| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:05 am Post subject: Teabagging Parties: Grassroots or Astroturf--You Decide |
 |
|
One of Fox News' nicknames is Faux News. It may be truer than originally thought. "Organizers of these tea-party protests have no bigger cheerleader (or crowd-builder, for that matter) than Fox News, which has provided attendance and organizing information for the events on air and online dozens of times...Fox has offered viewers and readers such vital organizing information as protest dates and locations and addresses of websites where people can learn more. It has even posted information and publicity material for the events on its own website. Tea-party planners are now using the planned attendance of Fox News hosts to promote their protests and listing Fox News contributors as "Tea Party Sponsor[s]" on their website.
You see, Fox News hosts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Neil Cavuto, and Greta Van Susteren are all scheduled to broadcast live from tea parties in different cities across the country, and they've wasted little time in diligently working to boost attendance levels for the April 15 events."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-frisch/warning-this-tea-may-caus_b_185464.html
A few months ago there was a hue and cry about how the Fairness Doctrine would be unfair to Fox and was just an attempt to silence administration critics. No sooner did that die down than Fox started up openly pushing a political agenda (I repeat: openly).
Free speech is all well and good but when a news network starts creating the news it reports... Grassroots movements are all well and good... But when people in positions of power start using their position to stir up 'grassroots' protests, it brings in the problem of big money and politics. It might be time to bring in some creative lawyers to take a look at tax records and whatever. Rupert Murdoch, my perennial nominee for 'most dangerous man in the world' has a waiver of some kind that allows him to own more media outlets in NYC than is normally allowed, perhaps needs a shot fired across his bow.
Money and politics is a constant issue. So is the related complaint about the influence of special interests. At the very least, Fox News is testing the limits of the laws. At worst (??) it is abusing free speech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the 'teabagging' thing does sound kinda gay.
Anyway, I don't think folks have the energy to alter the First Amendment, I mean, with all this other stuff going on these days. What, exactly do you have in mind?
Could you clarify what you mean by "positions of power" here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Could you clarify what you mean by "positions of power" here? |
Do you skip lines when you read? I was clearly refering to people with national media platforms.
My nightmare is Fox News going up against MSNBC, each with deep pockets, using their money and nation-wide platforms to organize rival protest/counter-protest 'movements'. Kind of cyber-world Twittering extra-legal rival social movements. (It could be Obama's Blackberry list of supporters (rather than MSNBC) vs Fox News.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Could you clarify what you mean by "positions of power" here? |
Do you skip lines when you read? I was clearly refering to people with national media platforms.
My nightmare is Fox News going up against MSNBC, each with deep pockets, using their money and nation-wide platforms to organize rival protest/counter-protest 'movements'. Kind of cyber-world Twittering extra-legal rival social movements. (It could be Obama's Blackberry list of supporters (rather than MSNBC) vs Fox News.) |
I wasn't going to mention it, but then thought, 'Why not?' Why does:
| Quote: |
Well, the 'teabagging' thing does sound kinda gay.
|
Is the missionary position the only one you are comfortable with? Samantha (Sex & the City) seems to know what she's talking about. And she's definitely not gay. Maybe you need to loosen up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Could you clarify what you mean by "positions of power" here? |
Do you skip lines when you read? I was clearly refering to people with national media platforms.
|
OK, so does the First Amendment allow for some tweaking in order so we can suppress some peoples' right to speak? I read the First Amendment, but shucks, maybe I just can't read between the lines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| OK, so does the First Amendment allow for some tweaking in order so we can suppress some peoples' right to speak? |
Yes, as a matter of fact, it does. For example, as you were supposed to have been taught in your high school gov't class, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you can't advocate the violent overthrow of the government...
Free speech is not now, and never has been, an absolute. There are quite a few Supreme Court cases defining the limits of the First Amendment. It is only silly 12 year olds who read it literally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, the teabagging thing is...
a) advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
or
b) a lame tax protest.
You decide! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
or c) (the original point of this thread)
About a TV network using its platform to organize a political protest.
I know it's difficult for you, but try to stay on topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it a state owned network? If not, then they don't have to obey the government (or you, which is it?)
If you want to call Fox out for their cheesiness, OK. Just... call them out on it. That's how it's done in a country like ours. You shouldn't be taking pointers from Hugo Chavez. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Freedom of speech is absolute. There was never any intent by the founders to have any limitation and none is necessary.
| Quote: |
| For example, as you were supposed to have been taught in your high school gov't class, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater .... |
This is a crazy, old idea written by an incompetent Supreme Court judge, that happens to be illogical and wrong.
If this statement was true, then there would be no way to inform the audience of said theater that there was indeed a fire. The judge and his subsequent followers have no basic skills in logic.
The fact is, you have a constitutionally protected right to free speech, as does Fox news, as does the person in the crowded theater. The government has no right to regulate such speech. Of course, the socialist controlled government of the US has done so with the FCC and other agencies.
This has allowed the politiacally powerful Kennedys the chance to silence the newspapers, radio and TV in Boston from reporting on their nefarious activities by threatening, repeatedly to have licensenes pulled and in one case ordering stations to be sold.
It allowed the mayor of Milwaukee to stop all investigation of his corrupt administration by all TV and radio stations by using the FCC to end reporting (which only continued in the employee owned and independent Milwaukee Journal).
There are hundreds of examples of the government using its power to stop political speech.
From Glen Beck to Ralph Nadar to Bernie Sanders to Rush Limbaugh ... whoever it is has the right to express any opinion in any forum.
Free speech is always absolute.
The government must be allowed to make NO law, rule or regulation of any kind.
The government must not be allowed to own any element in the means of dissemination of ideas including: the airwaves, wires, cables, or other forms of transmission, paper, paper mills or forests, bookstores, libraries, printing plants, movie theaters or movie production companies, TV stations or TV production companies. All such government assets must be sold to private organizations and individuals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Freedom of speech is absolute. There was never any intent by the founders to have any limitation and none is necessary.
|
That is what I always thought.
The First Amendment states:
| Quote: |
| 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. |
I don't see any exceptions there. I could never follow the convoluted logic of Supreme Court Justices who could twist that into there being some. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Freedom of speech is absolute. There was never any intent by the founders to have any limitation and none is necessary.
|
That is what I always thought.
The First Amendment states:
| Quote: |
| 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. |
I don't see any exceptions there. I could never follow the convoluted logic of Supreme Court Justices who could twist that into there being some. |
The clear and present danger test can actually be very lenient when properly interpreted.
From Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
| Quote: |
� Statute cannot punish:
○ Mere advocacy (even of use of force or law violation)
○ OR assembly with others to advocate the same
○ EXCEPT, if the clear & danger test is met, i.e.,
� Where such advocacy is direct to inciting or producing imminent lawless action
� AND is likely to incite such action |
As you can see, speech may be more likely to incite imminent lawless action in a time of war. And in a civil war, First Amendment freedoms will probably be tightly constrained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
harlowethrombey
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm starting a new form of government protest where we decry all the money the execs are getting. So, to be symbolic, we'll pour lemonade (the ultimate poor man's source of income) all over each other.
We shall call this movement. . . 'Golden Showers'!
Yes, we're going to give the White HOuse a Golden Shower! That will show them! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:09 pm Post subject: Re: Teabagging Parties: Grassroots or Astroturf--You Decide |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Free speech is all well and good but when a news network starts creating the news it reports... Grassroots movements are all well and good... But when people in positions of power start using their position to stir up 'grassroots' protests, it brings in the problem of big money and politics. It might be time to bring in some creative lawyers to take a look at tax records and whatever. Rupert Murdoch, my perennial nominee for 'most dangerous man in the world' has a waiver of some kind that allows him to own more media outlets in NYC than is normally allowed, perhaps needs a shot fired across his bow.
Money and politics is a constant issue. So is the related complaint about the influence of special interests. At the very least, Fox News is testing the limits of the laws. At worst (??) it is abusing free speech. |
I'd like to point out that I think this is utter hogwash.
Money is an issue in politics insofar as monied private interests are able to bend the idea of one man one vote. But in the realm of speech, if you want to spend money to give wind so your ideas set sail, that is absolutely permissible under the Constitution.
Testing the limits of the laws my ass. The blogger is abusing the intellect his mother gave him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| f this statement was true, then there would be no way to inform the audience of said theater that there was indeed a fire. The judge and his subsequent followers have no basic skills in logic. |
You know that it refers to shouting "fire" when there is actually no fire, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
