Hell yeah the libs want to control and stop free speech

[calfoxwc]

 

Posted: July 14, 2009

9:53 pm Eastern

Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeatedby Brian Jennings

For those of us fighting for free speech on American airwaves, this is a major setback. The Broadcaster Freedom Amendment sponsored by Congressmen Greg Walden of Oregon and Mike Pence of Indiana has been defeated. The amendment would have prevented any form of the Fairness Doctrine from returning, including the new Fairness Doctrine disguised in localism rules and programming advisory boards for radio stations.

 

Plain and simple, this is censorship. If Congress truly believed in free speech, it would have allowed a vote on this. To do otherwise is a slap in the face of all Americans, the First Amendment, and those who drafted the First Amendment in 1791. To not allow a vote on this freedom of speech issue telegraphs one thing - Democrats in charge of the House want to censor the airwaves, and in particular conservative talk radio.

 

They clearly want to regulate radio. Their speech is so disingenuous, its laughable. They say they do not favor the Fairness Doctrine, yet they support back-door measures that would accomplish the same goals. They cannot deny that programming advisory boards, localism rules, and defining the public interest with some “teeth” are all means of regulating speech in America - particularly conservative speech. This is an outrage and all Americans should see through this for what it is. These are tyrants in action.

 

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has stated, “If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of the country, then government has a legitimate role to play.” Of course, he reserves the right to define the “diversity and spirit” of the country. Apparently, the country (free marketplace) cannot do that for themselves.

 

This is plain and simple tyranny and we must call it for what it is. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski along with Michael Copps are close followers of the leftist media reform organization called Free Press. Genachowski has even named a member of Free Press to his staff as a communications liaison. In my book, Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio, I quote the Communications Director for the Free Press. Here’s what Craig Aaron said.

 

So, I don’t support re-instating the Fairness Doctrine not because I don’t support the goals, but because I think it’s the wrong way to go about it.

 

So, if that’s the wrong way, there apparently is a right way. Please read this note from Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon. All Americans should be outraged. It’s time for a mass cleansing of Washington in 2010.

 

[Guest mz.]

If you think this hot mess was C&P from a Faaaaaaar-Right-Wing blog, check here: _____

 

If you think this hot mess was C&P from a Faaaaaaar-Right-Wing email forward, check here: __X___

 

If you think this hot mess is a hand-typed (by cal) facsimile of a piece of literature obtained at a recent Tea Party, check here: _____

 

If you think this hot mess was handed to cal by G-d himself, check here: _____

 

If you think reading this thread has effectively stripped you of your 2nd Amendment rights, check here: _____

 

If you think the bark has fallen off of the Obumbly Tree, check here: _____

 

 

 

 

[ballpeen]

I have noticed you bring very little to these conversations.

 

Either you are for free speech or you aren't.

 

Are you or aren't you??

 

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I have noticed you bring very little to these conversations.

 

Either you are for free speech or you aren't.

 

Are you or aren't you??

 

He's a wannabe comedian. He's after a "Thanks" from Alo, Heck and Shep.

[calfoxwc]

I could be a psychologist, the U.S. President, a fightier pilot, a famous jockey, ...

 

an astronaut, a billionaire, BROWNS qb, well known country music writer,

 

I could go back in time and be Johnnie Appleseed before mz the pussy would ever

 

become a comedian.

 

Jeez.

 

That, or he just thinks it's cool to never try to add to a thread with

 

genuine sentiments of his own.

[calfoxwc]

IT concerns me about leftists' arrogance.

 

They can double-talk, rephrase reality, lie like it's what

 

they're entitled to, and try to keep power.

 

Manipulative as a way of existing.

 

Or something. But taking guns and free speech,

 

is on their agenda, no matter how the words get

 

tossed up into the winds of power.

 

It does concern me, that a lot of libs think the idea that

 

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc, don't want to control free conservative speech.

 

is silly nonsense. How the heyl is that possible, seriously?

 

Remember the prosecutors in Minn. DURING the election?

 

They want the power, that badly, and like Chavez, Selaya sp?,

 

Fidel, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, s Hussein, etc etc etc, they don't plan of giving it up and letting someone

 

else get the next election won and undo what they started.

 

That's I -I- think.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Neocons doled out the largest FCC fines in History under Bush. All because of "naughty" language. Can you really sit there and say one group is more against free speech than another?

[calfoxwc]

You comparing grotesque, offensive shock vulgarity to disagreement on American policy issues?

 

Would you like to compare somebody being hit in the face with a baseball bat, to

 

having their finger pricked for a blood test?

 

Man, it's hard to have a serious conversation on a lot of issues around here.

 

If you can't scream out "FIRE!" in a crowded theater without a fine, you think you

 

can't disagree with the government figures in office because they are Democrats - "your" political party?

 

Gotta be kidding.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

You comparing grotesque, offensive shock vulgarity to disagreement on American policy issues?

 

Would you like to compare somebody being hit in the face with a baseball bat, to

 

having their finger pricked for a blood test?

 

Man, it's hard to have a serious conversation on a lot of issues around here.

 

If you can't scream out "FIRE!" in a crowded theater without a fine, you think you

 

can't disagree with the government figures in office because they are Democrats - "your" political party?

 

Gotta be kidding.

 

 

Great example Cal. Did you ever notice that the libs never address the post directly, always seem to come to "Bush did this" as their counter point. Weak.

[Pumpkin Eater]

You comparing grotesque, offensive shock vulgarity to disagreement on American policy issues?

 

Would you like to compare somebody being hit in the face with a baseball bat, to

 

having their finger pricked for a blood test?

 

Man, it's hard to have a serious conversation on a lot of issues around here.

 

If you can't scream out "FIRE!" in a crowded theater without a fine, you think you

 

can't disagree with the government figures in office because they are Democrats - "your" political party?

 

Gotta be kidding.

 

It wasn't grotesque or offensive to me. I do find neocon partisan hacks disgusting and vulgar.

 

Your stance is typical though. Hipocritical. Regulating free speech is fine if YOU don't like it.

[Guest mz.]

This just continues to amaze me, cal. You claim to be concerned about First Amendment rights but see fit to take others' basic human rights away at every turn.

 

Free speech is free speech, cal, no matter if it is political speech, comedic speech etc. To stifle one is to stifle it all. Why is this concept so continuously difficult for you to grasp?

 

The "article" (typos? C'mon, "article" "writer!") you posted isn't concerning itself with free speech as I understand it. It is concerned with dropping the phrase "Fairness Doctrine" and getting Neocons all in a frenzy.

[calfoxwc]

1. It wasn't grotesque or offensive to me. I do find neocon partisan hacks disgusting and vulgar.

 

Your stance is typical though. Hipocritical. Regulating free speech is fine if YOU don't like it. PE

 

**************************************

 

But the freedoms, and common sense checks and balances against the abuse of those freedoms is

 

societies decision, not yours or mine. Violating free speech, say, threatening to sexually assault a child, is not

 

free speech. More to the point, running naked through a crowded theater of families is not freedom of expression.

 

It is a violation of other's rights. TRUE offense is way, way out of decent verbal behavior, common communication.

 

Disagreeing with the policies, etc, is common. You can't deny that. There is no "I'm offended by Sean Hannity's

 

criticism of Obama's actions because they are vulgar"... that is laughable. You don't like it, ya.

 

But that IS freedom of speech. But to talk on the airwaves of serious sexual violence, etc, and offending

 

children all over the country, wth?

 

With freedom comes responsibility not to abuse those freedoms.

 

Simply disagreeing is not abuse. That IS freedom of speech.

 

It's odd that any liberal doesn't understand the difference, and yet ignores the dangerous ramifications of

 

a "Fairness Doctrine" being passed and signed into law, despite a change of name, which libs are so good at.

 

Like the definistion of what "is" is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

This just continues to amaze me, cal. You claim to be concerned about First Amendment rights but see fit to take others' basic human rights away at every turn.

 

Free speech is free speech, cal, no matter if it is political speech, comedic speech etc. To stifle one is to stifle it all. Why is this concept so continuously difficult for you to grasp?

 

*******************************************

"Others" do not have the right to abuse their rights, and in doing so, violate others' rights.

 

Society, any society, must have rules to protect itself.

 

"Offense" and "vulgarity", subjective ? sure. But to say there are NO limits whatsoever to somebody's freedom of speech,

 

means somebody can publicly say they saw you or me pull a gun and shoot at children in a playground.

 

Sure, you are I get arrested, or at least questioned, etc. But was that "freedom of speech" by the liar? NO.

 

Not by anybody's serious estimation. That's all I'm saying. Per your "anything goes", all or nothing stuff, there would be no

 

slander, no safety, no protection against others' abuses of their right to free speech.

 

But to compare Hannity's disagreement about Obama's health care plans, (referring to PE's post) as offensive, is just political

 

spin pouty pouty. You can't be serious.

[Pumpkin Eater]

we all know there are limits to free speech Cal. This isn't high school civics class.

 

You rights end where someone elses begin. However, Just as someone posted the other day in a proposed new "preamble", you do not have the right to be offended.

 

One party is not more for or against free speech than any other.

[choco]

i just can't do it.....

[calfoxwc]

The Dems want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine by whatever new name they come up with.

 

Bill Clinton wanted to bring it back. Still does. Pelosi wants it, Reid wants it, a bunch of libs want it.

 

No conservatives/Republicans? want it. They are fighting it.

 

Michael Moore attended the Republican National Convention.

 

The Dems rail against Hannity. And Rush. and Levin. The Dems don't want

 

them to be able to continue what they do - disagree.

 

The Republicans couldn't care less if Michael Moo-er disagrees. They didn't care

 

about the liberal version of talk radio.

 

Hint: neither did most Americans, by a vast majority.

 

Hell YES the Dems are against free speech.

 

I have never heard a conservative bemoan disagreement from the left.

 

Ever.

 

"Both sides are guilty" is a cop out from admitting the truth.

[Pumpkin Eater]

no it's not, because both sides are guilty. Yet partisan hacks see it only the way they choose to see it. Just because one party wishes to limit a method of speech you don't personally like yourself does not make it ok.

 

It's bad when it happens no matter who does it, and its hipocritical to accuse one ofthe major parties and not both of them.

[Guest mz.]

The Dems rail against Hannity. And Rush. and Levin. The Dems don't want

 

them to be able to continue what they do - disagree.

 

You are absolutely nuts. "Railing against" and "curbing free speech" are the same thing to you?

 

Nobody wants to STOP them from "disagreeing," cal. How else would we know who the idiots are?

 

[calfoxwc]

Give me one example of national Republicans/conservatives trying to shut out criticism.

 

Meanwhile,

 

read this:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

 

even some DEMS are upset that I was correct in saying it.

 

Now, say you're sorry.

[Guest mz.]

Now, say you're sorry.

 

Dude, it's called a MAJORITY. And you're very confused. Sorry if you're on the wrong end.

[Pumpkin Eater]

So in other words Cal, violating someone's free speech is ok sometimes, but not others? A violation of free speech is a violation, it doesn't matter if it's quieting a critic or edgy talk radio. It's all the same violation.

[Guest mz.]

He's never ever going to acknowledge this statement, PE.

[Pumpkin Eater]

It really is pointless. I dont know why I am wasting my time.

[calfoxwc]

Like I said, name ONE TIME national conservatives have worked to silence free speech by the opposition - leftist Dems.

 

That's my challenge.

 

PE - wrong.

 

You are defining ANY restriction of free speech a violation of free speech.

 

You aren't trying to get my point.

 

With freedoms, come responsibilities.

 

My understanding of what you are saying is, you have a freedom to drive your car, and

 

any move to stop you from speeding, or parking in a restricted parking area, is a violation

 

of your freedom.

 

I say, with freedom comes responsibilities. Society has a right to protect itself by putting some

 

decency and legal rules in place. Otherwise, we all would be losing our freedoms via the abuse

 

by others exercizing their freedoms.

 

If someone slanders you, and you end up in jail, does not that negate your idea that that someone

 

has a totally unlimited right to their free speech? When you say "Of course that's wrong", then

 

you are agreeing with me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kosar_For_President]

Like I said, name ONE TIME national conservatives have worked to silence free speech by the opposition - leftist Dems.

 

That's my challenge.

 

PE - wrong.

 

You are defining ANY restriction of free speech a violation of free speech.

 

You aren't trying to get my point.

 

With freedoms, come responsibilities.

 

My understanding of what you are saying is, you have a freedom to drive your car, and

 

any move to stop you from speeding, or parking in a restricted parking area, is a violation

 

of your freedom.

 

I say, with freedom comes responsibilities. Society has a right to protect itself by putting some

 

decency and legal rules in place. Otherwise, we all would be losing our freedoms via the abuse

 

by others exercizing their freedoms.

 

If someone slanders you, and you end up in jail, does not that negate your idea that that someone

 

has a totally unlimited right to their free speech? When you say "Of course that's wrong", then

 

you are agreeing with me.

 

What a crock of shit. Your "responsibilities" are ethics. I agree people need to exercise their better judgment, but in no right are these "responsibilities" this against the law.

[ballpeen]

I don't understand what you are trying to say....could you clarify?

[calfoxwc]

PE - WHAT ???

 

I repeat:

 

Like I said, name ONE TIME national conservatives have worked to silence free speech by the opposition - leftist Dems.

 

That's my challenge.

and

 

 

I say, with freedom comes responsibilities. Society has a right to protect itself by putting some

 

decency and legal rules in place. Otherwise, we all would be losing our freedoms via the abuse

 

by others exercizing their freedoms.

 

If someone slanders you, and you end up in jail, does not that negate your idea that that someone

 

has a totally unlimited right to their free speech? When you say "Of course that's wrong", then

 

you are agreeing with me.

************************

Now, PE -

 

you said:

 

"What a crock of shit. Your "responsibilities" are ethics. I agree people need to exercise their better judgment, but in no right are these "responsibilities" this against the law. "

 

Slander is most certainly against the law, in it's formal, legal definition. So is libel. Can you explain what you said above?

[Kosar_For_President]

PE - WHAT ???

 

I repeat:

 

Like I said, name ONE TIME national conservatives have worked to silence free speech by the opposition - leftist Dems.

 

That's my challenge.

and

 

 

I say, with freedom comes responsibilities. Society has a right to protect itself by putting some

 

decency and legal rules in place. Otherwise, we all would be losing our freedoms via the abuse

 

by others exercizing their freedoms.

 

If someone slanders you, and you end up in jail, does not that negate your idea that that someone

 

has a totally unlimited right to their free speech? When you say "Of course that's wrong", then

 

you are agreeing with me.

************************

Now, PE -

 

you said:

 

"What a crock of shit. Your "responsibilities" are ethics. I agree people need to exercise their better judgment, but in no right are these "responsibilities" this against the law. "

 

Slander is most certainly against the law, in it's formal, legal definition. So is libel. Can you explain what you said above?

 

Slander and libel are reserved for insecure pussies who live their life around what people think about them. They will take people to court just to make sure everyone knows the other person was lying, f'ucking gay. I should of been sued 12 times on this board alone. I for one, don't give a shit, I'll say what I want when I want. Save your speech for Rush, he needs it.

[calfoxwc]

That's hardly accurate.

 

Slander could land you in jail. That's why society protects the freedoms

 

of it's citizens from it, with law.

 

You need to settle down, and consider differentiating between

 

having derogatory opinions of someone, and maliously trying to

 

say, for example, send someone to jail, etc.

 

You failed my challenge, no big deal. But Peen has a point.

 

Do you think you can scream out "Fire" in a crowded theater, and that's

 

perfectly okay because of our 1st Amendment?

 

 

[Pumpkin Eater]

????

 

Slander and Libel intrude upon someone else's rights. as I said, your rights end where someone else's begin.

 

If someone is talking about sex on the radio and you get offended, that is not your RIGHT. Howard Stern was fined for talking about "tossing salad" (his exact words). Please tell me who's rights were trampled on?

 

remember.. you and T said you do not have the right to be offended...

 

Falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater would only be punishable if someone was injured. Also, take note that Schneck Vs. United States (the ruling in which Supreme Court Justice Holmes wrote that falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater should not be protected by the first amendment) was overruled.

 

Falsely shouting "fire" also tramples on other people's rights.