Posted on 02/11/2018 6:40:12 PM PST by EdnaMode
The free speech wars are getting worse, but it seems that none of the warring factions quite grasp the character of the dispute — or precisely what's at stake.
At the figurative center of the clash is the norm of near-absolute freedom of speech and expression, which its defenders like to treat as the American default. A number of ideological challenges have arisen in recent years to overturn this norm.
On many college campuses, groups of left-leaning students insist that free speech should be conditional on speakers adhering to explicit standards of diversity and avoiding the infliction of emotional harm on the members of marginalized groups through the spreading of "hate."
From the opposite ideological direction, President Trump believes that the government should "take a strong look" at libel laws to keep news organizations from subjecting his own administration to negative coverage.
Finally, from the center-left come calls to use anti-discrimination law to punish organizations that oppose the legitimacy of same-sex marriage and accommodations for transgender people. If that happens — either by passing new laws that explicitly add to existing anti-discrimination statutes or by courts treating the members of these groups as protected classes covered by existing law — the result will almost certainly be a significant constriction of speech, as those holding more conservative views will face sanction for expressing them in public.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Start killing fascists, even if they spell fascist `antifa’.
By their fruits they have forfeited the human right to live.
I like Maple Syrup but Canada sucks in its Dominion
Not for me brothers
Only the left demands free speech for themselves. Any other group i.e conservatives are racist.And terrorists. And Nazi’s and ....
Why should a license to broadcast your opinion require millions, maybe even billions of dollars in kickbacks to government agencies? The govt, GRANTS the right to use public airways for profit TO THE FEW. That is a title, but I don’t know about nobility. I would leave that term for Liars...Lawyers...members of the BAR. Now that I think about it, it also applies to ex Presidents, ex Senators, ex Congresscritters, ex AG’s etc including Judges. Call Obama President or former President Obama, is granting a title of nobility as surely as if we called Newt Gingrich, Lord Gingrich of Georgia.
Should anyone be allowed to broadcast on any frequency, thereby making reception impossible?
I'm cool with that.
If I cannot speak or write freely what I think and believe, it’s a small step to not being allowed think what I think and believe what I believe. What opponents of the First Amendment fail to realize, or recognize, is that the rights of the Bill of Rights are not granted to us by the government, but are ours by nature as free men and women. The government is there, rather, to protect those rights. To the extent that the government pulls back on guaranteeing those rights, it is breaking its deal with the people, and the day may come when it can no longer expect our loyalty or obedience.
Unpopular free speech is EXACTLY what the 1st Amendment was meant to protect. Even the lowest slave is free to agree with his master.
EXACTLY!
Thus the saying, “While I may not agree with what you are saying, I will defend your right to say it with my life”.
Starts with a lie.
Democrats are becoming Authoritarians and Fascists
The left are Nazis who have always been the ones burning books and closing newspapers.
#14. In the Free Speech issue, “Blue” is the true “RED”.
It allows the licensee to speak in the name of the government. The phrase is, (or used to be, haven’t heard it lately) “broadcasting in the public interest as a public trustee.”Whenever you hear a “liberal” use the word “public,” the rebuttable assumption has to be that s/he actually means “government." Thomas Paine noted the phenomenon in the first two paragraphs of Common Sense
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.You and I, lacking the imprimatur of the government, cannot speak to the public in the same way - as the phrase, “Mainstream Media” should make clear.Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . .
It is however not true that the FCC was the start of the problem, which actually was precipitated by the 1844 demonstration by Samuel Morse of the Baltimore-Washington telegraph and, later in that same decade, the founding of the Associated Press. Journalism treats itself - treats the AP in particular - as “the Fourth Estate,” which is a blatant allusion to a status apart from the people. First Amendment freedom of the press is properly understood, not as the establishment of an “estate,” but rather as
the right of the people
to spend their own money
to promote their own opinions. (and conversely,
the right of the people
to spend their own money
to read whatever opinions they wanna). The FCC is simply an amplification of the propaganda power of the AP, in that the “Fairness Doctrine” concept simply dismissed opinion which was not “in the mainstream” - as defined, as a practical matter, by the AP. That is, the opinion of the AP (as expressed primarily by what the AP promoted as news, and what the AP did not treat as news) is treated by the FCC not as being an opinion but (as Rush Limbaugh puts it) simply being “what is.”
This is not a power granted the federal government under the Constitution.
(Slightly off topic: commercial general-circulation journalism follows well-known rules for commercial success. Those rules systematically cause journalism to be critical of society and, as an ineluctable result, critical of government inaction, and uncritical of government action. The consequence is the blatant (to its targets) bias against conservatism).
Once enough of us go to that great Tea Party in the Sky and Millenials control the country, the First Amendment is in some serious jeopardy.
Just sayin’.
Thanks for the ping.
Yes, isn’t that like asking if you allow more than one person to speak in the public square at a time.
Don’t you think people are smart enough to spread out their broadcasts onto open lines of communication? Like SW Radio, or CB’s? The television stations don’t really broadcast any longer, and AM and FM radio are limited by the cost of equipment, which limits extraneous noise.
I thought Free Republic was forum for Conservatives and less government. Most communication is now sent to consumers nowhere near the AM FM or analog TV spectrums of old.
I’m not sure why you say TV stations don’t broadcast anymore. There’s a lot of TV antennas for sale at Walmart. At such time as ALL radio and TV are distributed in ways other than over the air broadcasting, which I agree is coming, then I suppose licenses will no longer be required, anymore than having a website does.
I’m for less government. A lot less. I’m also in favor of government staying within its legitimate functions. Exactly what those should be are debatable, obviously. Some regulating, whether that’s deciding what side of the road to drive on, or setting the drinking age, etc. are probably going to continue.
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.