|
Luigi Thirty posted:Certain fundamentalist churches preach that shooting abortion doctors isn't a mortal sin in the eyes of God because you're saving the babies.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
It's good that they took him alive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:
The only moral terrorism is my terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:It's good that they took him alive. And because he's white the media will forget about this in short order unless they can find a way to turn it into an attack on something the media finds palatable to dwell on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Joementum posted:To be honest, I'd rather not know what's in John Kerry's freezers. Purple Hearts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
The fairness doctrine only applied to holders of broadcast licenses, so it would kill right-wing radio, which would've killed Fox News in it's infancy, but now bringing it back would leave cable news intact. Which is fine - cable is a different problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:There used to be a policy the media were required to follow called the Fairness Doctrine. It was abolished during the Reagan administration, which allowed the Rush Limbaughs, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdochs, and Chuck Johnsons to proliferate print, radio and TV media with only one viewpoint on controversial issues. The FCC bringing that back would effectively put Fox News, Breitbart, and Glenn Beck out of business. The problem with reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is that when the Supreme Court upheld it, they explicitly cited "the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views". (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)). Given that at least three of the sources you're complaining about primarily utilize a medium without even the tiniest pretense of scarcity, that would be a far weaker argument now than it was in the 60s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Buffer posted:The fairness doctrine only applied to holders of broadcast licenses, so it would kill right-wing radio, which would've killed Fox News in it's infancy, but now bringing it back would leave cable news intact. Which is fine - cable is a different problem. If your goal is to kill right wing radio now all you have to do is wait about 10 years. Which is probably about as long as it'd take to try to get the votes to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
badatom posted:I don't understand why everyone's getting all worked up about this. "Stuff happens", remember? I am shivering with anticipation for Jeb!'s great insight into this recent tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
I'm trying to fathom how people don't see that the very second that these greater restrictions on freedom of speech were rolled out, they would be see to silence the left, not the right. Do you really not think that, if hate speech laws were given more teeth, you wouldn't see it used to shut down anyone who criticized Israel's actions against Palestinians? That if libel and slander were expanded, it wouldn't be used to silence coverage of the Koch brothers? That if protest restrictions were strengthened, they would be used against abortion protesters and not against police protestors?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I'm trying to fathom how people don't see that the very second that these greater restrictions on freedom of speech were rolled out, they would be see to silence the left, not the right. This post is 100% correct. False equivalency is an American birthright at this point, and would be deployed accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
I'm trying to fathom how people can advocate for or against restrictions of freedom of speech based on political ideology. Like Jesus Christ talk about missing the point. To support or oppose such a fundamental right based upon how well it serves your political beliefs rather than due to principle is cynicism in its most disgusting form, one that threatens the fabric of democracy and civil society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:30
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Edit: missed some posts. Nothing to see here.
Xand_Man fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I'm trying to fathom how people don't see that the very second that these greater restrictions on freedom of speech were rolled out, they would be see to silence the left, not the right. Just look at that shithead billionaire Romney donor Frank Vandersloot, he already (unsuccessfully) sues everyone for libel and slander as is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I'm trying to fathom how people can advocate for or against restrictions of freedom of speech based on political ideology. Hm, yes, reframing Rawl's question of the original position to point out the deep problems with a stance; clearly a cynical move that threatens democracy and civil society instead of hewing to the philosophical roots of it. Good call.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I'm trying to fathom how people don't see that the very second that these greater restrictions on freedom of speech were rolled out, they would be see to silence the left, not the right. Given that's already considered a fringe position in the mainstream media on par with UFO conspiracy theories it's not necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I'm trying to fathom how people can advocate for or against restrictions of freedom of speech based on political ideology. because they're smarter than you are if someone does not agree with the idea that moral principle trumps the utilitarian effects they may be swayed and support you based on showing the utilitarian effects are an illusion you can do this while maintaining and advocating the moral view over the utilitarian view
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
There are a lot of countries in the world with different restrictions on speech to the United States and also intact democracies and civil societies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Yeah, but you never hear about the children who stop maturing and remain Republicans for the rest of their lives. http://www.theonion.com/video/gop-maintains-solid-hold-on-youth-that-already-loo-36778
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Do you really not think that, if hate speech laws were given more teeth, you wouldn't see it used to shut down anyone who criticized Israel's actions against Palestinians?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Is there a good primer on the school choice debate? It's an issue I know basically nothing about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
They've named the shooter in Colorado , apparently he is from North Carolina. Robert L. Dear
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Peel posted:There are a lot of countries in the world with different restrictions on speech to the United States and also intact democracies and civil societies. Well, Europe seems to be trending out of civil society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
In which Matt Iglesias argues that it's okay for quiverful parents to get 10 votes to your parents' 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Is there a good primer on the school choice debate? It's an issue I know basically nothing about. School choice or vouchers, because there is a difference?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Countdown to Gunchat in 3... 2... 1...
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Why did they run with the "pardoning the turkey" pic. So unusual.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Obama calls for something literally the entire Congress would have to be high to even vote on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
From the RWM thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Why did they run with the "pardoning the turkey" pic. So unusual. If I recall correctly, he's currently in France for the climate summit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Please grab all the guns Obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:School choice or vouchers, because there is a difference?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:School choice, but vouchers are closely related and I'd like to learn about that too. It's a scam to take public monies and enrich wealthy people at the expense of minorities. You know, America. http://inthesetimes.com/article/18352/10-years-after-katrina-new-orleans-all-charter-district-has-proven-a-failur http://www.salon.com/2015/08/03/ref..._after_katrina/
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Zwiftef posted:It's a scam to take public monies and enrich wealthy people at the expense of minorities. You know, America. Also to promote Christian schools over public schools.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Too late, that specific scenario is already happening to a degree in academia Political correctness is ruining our universities! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:From the RWM thread. I thought killing cops was a leftist thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:I thought killing cops was a leftist thing Freep types are really divided about it. The ultraright often approves of killing Obama's brainwashed jackbooted freedom-hating minions of liberal darkness. Depends on the context and which mode of thinking is more narratively convenient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I don't think we necessarily want to beef up our slander laws, of all things. Look at the ridiculous stuff that goes on over in the various Britpol related threads, where posters are reluctant to post certain pieces of information. That sort of law is much more easily wielded by the elite against the powerless than vice versa. Should planned parenthood be able to sue people who hack together videos accusing them of doing illegal things when they aren't doing illegal things? Reminder, these lies lead to PP employees being harassed, stalked, and murdered. Should people who do make this poo poo up for $$$$$ understand that when they get sued for it punitive damages will include all the fundraising they managed using the slander such that there is no financial incentive to make poo poo up? You can certainly go to far, but there is a lot of daylight between where we are now and to far. Reminder, where we are now is chucklefucks competing to see who can tell the most outrageous lies about people they don't like. And the result of these lies is mass shootings and arson at churches and doctors offices. These people aren't just saying things that are factually untrue. They aren't even saying false things that they believe are true. The folks behind the "selling baby parts for profit" smear campaign understood that what was going on here was voluntary tissue donation with a shipping fee. The subterfuge they went through to get the footage they edited required them to know this. Proving that someone was deliberately lying is an incredibly high bar to reach. Setting that bar does not endanger public discourse. When you can reach it there should be punishment severe enough to make others think twice about doing the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Interesting that Rubio was so quick to seize on the attacks in France, so excited to talk about national security, and yet is totally silent on our genuine homegrown terrorists..
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:They've named the shooter in Colorado , apparently he is from North Carolina. Dude was a co-pastor too, so expect the "no true Christian" to be flying fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:00
|
|
