Posted on 05/21/2019 3:14:40 PM PDT by aimhigh
So basically you want to use the force of the government to compel private businesses to support political speech with with they disagree.
But I am now convinced that we cannot continue as a free society if only one side of the political divide has access to the public while the other side does not.
There's nothing stopping anyone from building their own chain of movie theaters to show whatever they want to show. That's the free market. Government compelling political speech is no different than government censoring speech.
"Some of this Court’s leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.”--John Roberts, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006)
So if one was to cross the border with a hundred copies on DVD would they be arrested?
I know it’s Canada, but if the media won’t play by the first amendment, they shouldn’t get the first amendment either.
Free speech is only for Leftists and the NWO agenda.
L8r
Do they have Christians in Canada?
They did.
However the country went after the churches on behalf of the tribes.
What cowards the Canadians are.
There should not be any company that controls more than 40% of the market. I know they do but it puts your liberty at risk when it happens.
This is one way. Another is the way the mega banks are now refusing to do business with Conservative individuals. This is the result of having monopolies in businesses.
And when industries are protected and controlled by government regulation it is not possible to just "start your own."
Censored.
We don’t wanna hear it.
Canadians are unable to make up their own minds.
What do you think is more dangerous. A theater owner being allowed to decide which movies to screen or the government telling the theater which movies they have to show?
Don’t forget, there are literally dozens of movies any given owner chooses not to show each week.
I understand how you are trying to characterize it. People always try to present their opposition in the worst possible light rather than to make any effort to address their points.
Suppose a private company controls water and refuses to allow their political opposition to have any. The government forces them to apply equal access. Is this forcing them to support political speech with which they disagree?
Access to the public is *necessary* for freedom of speech to exist. When these companies deliberately work their way into controlling the pipeline to the public, they are trying to corner a resource that no one should be allowed to control.
In the last year or so I have come to regard the communications pipeline as an absolutely critical piece of the infrastructure that allows our system of governance to exist. My position is that "communications" must be regarded as a special case. It is effectively water for a political entity, and without it they can neither grow nor even survive.
I now believe that communications systems which carry significant levels of traffic cannot be allowed to be restricted on the basis of political views. I see no other way for the continuation of our system than by insuring equal access to all opinions.
There's nothing stopping anyone from building their own chain of movie theaters to show whatever they want to show.
This statement is self refuting. We aren't talking about an underground newspaper here, where all you need is a mimeograph machine and a creative imagination. The resources to do what you suggest are way beyond the reach of the vast majority of people in the US or Canada.
That's the free market. Government compelling political speech is no different than government censoring speech.
Refusing to tolerate censorship is not the equivalent of compelling speech. A government that makes no requirements as to content, but prevents anyone else from excluding content is not "censoring" anything. They are prohibiting censoring.
I admit this is far more problematic than multi-million user or multi-billion user internet communications forums, but I think in the case of monopoly control over all movie screens, there is a legitimate case for government intervention if a movie is being censored strictly because of political opinion.
Don’t forget, there are literally dozens of movies any given owner chooses not to show each week.
Yes, i'm well aware of that and these are legitimate business decisions and the companies in business to show movies should be free to exercise discretion.
But what do you do when something that might greatly serve the public interest is being deliberately excluded because it is contrary to the politics of the people controlling access?
For movies we should probably just let it go and find a workaround, but for mass communications systems such as internet or television, we should demand equal access for all.
I agree with you. When a business controls 80+% of the market, it essentially a public utility. When a monopoly becomes a representative of one political party, then that is a sign they are being propped up by the government.
Canadians just need to wake up to the fact that not everyone will be nice and polite the way they were taught to be. They are complacent and have no idea how quickly a country can turn into a totalitarian nightmare when the citizens aren’t vigilant.
Canadians just need to wake up to the fact that not everyone will be nice and polite the way they were taught to be. They are complacent and have no idea how quickly a country can turn into a totalitarian nightmare when the citizens aren’t vigilant.
Thanks, guys. It’s always nice to know that a coward like me has the backing of my American FRiends like you.
Crap like this, and you wonder why so many nations distrust you? Wow, just wow.
I’ll ask my (evidently non-Christian) priest to add a prayer. After we pay more tribute to the indians.
Wow.
If it’s clearly in the public interest but the public isn’t willing or able to pay for it then our legislature should tax us and appropriate the money for a federal movie theatre. At least then the cost would be borne buy the public that benefits, not the private theater owner.
“you get the idea that the GOVERNMENT was involved in the banning, which would be horrendous.”
Very rarely it isn’t, especially in Ontario and Quebec.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.