Free Speech...protecting the Right

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 12 07:34

...or will there be some other WAY the State-ists will use the regulatory power of the Federal Government to squelch political opposition speech?

Here's two short clips: .54 seconds and .16 seconds.

First the news... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBD3yDEPGqA&NR=1 ...the spokesman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nLdk-Kn ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QIth68y ... re=related
...and gives us a good 3:09 show. Vitriolic? Human? Perceptive? Fair? Right? Wrong? Be a Free Choice Adult.

Enjoy and good night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVcfymOv ... re=related

Know about this Fella? A 1:19 reminder... Eric Holder knows about him... ...Violent rhetoric, and"hate speech" by loud-speaker, if you will. Check it out! Nutty but protected... Now, as for the Voter Intimidation by these two GEMS at a polling place in Philidelphia, that clear-cut Civil Rights Violation of The Voting Rights Act in Philidelphia which was ready for Federal Prosecution, was DROPPED by Obama early on in his term...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChAuyJQD ... re=related

...it's ugly, and protected... 3:15 Fascinating the ugly politically correct SLURS black leftists hurl at black LEFTISTS, or CONSERVATIVE. Obama the "Magic Negro" was an article written by a black journalist at the L.A. Times. It is quite a good read...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 1015.story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvt-eUbG ... 6&index=41

...and demagogic hypocrisy...Clyburn (D) 1:26 Could we expect any less from THIS champion of the "FAAAIRNESSS" doctrine?

Hosted by, MSNBC (main stream news & bias central) :pompom: and CHRIS MATHEWS!! :thumbup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1avU07X ... re=related

...CONSERVATIVE talk radio. Is this just :12 seconds of fear mongering from some the Right? Is the Left ACTUALLY the champion of suppressing political speech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riADKp4GG7g

...and we must not silence "the other side" Mister Clinton... (:34) ...even if we wanted to Sir. A little hyperbolic partisan rhetoric is red meat for the State-ists on the Left though! :salut:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htD_-A7pDhw

(for 1:14)...on the "Fairness doctrine" and government censoring free political speech...Schumer D. NY

Chuck Schumer is a paragon of the Left, and RIGHT up the elitist-top-down Progressive stripe... ...which rhythms with tripe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CzteDucRHo
[color=#800000]
These are my words. Many have said far better, and far more beautiful...

Protecting Free Speech as an Individual Right, and the recognition that UnPopular, or OFFensive speech is FUNdamental to our Republic, and is our "God given" and HARD WON privilege, and responsibility...every day in every generation.
The protection of Political Speech should be an equal-opportunity occupation of all Americans.

It is a foundation of our Free Democratic form of Governance. There are those who would seek to use the power of Government to QUELL the voices of their opposition, be they in print, in the street, over the radio, or on the internet... I believe this is the tactic of totalitarianism, oppression, and tyranny.

People will always react, and cry out against those they differ with, in the name of decency, outrage, fairness, logic, civility, or principle, as is their RIGHT. Sometimes those that disagree, will demean, marginalize, or label. So be it... They might fiercely and vocally debate. They will exercise their RIGHT to disagree and SPEAK their "truth to power", or "take on" their opposition...or verbally "target" their detractors with Martial Metaphors. They will use sarcasm, or facts, or fallacy.

None the less, fiery political speech always was, and still is, an American Tradition. Debate, disagreement, dissent and demonstration are not the purview of any Party, but a right of The People, at the very CORE of what Our Country is about.
Are there BETTER ways to communicate? Always... Might you win someone over, or "kill them with kindness"? Surely...

The 1st amendment was NEVER intended to protect POPULAR speech...or strictly POLITE conversation.
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Glendale
Posts: 42
Joined: 2010 May 21 08:01

Re: Free Speech...protecting the RIGHT.

Postby Glendale » 2011 Jan 12 09:10

FYI:
The Fairness Doctrine was based on a simple notion. The government licenses broadcasters to serve in "the public interest, convenience and necessity." The Doctrine didn't ban any speech. It simply stated that if broadcasters editorialized themselves, they should give equal time to opposing viewpoints. Given that the airwaves, unlike cable systems and printing presses, belong to the public, it wasn't a bad idea.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Van Jones spouts a truth you might never have contemplated.

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 12 10:30

What fun to listen to this man. :gun2: ...silliness.

...or this comedy about Bush... 1:20 :blob1: ...from the Green Czar hizzelf!!

AND the "FAAAIRRNESSS" doctrine...and arbiter of what is "racist"? ...of what is offensive speech?

Surely he jests... No. He is a hypocrite, Leftist rabble-rouser and a Reverend of sorts, and has certainly said MANY "things".

"Explain himself publicly"?

Limbaugh does that EVERY day and you betcha, there are PLENTY of MONITORS, public and private, listening to EVERY word...


Sounds good but broadcasters EDITORIALIZE all the time. The FCC should protect the private use of the airwaves. The FCC and the Government should Protect Speech, a Simple Notion.
The FCC through the FD, at THE VERY least, would play Speech Police.
The FD was and WOULD be a TOOL used ideologically to suppress oppositional political speech.
The FD is NOT needed.
There are "standards". The FCC enforces them. Enjoy! 2:07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OKk0yrMz44
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: Free Speech...protecting the RIGHT.

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2011 Jan 12 10:38

Your screed is bullshit. It's bald repetition of right wing talking points that are simply and factually wrong. Look it up.
crux wrote:Sounds good but broadcasters EDITORIALIZE all the time. The FCC should protect the private use of the airwaves. The FCC and the Government should Protect Speech, a Simple Notion. It does protect private use of the airwaves, and also the public interest the broadcast radio spectrum being licensed as a public utility.
Editorializing is not only good, it is explicitly encouraged by FCC. The old Fairness Doctrine had purpose when many listeners were in monopoly markets and a few monopolists started using the only public airwaves in a town to operate as private propaganda organs, banning expression of any view other than their own. In the interest of encouraging the expression of views, holders of those public licensees were asked to allow other views also to be expressed. There is no longer need for the Fairness Doctrine, technology having provided the public with multiple information routes. The Rush Limbaughs of the world raise this red herring repeatedly. Virtually no one wants the thing back, it's not going to happen, but its specter is useful for alarming the ignorant boobs in their audience.

crux wrote:The FCC through the FD, at THE VERY least, would play Speech Police. The FD was and WOULD be a TOOL used ideologically to suppress oppositional political speech.
At no time, ever, was there government squelching of editorializing under the FD or actions that remotely resembled "speech police." No one has proposed such a gross violation of the first amendment. Liberals would be the first to oppose such a thing.

crux wrote:The FD is NOT needed.
Agreed. Now what do we do to get dittoheads to stop parotting this red herring?

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

...BULLSHIT?

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 12 11:12

You said my "screed is bullshit" but, if we look at the WORDS and THE facts are you just IGNORANT?
Neck-aint-red wrote:There is no longer need for the Fairness Doctrine, technology having provided the public with multiple information routes.
Nice sentiment, but the real DESIRE of the State-ist mind to CONTROL public speech will continue on the Planet.

Neck-aint-red wrote: Virtually no one wants the thing back, it's not going to happen
Thank goodness...and you may be correct, for now.

However, are you saying Democrats Senators, Congressman, Presidental Appointees, Candidates, Major TV new personalities, and Liberal Advocasy Groups are "NO ONE"

...are Schumer, Kerry, Obama, Pelosi, Axelrod, Lloyd, Feinstein, Pingree, Jones, B. Clinton, (I'll leave out $harpton for brevity-that silly man) Clyburn, Harkin, Durbin, Kucinich, Bingaman, Frank, Stabinow, Press, are "NO ONE"?


There will always be "diversity of ownership" of "localism" and other regulatory "backdoors".

You really at least acknowledge the Lefts REAL and constant drumbeat.
If you do, thank you in advance for speaking out loudly to protect the very fiery offensive political speech like that which you cherish and exercise yourself.
You Do pay attention to "No One" and follow the news and politics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA1N--SyC2k ...here's a little O'Reilly for 2:28...
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

A little LOVE from a Leftist Pulpit...in 75 seconds...

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 12 11:47

...or a little "Church mixed with State hate"...PROTECTED even if you DISAGREE, compliments of the President's mentor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhueOOw9VZo

The Left just rambles and rambles about the Extreme Right Wing Hate. It is tough to look in the mirror...
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: ...BULLSHIT?

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2011 Jan 12 11:54

Yes, you are writing bullshit. Here is why.
crux wrote:Nice sentiment, but the real DESIRE of the State-ist mind to CONTROL public speech will continue on the Planet.
This is right wing blather. You're entitled to your opinion, but the opinion you are divining into the minds of others is a figment of your warped imagination.

Neck-aint-red wrote: However, are you saying Democrats Senators, Congressman, Presidental Appointees, Candidates, Major TV new personalities, and Liberal Advocasy Groups are "NO ONE"...are Schumer, Kerry, Obama, Pelosi, Axelrod, Lloyd, Feinstein, Pingree, Jones, B. Clinton, (I'll leave out $harpton for brevity-that silly man) Clyburn, Harkin, Durbin, Kucinich, Bingaman, Frank, Stabinow, Press, are "NO ONE"?
Bullshit again. It is simply not true. If it were, at least one of these many people would have introduced legislation and FCC commissioners would have introduced proposed rules. It didn't happen. There is virtually no support for the FD, and you are railing against it is a total red herring. Your "evidence" is screwball Bill O'Reilly's screwball opinion plus a few one word answers caught in haste by O'Reilly's ambush stooges, lifted out of context among hundreds of other responses that didn't fit the screwball warped agenda of Mr. O'Reilly and were snipped out.

:angry4:

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Free Speech...protecting the RIGHT.

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 12 12:05

The agenda, or platform, or desire of the Left as espoused and believed is not mere "imagination" on my part. My opinion is not what I have demonstrated.

RELATIVE unattainably of State-ist or Progressive intent, does not make me somehow wrong, and is not a red herring.

Look. You are mistaken my friend. Blind to what my short list of influential REPRESENTATIVES believe...and seek.
A fairness doctrine outright or in practicality.

I AGREE it is not needed, but apparently the Left's Establishment doesn't. You get angry because I point it out? You RIP me because I am correct? Why do you overlook the Left's desire, and deny it? You say the left would not allow such violations...

Are you so unaware of the constant struggle to oppose the voices of censorship ONLY when you hear them from the RIGHT? Pathetic.

crux
Last edited by Crux on 2011 Jan 12 12:21, edited 1 time in total.
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

ParkerLongbaugh

Re: ...BULLSHIT?

Postby ParkerLongbaugh » 2011 Jan 12 12:17

Neck-aint-red wrote:Yes, you are writing bullshit. Here is why.
crux wrote:Nice sentiment, but the real DESIRE of the State-ist mind to CONTROL public speech will continue on the Planet.
This is right wing blather. You're entitled to your opinion, but the opinion you are divining into the minds of others is a figment of your warped imagination.

Neck-aint-red wrote: However, are you saying Democrats Senators, Congressman, Presidental Appointees, Candidates, Major TV new personalities, and Liberal Advocasy Groups are "NO ONE"...are Schumer, Kerry, Obama, Pelosi, Axelrod, Lloyd, Feinstein, Pingree, Jones, B. Clinton, (I'll leave out $harpton for brevity-that silly man) Clyburn, Harkin, Durbin, Kucinich, Bingaman, Frank, Stabinow, Press, are "NO ONE"?
Bullshit again. It is simply not true. If it were, at least one of these many people would have introduced legislation and FCC commissioners would have introduced proposed rules. It didn't happen. There is virtually no support for the FD, and you are railing against it is a total red herring. Your "evidence" is screwball Bill O'Reilly's screwball opinion plus a few one word answers caught in haste by O'Reilly's ambush stooges, lifted out of context among hundreds of other responses that didn't fit the screwball warped agenda of Mr. O'Reilly and were snipped out.

:angry4:

Actually, Clyburn did indeed explicity call for reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" on Sunday and it was fairly widely reported, including his quotes and such. Here's local pickup on it.

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: Free Speech...protecting the RIGHT.

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2011 Jan 12 12:21

Opinion is all you have demonstrated. Show me evidence, by pointing to any proposed federal legislation or regulations, by anybody within the past two years, that would re-institute the fairness doctrine.

If you cannot, I refuse to respond to any more of your assertions that you can read the minds of other people.

=====================

Bingo! We have a winner. (Well, kind of. There is still no formallly introduced proposed legislation.) After I posted the above, Parker found one.
ParkerLongbaugh wrote:Actually, Clyburn did indeed explicity call for reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" on Sunday and it was fairly widely reported, including his quotes and such.
Clyburn's proposal is nonsense and came 4 days ago, way after all the blather by O'Reilly et. al., and is tied to a single horrific event.

I hope and expect that it will get nowhere. Clyburn's own daughter is an FCC commissioner and has already announced her opposition to the concept.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

I have made 4 points...

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 12 13:02

...generally. Essentially...

1. That free offensive controversial even fiery political opposition speech should be protected in it's public forms by The People, Their government and Laws.
2. That this speech, be it Martial Metaphor, loud, disagreeable, or wrong is the purview of ALL people and parties.
3. That there is a gross and selective outrage and condemnation that the Left OFTEN engages in.
4. That the State-ist and largely Leftist Progressive voice seems to have a pension for censoring political opposition speech.

You have failed to acknowledge these salient points here and in LIFE. Sad...

You are being silly if you do NOT respect the Dem voices in my list who SUPPORT the "fairness" doctrine of censorship.

Have you watched the short vids provided? I doubt it. Some are perhaps too troubling. I find some of them troubling too. Are you all bent at the HYPOCRISY that is pointed out, because you REALLY only see "hypocrisy of the right".

Look. Don't be so obtuse is all. Here is a blast from the 90's... http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... g-but-fair As to what legislation or rules, I would include the Feds foray however well intentioned into net neutrality as one. We will see what else comes along.

Efforts recently? "“Fairness Doctrine.” HR 1105 (Roll Call 92). The Senate defeated an amendment that would bar the use of federal funds to re-instate the “fairness doctrine,” which required broadcasters to give equal time to different viewpoints, thus discouraging broadcasters from airing successful conservative talk shows. ACU opposes this attempt at restricting political speech, but the amendment failed March 10, 2009 by a vote of 47-50".

From http://www.heritage.org/research/commen ... ctrine-rip "The battle over the Fairness Doctrine ended last week when the House of Representatives voted 309-115 against allowing the Federal Communications Commission to re-impose the regulation on broadcasters. The vote almost certainly means that the long-dead rule will not be revived anytime soon. That's good news. But the celebrations should be tempered: the real battle over media regulation is still to come, and won't involve the words "Fairness Doctrine.""


And from http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/02/sena ... nstati.php "The amendment to block the FCC from acting was one of several amendments added to the D.C. bill before it was passed by the Senate on a 61-to-37 vote". AND "The ban on the FCC reinstating the doctrine was proposed by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. and the amendment passed 87 to 11". Now Durban and you say this is a bloody shirt, or a red herring, but I have too little faith in either....

Again, do you not see the Dem voices in my list who SUPPORT the "fairness" doctrine of censorship to be a risk?

By the way I was well aware of Clyburn's desire recently...
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Free Speech...protecting the RIGHT.

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 12 13:05

Neck-aint-red wrote:Clyburn's proposal is nonsense and came 4 days ago, way after all the blather by O'Reilly et. al., and is tied to a single horrific event.

I hope and expect that it will get nowhere. Clyburn's own daughter is an FCC commissioner and has already announced her opposition to the concept.


Very good. By the way, the time line is one thing, like when Bill's news blurb was, but I and the voices of the Dems in the list (ADD SLAUGHTER, LOISE) are RECENT history, and quite contemporary (again I do the favor of leaving out Sharpton).
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

ParkerLongbaugh

Re: Free Speech...protecting the RIGHT.

Postby ParkerLongbaugh » 2011 Jan 12 14:49

Clyburn's proposal is nonsense...

I believe this is the first time I've been in 100% agreement on here! :wink2:

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1958
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Free Speech...protecting the RIGHT.

Postby Wise One » 2011 Jan 12 14:53

I don't know about Neck, but I read through all your postings and videos and pretty much agree with Neck.
It is all other people's opinion of what Democrats intend, that is apart from several one-worders captured by O'Reilly's notorious ambush interviewers and edited to skew reality into something that fits O'Reilly's strange view of the world.

I cannot agree that there is any significant support in any quarter for suppressing free speech on radio and television. Nobody appears yet to have filed formal proposed legislation or regulations to that effect. The only things I have heard advocating suppression of free speech, even advocating assassination, are Republican voices calling for the official silencing of the journalist Julian Assange of WikiLeaks who has been neither charged with nor convicted of any crime.

Your reaching back to 18 years to a 1993 proposal that went nowhere borders on hilarity. There is nothing during the Obama administration whatsoever. You guys love to make a mountain out of, well, nothing at all.

Your citation of the Republican led move by the Senate in 2009 to ban actions that nobody wanted to take anyway is truly hilarious. These guys passed a bill in the Senate banning something that nobody wanted to do ... your classic red herring. I'm guessing even the ban went nowhere either, for lack of House support but concede that I haven't checked it.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

3 questions WO...

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 12 15:38

...of a little sunshine and light. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 06068.html

Wise One wrote:I cannot agree that there is any significant support in any quarter for suppressing free speech on radio and television.

So, absent "the formal filing of proposed legislation", you have no problem with a call by Democrats to purse a Fairness Doctrine?

When in 2009, during Obama's administration, a Democrat led senate adopts and passes, with near unanimous Republican support, resolutions blocking a fairness doctrine, you are in support of this action in principle? You in principle AGREE with the first post of this thread?

... just curious.

crux
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Free Speech...protecting the RIGHT.

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 13 07:14

Above is the ORIGINAL title to this thread.

Why does my original post not appear.

Curious.
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

remove post please

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 13 07:21

thanks stonewall
Last edited by Crux on 2011 Jan 13 18:04, edited 1 time in total.
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Stonewall
Site Admin
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:26

Note concerning cosmetic editing

Postby Stonewall » 2011 Jan 13 15:46

Note to Crux:

I welcome your postings and participation. Please take no offense to occasional cosmetic/readability editing. Such changes are minor and are in accordance with the Forum's Welcoming Message, in particular:
The editor will not change the substance of postings. He reserves the customary editorial prerogative of making minor changes to postings that will enhance Forum cosmetics and readability, and organizing them by subject matter.

In the case of your postings, all content is still present (unless I made an error for which I apologize.) Where a large number of consecutive postings is made by the same person, I will sometimes consolidate them into a smaller number in order to avoid giving readers a misleading impression that a single party is dominating discussion. For other persons I sometimes correct egregious spelling errors in the interest of improving clarity to readers without changing content.

Let me again affirm that you are most welcome here, that your participation is valued and that no content was intentionally deleted, only consolidated.

Stonewall, your humble Administrator
Thanks for your posts! Stonewall, your administrator ... just an "empty suit."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Free Speech...protecting the RIGHT.

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 13 17:55

Stonewall, I wish to very gratefully thank you for your kind, reasoned and welcome words. Thanks for your work...

I appreciate you consolidating my several consecutive posts...

Please KINDLY rename this thread "Free Speech...protecting the Right".

I thank you in advance for this, and I found my "preamble"!! You some how MOVED it DOWN into the middle of the thread.

I am again grateful... crux
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 394
Joined: 2009 Jul 31 22:49

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Sam » 2011 Jan 13 20:20

Speaking of free speech, I hear that now someone wants to rewrite Mark Twain's book to what was that word now. sanatise it so the n word is taken out. Isn't that aginst some moral code or something. I gotta believe someone is going out to lunch on this one.
Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as
"extremists