NYCmetsfan
Banned
They did for all intents and purposes.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
benjipwns
Banned
In other words, you're not for freedom of press/speech.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I feel like ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would have extremely broad implications that SCOTUS would have to spell out.
If it's against your religious conviction to provide birth control for someone, who's to say there can't just be a "Fuck Obama" religion to weasel out of other laws?
If it's against your religious conviction to provide birth control for someone, who's to say there can't just be a "Fuck Obama" religion to weasel out of other laws?
smokeandmirrors
Banned
The buffer zone ruling is correct but it doesn't help me feel less shitty about these asshole pro-lifers who spend all their time protesting in front of planned parenthoods.
:\
:\
jamesinclair
Banned
Is it correct in a world where the court can enact policy banning free speech in their courtyard?
Black Mamba
Member
Well, technically yes but not the way of I was intending them to do it, heh.
That's not really at issue since there is precedence for fake religions and real ones.
But the issue does open up pandora's box. Should a Muslim be exempt from taxes because tax revenue lead to school lunches which lead to pepperoni pizza?
Etc.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
I mean outside of that? yes. It goes with the "everyone has free speech" deal
although I am beginning to think not everyone's opinion is valid or worth the time but that is a huge slippery slope and I'd rather not get into that at the moment.
speculawyer
Member
They better. It is quite the slippery slope issue. Can Jehovah's witness deny blood transfusions for their employees? And then for the ultimate troll, some Muslim business owner should file suit demanding some Islamic rule to be followed. Watch the court not know what to do.
Angry Fork
Member
Did you read what I said or are you going to pretend all "press" is equal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t_zRnL6Rnc
I'm for more freedom of speech than the liberals that shit on Wikileaks for open information/open government.
jamesinclair
Banned
How can you go outside of that though?
THEY set the rules banning free speech in a buffer around their court. A buffer much larger than 35 feet.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't understand. You're admitting they were talking about economic performance when you said that they were not on the last page?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
He's assuming that freedom of speech doesn't supress speech that one doesn't like
And he's right, you clearly expressed your opinion you think the government should censor speech and the press
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Posted? Capitalist defense of a Minimum Wage Hike (and generally anti-trickle-down policies): http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ng-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6x3PZRdWhG
I've rarely read a piece that so closely mirrored my own views, as a left-leaning capitalist. Interesting about Seattle and San Fran being relatively successful with higher wages.
I've rarely read a piece that so closely mirrored my own views, as a left-leaning capitalist. Interesting about Seattle and San Fran being relatively successful with higher wages.
Angry Fork
Member
From the guy who thinks Snowden is a traitor for going to "enemy" countries, nah. And Manning is evil for not fulfilling his contract with the gov, which supersedes ethics somehow.
I'm 100% for freedom of speech, and open government information to all of the public. I'm not fine with organizations masquerading as the press flat out lying or giving nothing but conjecture to the public. They can lie to the public in their own books, websites, etc. but not as journalists on a "news" channel.
Black Mamba
Member
Slick Willie is on Meet The Press Sunday it seems. He attacked Cheney for going into Iraq in his defense of Obama.
About time someone does it. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-cheney-if-they-hadnt-gone-war-iraq-none-would-n141826
About time someone does it. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-cheney-if-they-hadnt-gone-war-iraq-none-would-n141826
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You do understand. I'm saying that what I said on the last page was wrong. I do that sometimes.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Angry Fork
Member
I guess I should add an asterisk or something. I'm for freedom of speech *unless you claim to be a journalist and lie to the public. Everything else is okay, even hate speech which lots of liberals are squeamish about. But I don't like the European shit going on lately where they can't even attack religion without being called a bigot and given some kind of fine.
But my point is either you be a journalist and speak truth to power or you don't be one and you can lie all you want. That's a choice they should be forced to make. It makes sense that if media is privatized they're more willing to make scandalous accusations for ratings rather than real news but that shouldn't exempt them from punishment.
But my point is either you be a journalist and speak truth to power or you don't be one and you can lie all you want. That's a choice they should be forced to make. It makes sense that if media is privatized they're more willing to make scandalous accusations for ratings rather than real news but that shouldn't exempt them from punishment.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Do you realize what your advocating?
Angry Fork
Member
Yes, regulation of individuals in a position of power/influence caught lying to the public for personal gain. People like Sean Hannity should live in fear for slandering/libeling working class people, not rewarded. However that's only if he continues to do it on a primetime "news" channel. If he goes and makes his own website to spew shit he should be 100% allowed to do so without fear of repercussion.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
a) because I recognize how fucked up things are at the moment and would rather celebrate anything that promotes free speech (although I do have my own reserves about that but that's not for this thread at the moment)
b) of course they did but it's not all or nothing
I think he is taking it a bit too far, but I think his position is one that some hold. Specifically that with the label of journalist come certain benefits (access, source protection...) as well as responsibilities (tell the truth to the best of your abilities). At least in the context of your job (Fox/CNN) as opposed to private life (own blog). This is one of the reasons why blogs and bloggers are a hot button issue in terms of being granted press privileges. Because it is difficult to distinguish the public vs. private and where the line is between public responsibility and private freedom.
zero shift
Banned
In Angry Fork's defense, it isn't like other first world countries don't have misrepresentation of information laws by journalists and news corporations. Canada is such a country and I believe the United Kingdom is as well.
The press didn't call for his assassination but rather supported the 2004 coup while it was in progress. It is true that much of the media was anti-Chavez but it is no excuse to replace the media with state owned channels that are just as bad in the terms of propoganda and the government shutting down live reporting of protests as we saw a few months ago.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
But those press privileges don't arise from the Constitution, which likely uses the term "the press" to refer to a technology, not an industry. The privileges you refer to arise by custom or non-constitutional law. So, there's no reason to read restrictions on freedom of the press (however defined) into the Constitution simply because members of the press enjoy certain non-constitutional privileges. There's certainly no basis in the text of the Constitution for concluding that members of the press are only afforded protection when being truthful.
Look, if you watch cable news and get lied too, that's on you. We live in a world where the facts on basically every issue is a Google search away. The people who watch Hannity don't give a fuck about the real news, they are just looking to have their own beliefs validated. Making it illegal to spout horseshit on TV isn't going to suddenly change people's archaic ideologies.
What do you do, not read the articles you argue about?
Aaron Strife
Banned
D-Trip said they had their best fundraising day of the year yesterday in response to Boehner planning to sue Obama over his executive actions (which one? oh there's so many to choose from I can't even name one!)
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...fundraising-day-after-boehner-lawsuit-n141986
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...fundraising-day-after-boehner-lawsuit-n141986
I mean, he's specifically saying he was in error. I'm not sure what harping on him for having been in error accomplishes. People do occasionally make mistakes.
PhoenixDark
Banned
the DOMA one seems like the only case where they could have an argument. iirc the SC warned the WH about that.
My favorite part is that they have been suggesting this for a while, but never actually do it. They just won't put their name and allegations down on paper for the world to see. Always rhetoric and suggestions and accusations but no "receipts".
Lol his whole style of argument is based around being a stickler about minor errors and ridiculously narrow readings of text. He brings shame on the pedant community for this behavior.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I was formulating a snarky response, but then pigeon had a serious response, and I lost all motivation to be snarky.
Let's talk about the arguments being made--the Kansas economy, the proper scope of a free press, how right or wrong the Supreme Court is this time--rather than the people engaging in the arguments.
EDIT: Or that. No better way to prove you're right than to criticize a person's "style of argument".
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Looks like I picked the wrong time to post this...
benjipwns
Banned
Like say, Presidents or Senators?
speculawyer
Member
Aaron Strife
Banned
That wasn't an executive order though, was it?
Angry Fork
Member
Yes, many politicians would be guillotined by now in a just world. There are some good ones though I'm not someone who blankets all ordinary political activity as pointless or bad.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I'd actually consider the abortion ruling a success. My biggest worry was that they'd say it wasn't content neutral, and would thus strike down every last one of these sorts of laws, but instead they focused on just the government interest part, saying 35 feet was too much for too little benefit. There had to be some sort of limits on these laws anyway. Everyone should agree there would be some point of distance that crosses the line into hindering free speech. I just don't personally know what distance I would draw the line at going too far.
As for recess sessions, honestly I wouldn't mind too much if we keep the option of blocking a republican president the same way. Recess appointments have a history of being overly abused in undemocratic ways and I would like to see less of them overall. The filibuster was always the thing that needed to be changed to unclog the system.
I am absolutely, completely terrified about the union ruling. This could easily top Citizen's United as this Supreme Court's worst decision in the amount of real world damage done.
Hobby Lobby is worrying too. I agree that it seems unlikely that Hobby Lobby will win, but I can't help but feel nervous about it.
Angry Fork
Member
I hope he's right, and the pitchforks come before the capitalists can hijack our momentum.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
this is just relective of the general viewpoint that many on the far left take, there is one correct view all others who don't seek this or actively impede it shall be killed or imprisoned or bullied out of view.
you're advocating old school soviet/chinese/cuban purges
I don't think this is a view many hold that people have to present facts and opinions a certain way or face the government censor. There's no way around that. We have libel and slander laws that cover much of this. He's angry that people watch and listen to views he considers wrong or damaging to his desired political ends so, since he deems them wrong and damaging (with no subjective definition) he feels there's a right to shut them down.
slander and libel laws work. Hannity and others feel a certain way about certain people and should be free to express this. Why are you limiting him from speaking on a private channel? Where do people come off telling people legally they can't have a TV show if people desire it? Its really dangerous you ideas.
I have to see what those laws say but I don't think they criminalize presenting a certain view of the world. And I'm not in favor of importing other countries "free speech" laws which give far to much power to the courts and government to suppress speech they don't like.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
hobby at worst would be a lost battle but I can't see them doing anything radical. if they win it will be on narrow grounds and the parade of horribles won't be in danger of happening.
I'm fearing the worst for the other. Alito probably has it and he hates unions more than any one else the only think keeping me from freaking out completely is the fact its been a long time and I think he'd have to pull scalia who was hesitant to go that far as a vote which can limit how far he will go.
RustyNails
Member
Why was it banned?
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I actually know nothing about Harris. What about it concerns you?
I can't be surprised by what the Supreme Court does now. They're basically an arm of the republican party with the exception that they are pro gay rights (well, Kennedy is, but he's also the only one who matters in 95% of instances, Roberts ruling on ACA being the only other instance I can think of a different justice siding with the liberal wing)
Lucky Forward
Member
Cruz Resolution: Impeach Holder If He Doesn't Investigate IRS Scandal
Why not, it worked so well last November.
Why not, it worked so well last November.
Angry Fork
Member
I'd personally say more like a temporary Jacobin-level revolutionary terror of former oppressors. The Communist purges are different as they were on comrades under the guise of "protecting the revolution" but was just for the dictators benefit. More communists died under Stalin than fascists, nothing he did was for ''the revolution'' or public interest.
But yes there are correct, factual, moral things that shouldn't be questioned anymore. Rape is not up for debate, racism is not up for debate, sexism is not up for debate, so on and so on. There are no 'competing arguments' in favor. Anyone who wants to debate the positives of these should be ostracized in every way shape or form. If someone can't be educated or reasoned with within a certain time frame it's reasonable for them to be coerced/compelled if the end is a moral truth.
Actually I would say coercion is only reasonable if this person is in a position of power, because their opinions can negatively affect others without power. I think you're forgetting how many millions of people are living in destitute poverty or without access to healthcare due to the actions of a few governors defending private interests. It is 100% reasonable and logical to me to dispose of them for the public's benefit. Obviously this won't happen I'm just saying if there was a revolutionary atmosphere where this occurred it wouldn't be a bad thing.
The government has done this on slavery, civil rights, gay rights, labor laws, public education etc. Literally the only thing stopping businesses from employing child workers was violence, as no capitalist can be moral and competitive at the same time unless universal regulations are in place. All progressive moral forces in this country's history has required the threat of violence or actual violence. First it is forced by people from below, the state tries to repress them, then it's too much to contain and the state has to placate them by using their monopoly on violence to make things stable.
The libertarians are right in their own way to say this government 'interference' is tyranny on their businesses/personal "freedom", except I think it's a good thing because it's tyranny that benefits the majority of people who aren't these individual exploiters/backwards racist confederate types. I just think this should be extended to economic rights as well and go after all wealthy hoarders, tax evaders, speculators, etc.
I just don't think the channel should be allowed to be a news one. I feel like there should be some semblance of public interest involved in journalism where you must take it seriously enough not to be someone like Hannity.
That doesn't mean I'm anti-opinion in journalism because all of it is opinion unless you're just reporting facts of an event. Maybe the best pragmatic response would be to mandate a large ''OPINION SHOW'' bar/bulletin on the bottom of all programs that are just people spewing lies/conjecture.
These shows spend 30 seconds explaining an event that happened so they can be considered news and then the next 5 minutes explaining why Obama wants to enact sharia law and nobody bats an eyelid at the fact that they're not connected at all, but stupid viewers will take it as gospel.
I do agree with the guy who said maybe the viewers will believe what they want to believe and they look to fox news to validate their own stuff but I don't think that's reason not to try to push in the other direction to sanity.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think provable, purposeful lies should be protected as free speech or free press in any situation, but I don't think regulation would solve anything.
Fox News can do plenty of harm even with regulations like that. You would probably barely be able to tell the difference. Most of what people say on Fox News and other networks isn't fabricated, it's just distorted, and I don't see any way you can regulate what's distorted or not without massive infringements on the freedom of speech.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know there's not going to be a satisfactory one to be found in changing conservative media from the inside.
Fox News can do plenty of harm even with regulations like that. You would probably barely be able to tell the difference. Most of what people say on Fox News and other networks isn't fabricated, it's just distorted, and I don't see any way you can regulate what's distorted or not without massive infringements on the freedom of speech.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know there's not going to be a satisfactory one to be found in changing conservative media from the inside.
The solution would be to fundraise land-buying to increase the radius around the clinic that's private property.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked