Originally Posted By TomSawyer History is filled with examples of people and organizations that were well-intentioned and tried to fix problems by limiting what others could say. Iran is doing it right now as they are trying to shut their country off from the global internet, for example. Books have been burned and ideas suppressed in an effort to do what is best for everyone. No matter what problems this country is facing, I don't want Congress to step in to decide what news network we are allowed to watch. That would seem to accelerate whatever problems we are facing rather then to stop them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't understand the logic. Many right wingers fear that government will overreach and trample fundamental Constitutional rights. To shut them up, the government should go ahead and trample fundamental Constitutional rights? Yeah, that'll show 'em!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Yes, but they are being trampled in order to protect them, and they are being trampled ever so gently from the left. That makes it okay.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Being kind of a middle of the roader, I have to ask. What is the "left" doing to limit ones rights and freedoms. Basically, the "left" it seems to me is in favor of putting out all the rights of individuals to make choices based on their own morals and beliefs. Example...let's say that abortion is up for discussion. Is anyone on the "left" attempting to force anyone that finds a problem with it to have it done? The "Right" on the other hand wants to make it unavailable because they feel it is immoral. In other words, I don't like this so I am going to tell you that you are wrong and forcibly prevent you from doing it. My feeling is as a "middle" that I find it morally wrong for me, therefore I would never do it. That is my choice and whatever others do becomes what they have to answer for, not me. What others do, is not mine to judge. It is that higher power that the "right" is always referring to that makes that call. When did we all become supreme beings anyway? I must have missed that memo!
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<How is depriving someone (yes, including the "bad guys") of free speech putting your fellow man ahead of beliefs? It's the opposite. It's putting your belief that they're not entitled to it ahead of your fellow man...> Noble attitude, but how far do you take that? Should lying in court be protected as well? Or making false police reports about your annoying neighbor? Because THAT is essentially the gist of the political media culture, only it’s occurring at the aggregate level, i.e., knowingly falsifying reports of history and events to fit a narrative they prefer. I just watched the Colbert Report from last night, and Fox and Friends “interpretation” of Obama’s “silver spoon” remark. While a silly little example, it doesn’t take a guru to see how such tactics have been used in more nefarious and significant situations. Ultimately, I don’t know what the solution is. And I am not so self-absorbed to conclude that my opinion is the only one that matters, and that I'm a vessel of truth. I like to assimilate new knowledge even if it runs contrary to my previous conceptions. But there is a growing contingent of people (e.g., Ted Nugget) who view anyone that doesn't see the world as they do as enemies of the state, and repels and/or whitewashes information that challenges their beliefs. And it’s far, far larger and more dangerous than the John Birch Society because it's being supported by so-called legitimized media sources---it’s a popularly substantiated misinformation campaign. That's what scares me. Anyway, I just know that a misinformed populous is an aggressive cancer in society, and we cannot long survive under such conditions.Hopefully we find a solution soon.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder So, we're supposed to take the My Lai approach. To save the village we must destroy it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Should lying in court be protected as well? Or making false police reports about your annoying neighbor? > Obviously not. They have never been protected speech, and neither has slander or libel, if Fox (as an example) crosses the line into that. As many wise people have said, the answer to bad speech (including Fox-style propaganda) is not suppression, it's more speech. It's pointing out the lies, exhausting as it can be. I wonder if in fact we're soon to hit the high-water mark of the noise machine's influence and then will see a gradual waning. A large percentage (not all, but a lot) of noise machine victims are over 50 (many well over 50) and, well, won't last forever. Most younger people who grew up with the internet and know full well you can't trust everything you read on it seem more immune. They know the tricks (and other media outlets like the Daily Show point them out), and I think the tricks will become less and less effective with those under 50. Until they think up new tricks, of course, but it has ever been thus.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>As many wise people have said, the answer to bad speech (including Fox-style propaganda) is not suppression, it's more speech.<< To use a flip example (since there seem to be a lot of those popping up today), when the zombie apocalypse comes, you will not be able to reason with the zombies. Using free speech vs. the noise machine is bringing a knife to a gunfight. >>I wonder if in fact we're soon to hit the high-water mark of the noise machine's influence and then will see a gradual waning.<< This is what I hope for too. But again, I don't think we have the luxury of waiting. My fear is that the "new tricks" are advanced enough to outstrip the media's ability to point them out - assuming the media even has any interest in doing so. And it's not like they're new. These are Nazi propaganda tactics, pure and simple. Nationalism + scapegoating + demonizing dissent. Those suckers really work. Especially on a frightened populace experiencing ... an economic collapse. If the Germans had rescinded the Nazis' right to free speech when they still could've, wouldn't the world be a whole lot better off? 6,000,000 Jews dead vs. the principle of free speech for the Nazis. I know which side I'm on. I'd better restate once again that I don't think we're there. But I think we're on the early part of the path that leads there. >>So, we're supposed to take the My Lai approach. To save the village we must destroy it. << Yep. No-win situations tend to bees that way. See thread title.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 If the Germans had rescinded the Nazis' right to free speech when they still could've, wouldn't the world be a whole lot better off? << Wow, you basically want to start the Salem Witch Hunt all over again and "take care of" anyone who could possibly harm this country in the future, and by anyone I mean anyone who doesn't agree with your vision of the world...... wow, just wow...
Originally Posted By mawnck >>you basically want to start the Salem Witch Hunt all over again and "take care of" anyone who could possibly harm this country in the future, and by anyone I mean anyone who doesn't agree with your vision of the world<< No.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>As many wise people have said, the answer to bad speech (including Fox-style propaganda) is not suppression, it's more speech.<< <To use a flip example (since there seem to be a lot of those popping up today), when the zombie apocalypse comes, you will not be able to reason with the zombies. Using free speech vs. the noise machine is bringing a knife to a gunfight.> Come on. Zombies? You can do better than that. >>I wonder if in fact we're soon to hit the high-water mark of the noise machine's influence and then will see a gradual waning.<< <This is what I hope for too. But again, I don't think we have the luxury of waiting. > Really? So we should start restricting certain people's (but only CERTAIN people's, mind you) free speech rights, right now?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh... and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...%27s_law</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Come on. Zombies? You can do better than that.<< I left my Orwell books at home. >>So we should start restricting certain people's (but only CERTAIN people's, mind you) free speech rights, right now?<< Not right now. But it may become necessary in the future. The Great Experiment is in trouble. If it fails, you can't just fall back on it. You have to come up with something else.
Originally Posted By mawnck >> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...%27s_law</a> << Speaking of speech suppression ... Way to ignore my arguments with a flippant link. Quoting myself in post 15: >>We MUST stop avoiding that word (Nazis). Hitler was not a supernatural monster, he was just this mentally unstable schmuck politician from the right wing who came to power at the wrong place at the wrong time. That place and time appear to be returning, and we have a bumper crop of mentally unstable schmuck politicians from the right wing.<< Godwin believes that Nazi references trivialize the Holocaust. He's wrong. The topic of Naziism, their propaganda techniques and their effectiveness, must not be off-limits, especially when used in an all-too-legitimate comparison.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Come on. Zombies? You can do better than that.<< <I left my Orwell books at home.> Orwell wrote about the real world. I'll let you know when zombies actually exist. >>So we should start restricting certain people's (but only CERTAIN people's, mind you) free speech rights, right now?<< <Not right now. But it may become necessary in the future.> I thought we didn't have the luxury of waiting? What's going to be the sign that the "good guys" have to do it, then? Who's going to decide? <The Great Experiment is in trouble. If it fails, you can't just fall back on it. You have to come up with something else.> If indeed the economy is in trouble, it's not because speech was too free. Seriously, dude, you're talking about becoming like the enemy. "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <especially when used in an all-too-legitimate comparison.> It is not an all-too-legitimate comparison. I don't like Fox any more than you do, but they haven't exactly opened up any Dachaus.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Orwell wrote about the real world. I'll let you know when zombies actually exist. << I'll see your zombies and raise you the talking pigs. Come on, dabob, don't go all skinnerbox on me. >>Seriously, dude, you're talking about becoming like the enemy. "We have met the enemy and he is us."<< This is a war for the integrity of the society you and I live in. You either fight back against the enemy, or you lose. If fighting back = "becoming like the enemy", then so be it. We still best be getting on with it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer What do you mean by The Great Experiment, mawnck? What is this experiment that is at risk that we need to save?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Orwell wrote about the real world. I'll let you know when zombies actually exist. << <I'll see your zombies and raise you the talking pigs. Come on, dabob, don't go all skinnerbox on me.> Please. Zombies have NEVER existed. Stalin and co. (Orwell's metaphor) really did. You know this. >>Seriously, dude, you're talking about becoming like the enemy. "We have met the enemy and he is us."<< <This is a war for the integrity of the society you and I live in.> And what is more integral to our society than our constitution? Are you really willing to toss it so easily? I guess you are, but I'm not. It wasn't so long ago that liberals were fond of quoting Franklin in response to some of Bush's moves: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Yet that seems to be what you're advocating. Go ahead and make that case - I'm not buying. <You either fight back against the enemy, or you lose. If fighting back = "becoming like the enemy", then so be it. We still best be getting on with it.> There are ways to fight back that do not require becoming like them.
