact, liberals. Those who seek to use government to restrict the speech of others are liberals.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

"criticism" =/= head hunting in order to intimidate, silence, and banish opinions with which you disagree from the public square. The public attacks on individuals based off of their holding of widespread opinion is indeed intended to restrict the speech of others. Which is why even well-known SSM advocates aren't down with it.

...The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us....

Care to offer some examples of this?

Arrest Climate Change Deniers

Denialism is Criminally Negligent

Put Climate Change Deniers on Trial for Crimes Against Humanity

[url=http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/execute-skeptics-shock-call-to-action-at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers-shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/]NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity

.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists....

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.

For cripes sake, someone actually thought this was a good idea that would resonate with people watching the SUPERBOWL, of all things:

 

[blaxshep]

The founders also intended people to be able to own slaves, for only land owners to be able to vote, and women to have basically no rights. Frankly, the founders are dead. Have been for a while. So what a couple of dead, genocidal racists "intended" has no hold on me. You're damn right, the founders didn't "intend" for sodomy to be legalized or gay marriage to be recognized. They didn't intend for alot of things that has advanced this country and humanity in general. That's because the vast majority of them weren't freedom lovers, they were tyrants establishing a tyrannical government. Like all throughout history. The few that weren't like that were shoved aside and disregarded as radicals and sinners.

Bitter much?

 

[Redress]

I already pointed you to MM - their own purpose for being clearly stated they wanted to silence Fox News. Yes the accusation of free speech by liberal progressives are "you don't know what free speech is" --- always a good starting point for a conversation. :lamo

Try again, but with less fail: About Us | Media Matters for America

Media Matters for America is a
Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation
in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation - news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda - every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

I am no fan of Media Matters, but at least I do not have to make **** up to explain what I dislike about them.

 

[iliveonramen]

That's not moving goal posts.

One is petitioning government, the other is whining to other people. Big difference.

You asked if people tried to get the Dixie Chicks off the air...and they did...they actually succeeded in a lot of cases. People also petitioned for the US government to build a deathstar. The fact you discount something that actually worked compared to something that will never work is interesting.

the one left wing politicians fought to bring back for several years.

Sure...because forcing broadcast companies to provide a diversity of views is a noble goal. It's not really applicable and can lead to abuse but in theory, yeah, you want people to experience different viewpoints.

Fox News did not exist at the time. In the late 80's the big three networks still dominated the nightly news, and the idea that it was created to attack rightwing news sources is ridiculous. There's no doubt most rightwing news doesn't provide a diversity of viewpoints but that issue is settled.

FCC finally kills off fairness doctrine - Brooks Boliek - POLITICO.com

Seems relevant enough to be talked about.

The rule was ended decades ago...they just took out the language. It was also a Democratic President in charge. So much for those left wing politicians wanting to use government to shut down fox news.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You asked if people tried to get the Dixie Chicks off the air...and they did...they actually succeeded in a lot of cases. People also petitioned for the US government to build a deathstar. The fact you discount something that actually worked compared to something that will never work is interesting.

again, there is a difference between pressuring a private party, and petitioning the government to enact laws against free speech. I am sorry you don't see this.

Sure...because forcing broadcast companies to provide a diversity of views is a noble goal. It's not really applicable and can lead to abuse but in theory, yeah, you want people to experience different viewpoints.

What? I want radio stations to put whatever the **** they want on the radio unmolested by the government.

Fox News did not exist at the time. In the late 80's the big three networks still dominated the nightly news, and the idea that it was created to attack rightwing news sources is ridiculous. There's no doubt most rightwing news doesn't provide a diversity of viewpoints but that issue is settled.

If you think there is any difference between rightwing and leftwing media, then you have succumbed to the divide the masses strategy.

Do you think foxnew or democracy now has more diversity in viewpoints (I fully excpect this query to be ignored).






The rule was ended decades ago...they just took out the language. It was also a Democratic President in charge. So much for those left wing politicians wanting to use government to shut down fox news.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ockham]

Try again, but with less fail: About Us | Media Matters for America

You fail enough for all of DP daily.

Media Matters' war against Fox - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

I am no fan of Media Matters, but at least I do not have to make **** up to explain what I dislike about them.

Your posts are nothing but accusation or making **** up. It's your "thing".

 

[iliveonramen]

again, there is a difference between pressuring a private party, and petitioning the government to enact laws against free speech. I am sorry you don't see this.

[/QUOTE]

You can petition your government to do whatever you want. Hence...the petitions by rightwing organizations and individuals to get rid of liberal commentators and news agencies. The difference is you pretend those petitions represent liberals but you continually discount situations where people were actually censored by conservatives.

Are you one of those "libertarian since 2008" folks because you seem to have a knee jerk reaction to defend conservatives.

What? I want radio stations to put whatever the **** they want on the radio unmolested by the government.

Well that's how it is. Congrats...you have your extreme rightwing and extreme leftwing spheres of news that are just mouthpieces for their owners/organizations.

If you think there is any difference between rightwing and leftwing media, then you have succumbed to the divide the masses strategy.

Do you think foxnew or democracy now has more diversity in viewpoints (I fully excpect this query to be ignored).

I don't. I'm not sure why you believe I'd protect democracy now. There's actually a reason Liberals don't tune into wannabe "Fox News" on the left.

 

[TeleKat]

Bitter much?

A bit.