@Trajan

[mixedmedia]

WTF is a moonie post. Show me one post where I made a serious accusation against the libs without supplementing it with factual evidence? And I do mean serious if I did then I will prove it immediately.

Which ones are the serious accusations? I don't think I caught those.

 

[Kelzie]

WTF is a moonie post? Show me one post where I made a serious accusation against the libs without supplementing it with factual evidence? And I do mean serious if I did then I will prove it immediately.

Seriously? Ha ha, this is going to be a fun game.

Liberals only like free speech if it is in lockstep with what they have to say.

Who's got a better one?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Seriously? Ha ha, this is going to be a fun game.



Who's got a better one?

I've already gotten Galen to concede on this point but as promised here's proof to back up my assertion here's what got it started:

Quote from Democrat sponsored bill S. 333 concerning the attempted renewl of the 'fairness' doctrine this is also known as the hush Rush law:

A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

now I'll refer you to the 1st amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Radio Act of 1927 ensures that anyone wanting to communicate over the public airwaves has to recieve a government permit.

FCC summarized version of the Fairness Doctrine which was adobted by the FCC in 1949:

The fairness doctrine as developed by the commission imposes upon broadcasters a two pronged obligation. Broadcast licensees are required to provide coverage of vitally important controversial issues of interest in the community served by the licensee and to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on such issues.

what this does is place the power of free speech over the airwaves into the hands of three government officials appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate, and given annual operating budgets by the congress.

Bill Ruder assistant secretary of commerce during the Kennedy administration:

"Our strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was to expensive to continue."

"The fairness doctrine was in the back of everyone's mind each time they thought about covering a controversial issue or taking an editorial stand." - David Barlett president of the radio-t.v. news directors association.

Here's how the fairness doctrine was used to abridge the freedom of the press of conservative talk show hoasts:

Red Lion broadcasting company owned WGCB a small religiuos station in Red Lion Penn..

On Nov. 25, 1964 Hargis critisized Fred Cook who had writtin 'Goldwater: Extremists on the Right'. Fred Cook then demanded equal time to reply to this 2 minute critism, WGCB offerred him airtime at the usual cost rate, Cook held out for equal time and the case went to the FCC.

When the commission sided with cook Red Lion challenged the decision all the way to the supreme court and they ruled against Red Lion.

What the supreme court didn't know was that it was a setup. Fred Cook had not even heard the WGCB broadcast. After discovering that the Fairness Doctrine could be used against its political opponents the Dem party created a front group called the National Council For Civilc Responsiblity to monitor conservative radio. The letter Fred Cook had signed demanding equal time was created by DNC lawyers!

Wayne Phillips who headed up the DNC campaign against Right wing broadcasters later said: "Even more important than free radio time was the effectiveness of this operation in inhibiting the political activity of these right wing broadcasts."

Bill Ruder assistant secretary of commerce during the Kennedy administration:

"Our strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was to expensive to continue."

"The fairness doctrine was in the back of everyone's mind each time they thought about covering a controversial issue or taking an editorial stand." - David Barlett president of the radio-t.v. news directors association.

Here's what ended the debate:

I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fairness doctrine indeed was used to violate the first amendment, and point in fact the Radio Control act of 1936 which established the FCC took the power of free speech and placed it into the hands of five commission members who are appointed by the president, I don't care if it's over the airwaves or printed on paper freedom of the press is freedom of the press. The fairness doctrine enabled these five commissioners appointed by the president to dictate what was and what wasn't considered of public interest and also established a precedent for the interference of the government in the affairs of the press and the DNC used this quite effectively to intimidate right wing opposition, and guess what Galen the court of appeals agrees with me because in 2000 they repealed that fascist ass law which was totally in violation of the first amendment.

Further evidence of liberal ideas about free speech:

Robert D. Novak Special Alert: Earle Subpoenas Critics
Fri Dec 16 2005 13:21:13 ET

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has subpoenaed two officials at the Free Enterprise Fund in connection with ads the conservative group has run criticizing him for his indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). The ads attacked Earle, who has a history of indicting his political enemies in both parties, comparing him to an attack dog.

The draft subpoena served to the organization demands that FEF communications director Todd Schorle and executive director O'Brien Murray testify in Texas at DeLay's change of venue hearing on Dec. 27 -- the Tuesday after Christmas.

In the subpoena, Earle also demands "any and all documentation regarding the advertisements that have been produced or paid for by the Free Enterprise Fund.

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
Ronnie Earle Now Subpoenas TV Spot Critics
Human Events ^ | Friday, Dec 16, 2005 | Robert Novak - Exclusive

 

[Kelzie]

Blah blah blah. That's a couple liberals. You made a blanket statement. Now prove it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Blah blah blah. That's a couple liberals. You made a blanket statement. Now prove it.

No I think I just proved how Democrats have infringed on the freedom of the press and the first amendment since 1927, hardly a couple of liberals. This is not an isolated incident that we're talking about here this was a systmatic violation of the first amendment rights, through intimdation and legal action, against those opposed to liberal views that had been going on for little less than a century until the doctrines total repeal at the passing of the millenium, hence FOX news and A.M. talk radio.

 

[Kelzie]

No I think I just proved how Democrats have infringed on the freedom of the press and the first amendment since 1927, hardly a couple of liberals.

EVERY single Dem, huh? I want you to provide the names of every single Democrat that supported this. Good luck. They're a pretty big party.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

EVERY single Dem, huh? I want you to provide the names of every single Democrat that supported this. Good luck. They're a pretty big party.

Oh I'm sorry I should have said liberals with the authority to do so violate the first amendment and hate free speech. :roll:

 

[Kelzie]

Oh I'm sorry I should have said liberals with the authority to do so violate the first amendment and hate free speech. :roll:

So yeah. Like I said. SOME liberals. Glad to see you can listen.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So yeah. Like I said. SOME liberals. Glad to see you can listen.

Semantics Kelz? Is that what my superior intellect has reduced you to? You can do better than that can't you?

 

[Kelzie]

Semantics Kelz? Is that what my superior intellect has reduced you to? You can do better than that can't you?

I believe the entire point was that your "superior intellect" couldn't wrap itself around the fact that blanket statements can almost never be proven. Which you have just admitted. Considering you just got schooled again, your false bravado doesn't shock me at all.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I believe the entire point was that your "superior intellect" couldn't wrap itself around the fact that blanket statements can almost never be proven. Which you have just admitted. Considering you just got schooled again, your false bravado doesn't shock me at all.

oh ya well bite me nana

 

[The Real McCoy]

Lately, when I think of liberal views toward free speech, I'm reminded of Ann Coulter being shouted down by college students.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Lately, when I think of liberal views toward free speech, I'm reminded of Ann Coulter being shouted down by college students.

Me too and the Tom Delay prosecutor issuing subpoenas against people who created an ad campaign against him.

 

[Kelzie]

Lately, when I think of liberal views toward free speech, I'm reminded of Ann Coulter being shouted down by college students.

Why? She could still talk couldn't she? There's no guarantee people will hear your speech, only that you can give it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why? She could still talk couldn't she? There's no guarantee people will hear your speech, only that you can give it.

Umm freedom of speech is not invitation to disrupt private events, plus cnredd had a good point when he brought up the fact that there are other laws, rules, and social constructs that people abide by besides the constitution, like if you pay for an event you have the right to enjoy that event in peace, plus the First amendment guarantees the right to peacefully assemble, I don't see how shouting down a person whose views you disagree with is peacefully assembling.

 

[Caine]

Me too and the Tom Delay prosecutor issuing subpoenas against people who created an ad campaign against him.

Yep.. because those ads affect the "change of venue" case pending on DeLay's trial. DURRRRRRR
Meaning, thier ads compromise the public opinion of the case, which hurt the possibility of a fair trial.

 

[Caine]

Umm freedom of speech is not invitation to disrupt private events, plus cnredd had a good point when he brought up the fact that there are other laws, rules, and social constructs that people abide by besides the constitution, like if you pay for an event you have the right to enjoy that event in peace, plus the First amendment guarantees the right to peacefully assemble, I don't see how shouting down a person whose views you disagree with is peacefully assembling.

Did they stone her?
Did they start fires?
Did they physically attack the crowd who was listening to her?

How is shouting down someone else a violation of rights?

 

[Kelzie]

Umm freedom of speech is not invitation to disrupt private events, plus cnredd had a good point when he brought up the fact that there are other laws, rules, and social constructs that people abide by besides the constitution, like if you pay for an event you have the right to enjoy that event in peace, plus the First amendment guarantees the right to peacefully assemble, I don't see how shouting down a person whose views you disagree with is peacefully assembling.

How is shouting not peaceful? It certainly isn't violent. And I don't care about other laws, rules, or social constructs. We're not talking about that. It was rude. But it did not deny her "freedom of speech". She could talk all she wanted.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Did they stone her?
Did they start fires?
Did they physically attack the crowd who was listening to her?

How is shouting down someone else a violation of rights?

How about my right to peacefully assemble and her right to speak, and I don't really want to get into the constitional aspects of it because as was previously stated there are other laws, rules, and social constructs that people abide to, and yes they have attacked her by the way haven't you seen the pie throwing incidents?

Who says you have the right to do anything you want and call it freedom of speech you can't buy a ticket to a movie scream through the whole thing and get away with it you'll either get your ass kicked out or kicked in one of the two.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How is shouting not peaceful? It certainly isn't violent. And I don't care about other laws, rules, or social constructs. We're not talking about that. It was rude. But it did not deny her "freedom of speech". She could talk all she wanted.

peace·ful

peace·ful [pssfəl]
adj
1. quiet and calm: quiet, calm, and tranquil
a peaceful atmosphere

2. mentally calm: serene and untroubled in the mind


shout [showt]
v (past shout·ed, past participle shout·ed, present participle shout·ing, 3rd person present singular shouts)
1. vt say something loudly: to say or utter something very loudly
2. vi speak loudly: to speak in a loud or angry voice

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

you do the math

 

[Caine]

How about my right to peacefully assemble and her right to speak, and I don't really want to get into the constitional aspects of it because as was previously stated there are other laws, rules, and social constructs that people abide to, and yes they have attacked her by the way haven't you seen the pie throwing incidents?

Who says you have the right to do anything you want and call it freedom of speech you can't buy a ticket to a movie scream through the whole thing and get away with it you'll either get your ass kicked out or kicked in one of the two.

Were the protestors asked to leave the area?
If so, and they didn't leave, then they still aren't violating her freedom of speech.
No matter what context you put it in, it wasn't a violation of her freedom of speech.

 

[Kelzie]

peace·ful

peace·ful [pssfəl]
adj
1. quiet and calm: quiet, calm, and tranquil
a peaceful atmosphere

2. mentally calm: serene and untroubled in the mind


shout [showt]
v (past shout·ed, past participle shout·ed, present participle shout·ing, 3rd person present singular shouts)
1. vt say something loudly: to say or utter something very loudly
2. vi speak loudly: to speak in a loud or angry voice

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

you do the math

Trajan, we are all so very proud that you can look things up in the dictionary. The fact remains that from an activist standpoint, shouting is a peaceful way of expressing yourself. Like I said, it's not violent.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trajan, we are all so very proud that you can look things up in the dictionary. The fact remains that from an activist standpoint, shouting is a peaceful way of expressing yourself. Like I said, it's not violent.

From a legal constitutional standpoint it isn't peacefully assembling. Besides like I said it is illegal to interfere with a private event you can't just run into a RNC or DNC meeting and start shouting down the speakers, you'll get your ass thrown out as these people who go around shouting down Ms. Coulter and Mrs. Clinton have been.

I don't give a **** what side they're from I hate ****ing protestors of all race, colors, and creeds.

In fact I think I hate them so much that I'm going to protest the next protest I see, that'll show those know it all peace mongering little fa**ots.

 

[Kelzie]

From a legal constitutional standpoint it isn't peacefully assembling. Besides like I said it is illegal to interfere with a private event you can't just run into a RNC or DNC meeting and start shouting down the speakers, you'll get your ass thrown out as these people who go around shouting down Ms. Coulter and Mrs. Clinton have been.

I don't give a **** what side they're from I hate ****ing protestors of all race, colors, and creeds.

In fact I think I hate them so much that I'm going to protest the next protest I see, that'll show those know it all peace mongering little fa**ots.

You're right. It is illegal to interrupt a private event. But it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

 

[Caine]

From a legal constitutional standpoint it isn't peacefully assembling.

Proof that the right is trying to hijack the constitution.

Lets see... Any justice who doesn't rule a case conservatively is an..
ACTIVIST JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any "conservative" justice is just a strict interpreter of the constitution.

Bush's secret surveillance isn't against the constitution.....
Why?
Because its protecting Americans, do it doesn't matter what other rules he breaks.

Oh yeah.... the seperation of church and state is suddenly a false interpretation of the establishment clause, even though there have been several cases this year that have been ruled in favor of the ACLU when it comes to seperation of church and state issues reguarding Ten Commandments in Courthouses.
etc... etc...