We have to take down the liars and hate speakers through some sort of legislation.

[mmonk]

There is no other answer or way. When people act violently over something that is false or act violently over something a person from a partcular party does while they sit silent over when their person or party in office does something, then we have a serious problem. There is no way political lies and hate speech should ever pass as news no matter what right wing courts say. That is programmed deception. Freedom of speech is the right to air grievances but not the right to put others in harms way over belief in things not real or dehumanizing speech.

[LARED]

1. I don't' know, I sort of like the first amendment -nt

[mmonk]

2. Weak argument in my opinion. Broadcasting direct and provable lies as news

along with untrue accusations of people is not the first amendment. Broadcasting false information and hatred of others which can lead to harm of others has nothing to do with addressing legitimate grievances and lends credibility to lies when others do not share the microphone.

[Lance_Boyle]

27. Yeah, sorry but it actually *is*

Fox News won that bit of clarification from the Supreme Court not too long ago.

[cali]

42. like what? can you give us 3 examples of "direct and provable lies"

that have been broadcast as news? And it would be helpful if you posted these lies verbatim.

I think you're flat wrong and this is very much a first amendment issue.

[blurp]

33. The Constitution IS A LIVING DOCUMENT

And that means today's constitutional free speech isn't the same thing as free speech 200 100 or even 20 years ago.

We just have the wrong supreme court at the moment.

But I'm sure if Obama got another chance to appoint a justice we'd have a supreme court that recognized the need for a reinterpretation of just what free speech means.

[ScreamingMeemie]

35. So we should now do what the right wanted to do and we hated them

for? Nahhh. I'm not in on that one.

[LARED]

41. Well that might be true, but

living or not, suppressing free speech is a bad idea. Would you be typing in CAPS if the Bush administration was advocating we need the court to reinterpret free speech?

[PavePusher]

44. Free speech is free speech.

You can't get what you want by weasel-wording definitions and not expect some sort of backlash in the future. I really don't think you want to go down that path.

[Posteritatis]

60. Ahhh, so the political party in charge of the supreme court gets to determine what's free speech?

Nice to see someone come out and state that so unambiguously.

[MadHound]

3. Sorry, but First Amendment trumps here

About the best that can be done is to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but other than that:shrug:

What, you going to try and prevent Rush from spewing over the air by force? Take him to court on some trumped up charge of incitement? That will really set off the wingnutters.

[mmonk]

4. No, I propose what you said, bringing back the fairness doctrine

and protecting our airways against media consolidation again.

[michreject]

19. That would only affect public airways

Not satellite radio and cable TV.

[mmonk]

24. Most of them are on both.

[pinboy3niner]

5. Personally, I'm a big fan of the Constitution.

Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights we have. Any law trying to legislate that away would be deemed unconstitutional--and rightly so. We already have recourse, through our laws, to deal with people "acting violently" or "putting others in harm's way." Criminalizing speech (and thought) beyond that is characteristic of totalitarian societies. I doubt that you really want to go down that road.

[mmonk]

6. If somebody on the radio or TV says people like you have ruined America

and people listening to that lie come over and burn your house down, will you get what I'm trying to say or will you say they acted on Constitutionally granted free speech?

[pinboy3niner]

7. Believe me, I am as angry as you are about what has been happening.

It's not just the media talkers like Limbaugh and Beck--even mainstream Republican leaders have said that our sitting President is "destroying our country." They have managed to convince gullible listeners that our sitting President is an existentiual threat to America, and that is absolutely irresponsible. But it's not criminal.

To your example: I'm a private citizen, so I have more recourse, through slander and libel laws, to deal with someone who attacks me publicly, than does a public figure. Still, unless someone actually incites criminal action by calling for the burning of my house, no one besides the actual perpetrators would be held to be responsible. Merely demonizing me cannot be equated with "Burn his house down."

[mmonk]

8. Quit saying that I am for criminalizing free speech when I am not asking

for that. What I am asking for is reason and responsibility. These are public airways. There is no reason not to legitimately ask that those airways not be used to incite false accusations and calls to arms and violence against American citizens who one disagrees with. There is no reason not to ask for allowances for equal access. Neither interferes with anyone's rights.

[pinboy3niner]

18. I haven't accused you of anything. We've had a civil discussion

about a current issue, that's all. There's no need to make it personal. I respect your opinion, just as I hope you would respect mine.

[mmonk]

21. You used the term so I took it that way. Sorry. My bad.

At least you are engaging in intelligent give and take.

[anigbrowl]

37. Well, that is exactly what you are doing

It is settled law that the first amendment permits people to lie. If I stand up in public and say something untrue about you, you may be able to sue me for defamation or slander. But if I say 'all people who believe in socialism are crazy dangerous loons and will EAT YOUR BABIES' it is also untrue but I can say it all day.

"These are public airways."

The word you are looking for is airwaves. Planes fly in airways. Another meaning of 'airway' is the tube between your mouth and lungs that you breathe through. This might seem picky but if you want to talk about the law and the constitution you should know what words you are using.

In any case, has it occurred to you that Fox News, which most people would agree is very right wing and full of irresponsible crazy people (I can express that opinion without fear of legal reprisal because of the first amendment) is a cable TV channel and thus doesn't broadcast over the public airwaves at all? Cable systems are privately owned and can host any channel they like - they employ no public resources whatsoever.

Solution: use the first amendment yourself to argue with people whose views you oppose. Passing a law to shut down opinions you find offensive is simply not allowed under the constitution, and you need to think hard about why that is.

[mmonk]

55. I do realize cable isn't on the airwaves.

I'm not for creating a law that denies free speech. We had established law in place before "reforms" that did not conflict with Constitutional standards of free speech.

[anigbrowl]

57. Well, to be strictly accurate

The fairness doctrine was a policy of the FCC, which agency is part of the executive branch. Wikipedia's page is worth looking at, as it presents the history of both the doctrine and various legislative attempts to formalize it in law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

I think the fairness doctrine was a good idea, especially when there were a limited number of channels. But you'll note that it was applied on a case-by-case basis. Attempt to codify legislatively what 'fairness' means with a single universal definition is really quite a difficult problem.

[PavePusher]

46. No, you are insisting the "free speech" gets defined your way...

to the exclusion of others.

Slippery slope in the very worst possible way.

[cali]

43. If somebody on the radio or TV says people like THEM have ruined our

country and people listening go burn down the house of Sarah Palin will you get what I'm trying to say?

[PavePusher]

45. There are laws to deal with actual harm.

If you don't want to err to the side of freedom and liberty, I hear North Korea is very picturesque.

[veganlush]

9. You're right, we, the people own the airwaves. It's considered

public infrastructure. In exchange for letting private corporations use it to profit off of us, we need to go back to demanding a price for that which should be a return to requiring real news.The law also required equal time for opposing views.Thom Hartmann schools people on this subject regularly. I wish he would team-up with Maddow, I think together they could reach people better. Educating the masses on these basics would go a long way. That doctrine or law never should have been taken away because pieces of shit like hannity will convince many lame-brains that simply returning to the old rule is "silencing the opposition" it was absolutely asinine undoing that law in the first place for that reason alone.

It's got nothing to do with the first amendment and everything to do with corporate welfare. again.

[mmonk]

17. Thanks for getting it.

Many misinterpret what I am saying in a sort of knee jerk fashion and think I'm advocating for taking away or passing a law interfering with one's right to speak.

[veganlush]

25. As a frequent inspireror of the knee jerks, I know just where you're

coming from. It's like when Sarah Palin implies her "free speech" rights are threatened by people simply disagreeing with her. The fairness doctrine simply required balance in programing-if you had an hour of right wing talk, you had to have an hour of left wing talk to balance it. Public airwaves are licensed to radio stations. Licenses have conditions and requirements.If they don't want to comply with the equal time clause, they don't have to "rent" the airwaves from the taxpayers. Public service announcements, news and weather and balanced editorials and limits on consolidation were all parts of the deal. The restriction on monopolistic ownership was the main catalyst that lead to the dissolution of the deal.

This raw deal for the taxpayer amounts to corporate welfare.

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
� U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

[LARED]

32. There already exists a mechanism to address your concern

It's called changing the dial.

[veganlush]

51. yeah, but I"M not the concern. I KNOW what's going on..

...it's the ditto heads out there that are defenseless against the liars like hannity, limbaugh, etc..and if it was limited to them i wouldn't care but they make things bad for everyone by sending half-cocked, angry loons out onto the streets with us normal people.

[LARED]

58. So are you seriously suggesting "we" regulate

opposing views?

[veganlush]

59. the public should not condone monopoly control of it's

..infrastructure. The fairness doctrine provided for equal time for opposing views as a public service in exchange for licensing public property. Do you oppose equal time given to candidates in a debate or when candidates give addresses?

[LARED]

61. You are confusing me

Why would you ask if I oppose equal time for candidate? I don't recall making a comment regarding that issue negative or positive. I think equal time happens on a pretty regular basis already. Not perfect but not horrible.

I am really confused by your comment about monopolies? Please explain.

[veganlush]

62. the fcc relaxed ownership regulations, allowing for much

more concentration of ownership within "markets". I think it was a mistake and I think it's not a stretch to, in the interest of the public good, disallow these monopolies that let one person have so much power to influence a particular market. You asked me if I seriously think "we" should regulate opposing views. To the extent that discouraging monopoly ownership and providing for equal time are regulations, yes.

[el_bryanto]

10. No thank you

If you believe in freedom of speech you believe in the right of people to say things you hate, despise or even fear. Freedom of speech isn't the right of people to agree with you. It's the right of people to be ugly, to be nasty, and to be hateful (to you).

Bryant

[mmonk]

13. Whatever.

This is a useless conversation because everyone is ignoring what I am saying.

[el_bryanto]

14. If someone is directly encouraging violence than we should go after them

Certainly they've gotten close to that. And in a few cases probably over that line.

Bryant

[CBGLuthier]

20. If you worked on your writing skills

Then possibly people would actually UNDERSTAND whatever it is you are trying to say.


Sorry, but it has to be said, your OP is lacking in coherence.

[mmonk]

22. Thank you.

[anigbrowl]

38. We all understand what you are trying to say

And I certainly respect the sincerity and desire for fair treatment you exhibit. It's very admirable.

But you just don't seem to understand the law very well. You can argue that it should be changed, and you are welcome to attempt to change it, but it is very difficult and there is a good reason for that - laws that are too easy to change are usually subject to much worse abuses than what we have to put up with.

[mmonk]

54. I don't think reinstating the fairness doctrine or rolling back the Telecommunications Act

denies free speech.

[izzybeans]

11. I think the only way to go constitutionally speaking is for journalism to enforce

some ethical norms through their professional associations. Perhaps they should be licensed via civics and history examinations and held to standards of honesty. Have your opinions? Fine. Just don't make things up to support them. Editors too. Clearly editorial policies have drifted. If you are a known liar, aka Jason Blair (who I see as no different from the John Stossels, Faux News crowd), perhaps you should be sanctioned by a professional body of some sort.

You'd be hard pressed to find a court to support any tinkering with the first amendment, unless it favors big money interests. You are asking corporate Big Brother to change his evil ways when what you really need are a million Winston Smiths.

[stray cat]

12. I thought progressives generally supported free speech?

[mmonk]

15. Does free speech include equal access to it?

[Lance_Boyle]

28. No. You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to have it heard

by anyone in particular.

[mmonk]

29. So people with money have more of a right to be heard

and say anything untrue about others or events on broadcast airways in the US at the exclusion of others. The others do not have that same right to be heard or to dispute the claims or defend themselves. Interesting, I thought it had to do with other voices not being silenced or to peacefully assemble and air grievances. Silly me.

[PavePusher]

47. Become rich, and broadcast your message to the world.

No-one is stopping you.

You do not have the right to a free radio or TV station, or free access to someone else's.

[DainBramaged]

16. Why not threaten the MSM with boycotts for continued pandering to these buttwipes?

The MSM gives them voice and legitimacy.

[mmonk]

23. I don't know. Do they really listen?

[kctim]

26. It seems as if

you are actually wanting to rewrite legislation so that it agrees with you're personal opinion on what is violence, what is truth, what is false, what are political lies, what is hate speech and what is real.

People HAVE been arrested for actual violence or threats of it.
EVERY politician is well versed in using unclear specifics to their advantage.
It is opinion, not evidence or fact, that says certain people are inciting violence.

Sorry, but I would rather go with the 1st Amendment than give that power to the person or party who happens to in "power" at that particular time.

[mmonk]

30. Nope. Nice try though.

[PavePusher]

48. "We have to take down the liars and hate speakers through some sort of legislation."

Hard to read that any other way.

Who decides what is lies and hate for everyone else? You?

[kctim]

49. Then why

would you suggest changing current law that covers what you have listed, unless you disagree with how it is defined and what it covers?

[Tailormyst]

31. Who gets to decide what speech is 'good" and which is "bad"?

Seriously. A committee? Law enforcement? Me? You? The President?

I know your intention is good, but there is no way to make it work and frankly it would likely be turned on people you agree with.

[apocalypsehow]

34. How about we identify folks whose opinions we don't like, and force them to wear armbands in public

that tag them as people with undesirable beliefs? At some point, we might want to think about rounding them all up and "concentrating" them in certain neighborhoods, and make them show identity cards & passes in order to leave their special "areas"...the nuts don't fall from the the trees, so perhaps we should mark & segregate their kids, too, for the betterment of our society....

That is the ultimate logical conclusion of what you propose in your OP, so own it.

In the meantime, I propose you read up on the First amendment.

[ScreamingMeemie]

36. Another time it would be cool to recommend a post.

Very well said.

[KonaKane]

39. We don't have an open press - problem number one.

We may have a "free" press, meaning one that is free to pursue a market share and maybe even monopolize an entire broadcast branch, but we have no mandate that they actually report news instead of sell political piffle.

Our first amendment, because of that, is quickly becoming a joke when it comes to the press.

[LoZoccolo]

40. People are drawn to what others try to forbid, and we're probably wired for it.

The instinct is probably adaptive because in the wild, what was taken away by another person was probably for their direct benefit, so it stood to reason that it would benefit you as well. You'll only serve to trigger that tendency.

[Better Believe It]

50. Pass the kinds of anti-free speech laws you advocate and guess who they will be used against.

Us!

[LoZoccolo]

52. And the right is now figuring that out about the Patriot Act.

lol

[BlooInBloo]

53. Legislating better people can't possibly work...

If you want better people, then build better people. We're a nation of idiots and torture-lovers. We're that way because we're taught by idiots and torture-lovers. It's a tough circle to break, but until the kids are taught differently, it won't change - no matter what the laws say.

[Spike89]

56. Reinstating the fairness doctrine would do almost nothing

It is more coincidence than anything else that the repeal of the fairness doctrine and the rise of conservative voices happened. The Fairness doctrine NEVER applied to shows such as Rush's, Hannity's, or The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Heck, it didn't even do what many people think it did for actual BROADCAST News. It did not force accurate news, it only really applied to actual political campaign endorsements. It was fine and legal for any "slant", but if a broadcast station specifically said "vote for X" then they had to provide equal time for anyone to say "vote for Y". However, the station could show liberals or conservatives in any light they wanted without "fairness".

Cable news (MSNBC, FOX News, CNN, etc.) were never under the fairness doctrine, and because shows such as Olberman's, O'Reilly, Maddow, Beck, etc. are NOT true news shows, but opinion/discussion/entertainment shows, even broadcasting them wouldn't have brought them under the Fairness doctrine.

Legislating away opposing views will not work.

[Drix]

63. I have an idea.

Make a law that states news media outlets can be completely tax free like churches with the the following stipulations.

1. News media outlet can have only interests in news. It cannot be a subdivision of a larger corporation or have non-news affiliations (you could not be a defense contractor and own a media outlet).

2. Monthly independent reviews of your news coverage from various sources (i.e. FAIR, Media Matters, Crew, etc.)would have to be featured prominently in your paper or broadcast.

I think this would be an excellent idea because it would encourage companies to into news publishing for the profit motive but would also discourage outside influence from those who would use newspapers, magazines, radio, tv, as a vehicle to promote business or political agendas.