Posted on 06/01/2010 4:59:19 PM PDT by Nachum
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is being urged to monitor "hate speech" on talk radio and cable broadcast networks.
A coalition of more than 30 organizations argue in a letter to the FCC that the Internet has made it harder for the public to separate the facts from bigotry masquerading as news.
The groups also charge that syndicated radio and cable television programs "masquerading as news" use hate as a profit model.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
the Internet has made it harder for the public Obama Administration to separate the facts from bigotry promote lies masquerading as news
which 30?
I bet they are all racist and hate groups in their own right.
every single post on fr, = “crimethink”
Racism can only exist for the majority. Therefore, only whitey is prejudiced. Did you learn nothing in public screwel??
/sarc
freedom=crimethink
liberty=crimethink
government too big = crimethink.
This is about isolating individuals. The left wants people to believe they are alone, nobody thinks like free men.
Divide and conquer.
Surely you jest...Rather hates all things named Bush.
PING!
Obey the rules. /s
As I said ad nauseum, watch any shenanigans with the Internet, talk radio and conservative publications.
When this starts, simultaneously, martial law caused by a Reichstag Fire incident ain’t far behind.
The goal shall be disarming the population for “public and State safety” before completing the subjugation of all Americans.
Communists always did that, which is much easier in countries with already disarmed populations. Luckily, we’ll be a tough nut to crack and we’ll persevere.
Prayers up for all of us.
Does anyone have a list of these 30 signers and can we find out who they are and who funds them?
Beats me....but I bet they are all libs.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020450549
Here is the document.
I do not see thirty organizations in my cursory scan.
Found them: here they are...
I think I will start another thread with this infomation and see if we can split up the list and research all of them and who funds them. Good idea?
1 NATIONAL HISPANIC MEDIA COALITION (“NHMC”)
2 BENTON FOUNDATION,
3 CENTER FOR MEDIA JUSTICE,
4 CENTER FOR RURAL STRATEGIES,
5 CENTER ON LATINO AND LATINA RIGHTS AND EQUALITY OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK SCHOOL OF LAW,
6 COMMON CAUSE,
7 ESPERANZA PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER, FREE PRESS,
8 HISPANIC / LATINO, ANTI-DEFAMATION COALITION SF,
9 INDUSTRY EARS,
10 JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES,
11 LA ASAMBLEA DE DERECHOS CIVILES,
12 LEAGUE OF RURAL VOTERS,
13 LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (“LULAC”),
14 MAIN STREET PROJECT,
15 MEDIA ACTION GRASSROOTS NETWORK (“MAG-NET”),
16 MEDIA ALLIANCE,
17 MEDIA JUSTICE LEAGUE, MEDIA LITERACY PROJECT,
16 MEDIA MOBILIZING PROJECT,
19 MOUNTAIN AREA INFORMATION NETWORK,
20 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR MEDIA ARTS AND CULTURE,
21 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS (“NALIP”),
22 NOSOTROS, OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION,
23 UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC.,
24 PEOPLES PRODUCTION HOUSE,
25 PRAXIS PROJECT,
26 PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT,
27 RAINBOW PUSH COALITION,
28 RECLAIM THE MEDIA,
29 TRANSMISSION PROJECT,
30 UNITED STATES HISPANIC LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE
I think it’s way past time to start ‘policing’ the “groups” with their generic commie names like:
Center for Media Justice, Media Alliance, and the National Hispanic Media Coalition.
Oh, the courage and grant soliciting abilities of these fighters for truth, justice and the uh, uh, American Way (well, maybe they don’t claim to do that - it wouldn’t be global enough).
Here’s the thing about “net neutrality” as far as I can see. The posters who say it pertains to bits, bytes and packets and not to types of speech are only partially correct.
Net neutrality is a lot like health care reform and the Internet Service Providers are a lot like Health Insurance companies. In both cases, the private entities have invested their capital and in their ideal world (silly them) they would get to set their rates for their products and govern how their products are used.
To cite a couple of simple examples a health insurer would like to exclude pre-existing conditions, or an internet service provider would like to prevent some customer from downloading pirated movies all day long insofar as it consumes bandwidth for others.
But in both cases, the govt wants to say “No Health Insurance Company, we get to say who you can insure and who you can’t insure” and “No ISP, we get to say what bytes you can regulated i.e. none”.
The end result, if taken out to infinity is that both industries become non-viable which is precisely the endgame. The Health Insurance industry goes broke because they are forced to violate sound actuarial practices. The ISP goes broke because a few mega-users consume all the bandwidth for more normal users and slapping higher fees on everyone, just to cover the few abusers, is not economically sound.
So carry this one step further and the govt is forced to step in and on the one hand be the health insurance provider of last resort and on the other hand be the ISP of last resort.
Then of course, once that happens, the govt can do what they please, which was always the intent. Up to and including regulating types of speech.
Yes...great idea.
"Begrudging the unemployed"
Nearly one-half of Senate Republicans voted no on what should have been easy and obvious support for workers during such bleak economic times. Cynthia Moothart writes in the April 1 issue of Progressive Populist.
BINGO!
It is going to be interesting to ferret these clowns out.
Here is the List of Thirty Groups that are Petitioning the FCC to Remove Your Freedom of Speech
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2526455/posts?page=19
Here is the research project on who are these people and why do they want to shut you up.
What do you think it means lewis?
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.