›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Why do Democrats not like Freedom of Speech?

HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
edited August 2008 in Flamewars
Democrats are more supportive of government involvement in the airwaves than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats favor it, and only 26% are opposed. Republicans and unaffiliated voters are fairly evenly divided.

Even Democrats say hands-off the Internet though but by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.

Only 45% of Americans say they are following recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine even somewhat closely, while 15% say they are not following the story at all.
47% Favor Government Mandated Political Balance on Radio, TV Full details require membership

Comments

  • KieyKiey
    I think this is mostly a sort of backlash to how biased news and political shows are. It doesn't seem like there is any unbiased things anymore.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    I wouldn't say that requiring a fairness in representation of political opposing viewpoints is any cut in freedom of speech. I would rather say that not having that is cutting down the freedom of speech of underrepresented viewpoints. The problem is if a station is required to have a liberal show for every conservative show or if for every conservative station there should be liberal station.
  • NeitoNeito
    Why are republicans not in favor of not reducing complex issues into talking points?
  • jccjcc
    edited August 2008
    I am a bear. Please do not feed me.
    I'd say the larger problem is that due to the nature of the industry, the opinions expressed on the air must be profitable ones. Unlike making a pamphlet, which requires no license and maybe a few thousand dollars at most to produce and mail in a noticeable quantity, or having a podcast, which probably costs about the same amount, (or having a blog, which is practically free), creating and running a radio station is very expensive, and also requires a license which must be continually renewed.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • J.SharpJ.Sharp
    Why are republicans not in favor of not reducing complex issues into talking points?
    Details are annoying and don't necessarily fit in with one's preconceived world view. Blanket statements based of the most shallow interpretations of complex events, generated and then forwarded around the internet/ Fox News community by partisan hacks are clearly preferable.
  • ColdfireSergeColdfireSerge
    Because Democrats are by definition in favor of larger government?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Because Democrats are by definition in favor of larger government?
    GWB increased the size of government way more than Clinton did. It's those pesky facts. They have a well-known liberal bias.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    I don't really see the terrible repercussions of having a large government as long as the right to privacy and the freedom of expression stay intact.
  • SchnevetsSchnevets
    When I think of this bill, all I could think of is that epitome of fair and balanced media: Hannity & Colmes, starring a neo-con and a liberal who literally looks like a puppet:
    image

    This bill clearly hasn't been thought out at all. Although don't think I'm advocating this sort of thing, wouldn't it make a lot more sense for pundits to read an unaffiliated version of the story before they voice their opinion, rather than have the government whine about what is liberally biased and what is conservatively biased?
  • HankHank
    It doesn't seem like there is any unbiased things anymore.
    This may be so, but why does it then require government intervention? Dictating media content is clearly a bad idea, especially in the name of something as squishy as "fairness".
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    edited August 2008
    You should watch Outfoxed, Cowdog.

    Since only a minority of people will be able to experience current important events, the rest will have to rely on the media to get a view of what is actually happening in the world. This requires correct reporting and neutrality. But the media is also a platform to exercise freedom of speech. Only the minority of people who try to express an opinion will do so with a neutral agenda behind them. The only possibility to keep a neutrality of the media in this will be to have equal time given to opposing standpoints.

    Unfortunately, this has been neglected lately in the last decade or so, intentionally or otherwise.

    The U.S. government will not dictate content itself but equal time for opposing viewpoints, generally liberal and conservative.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • HankHank
    edited August 2008
    You should watchOutfoxed, Cowdog.
    I don't view a film from MoveOn.org as something likely to be even handed, and I am a left-leaning person with libertarian tendencies.

    The message of Outfoxed is that FoxNews is not conducting itself in the best traditions of journalism. Nobody with any ability to think critically would say that Fox is any sort of journalistic outlet: what of it? They are a private company, who should have the same freedom to say what they want on their dime. If the majority of a society cannot be troubled to use their brain when listening to whichever blowhard is currently on TV or the radio, it deserves the consequences.

    A desire for evenhandedness does not justify bringing the government in to force "equal time", however that is defined. It is a recipe for disaster. Who decides what "equal time" will be? Who decides if a piece counts as "liberal" or "conservative"? Do we have another board? Who fills it? How does it enforce its edicts? What recourse would an outlet have against their rulings?

    Forcing a private media outlet, especially a source of political commentary, to change their content for "equal time" (or any other reason) is dictating content, works against liberty, and is guaranteed to be abused.
    Post edited by Hank on
  • AndrewAndrew
    Forcing a private media outlet, especially a source of political commentary, to change their content for "equal time" (or any other reason)isdictating content, works against liberty, and is guaranteed to be abused.
    Quoted for truth.
  • jccjcc
    edited August 2008
    I am a bear. Please do not feed me.
    The broadcast media is very centralized, with high barriers to entry. This makes it possible for a small number of people to give the impression that their views represent the views of a far larger majority, if they so choose.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • raquorraquor
    Forcing a private media outlet, especially a source of political commentary, to change their content for "equal time" (or any other reason)isdictating content, works against liberty, and is guaranteed to be abused.
    Quoted for truth.
    I'm with Andrew and Cowdog, it's like wishing that people couldnt stand on the corner by the bus stop and "preach" their religion. It'd be refreshing for some but encroaching on the rights of the "preachers". Ultimately this is a bad idea that would most certainly wind up being abused.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited August 2008
    The broadcast media is very centralized, with high barriers to entry. This makes it possible for a small number of people to give the impression that their views represent the views of a far larger majority, if they so choose.
    This statement is no longer valid. The internet makes such impressions transparent and flimsy.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • JasonJason
    The broadcast media is very centralized, with high barriers to entry. This makes it possible for a small number of people to give the impression that their views represent the views of a far larger majority, if they so choose.
    This statement is no longer valid. The internet thousands of newspapers and magazines operating for decades make such impressions transparent and flimsy.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Don't listen to Jason, he is part of the biased "old media". Besides, who reads local newspapers or magazines anyways?
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The broadcast media is very centralized, with high barriers to entry. This makes it possible for a small number of people to give the impression that their views represent the views of a far larger majority, if they so choose.
    This statement is no longer valid. Theinternetthousands of newspapers and magazines operating for decadesmake such impressions transparent and flimsy.
    He did say broadcast media.
  • JasonJason
    edited August 2008
    He did saybroadcast media.
    Yes, and then he said it "makes it possible for a small number of people to give the impression that their views represent the views of a far larger majority," which is bunk because BROADCAST MEDIA DOES NOT OPERATE IN A VACUUM. That's like saying that the US gives the impression that its views are the views of the rest of the world. It might be the most influential and richest country, but it's impossible for an intelligent person to ignore all of the smaller countries in the world.

    Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you. No we don't.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited August 2008
    Forcing a private media outlet, especially a source of political commentary, to change their content for "equal time" (or any other reason)isdictating content, works against liberty, and is guaranteed to be abused.
    Quoted for truth.
    See, that's kind of the point. If you own a newspaper or magazine, it's yours. Do what you want with it. If you own a radio station, you use the public airwaves. That means you can be regulated. If Congress decides to regulate you by a fairness doctrine, then you either comply or get into another business.

    It's moot anyway. I'm becoming more and more convinced everyday that the Democrats in Congress lack a collective spine.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • JasonJason
    edited August 2008
    There we go again, though, excusing the ridiculous censorship (or proposed censorship) of broadcast media by saying the airwaves are public. Fine. They're public -- that means the government should be able to regulate the USE of the airwaves, but not the CONTENT. Haven't we had this is-the-FCC-full-of-wank argument, like, 20 times now?
    Post edited by Jason on
  • ......
    It might be the most influential and richest country
    Loudest and bankrupt you mean. =___= Seriously, the US is a black hole when it comes to money. I can't wait till Obama sits in the White House so he can try and borrow less and less each year from the rest of the world.
  • JasonJason
    Loudest and bankrupt you mean. =___= Seriously, the US is a black hole when it comes to money. I can't wait till Obama sits in the White House so he can try and borrow less and less each year from the rest of the world.
    Awwww, are you sad because we cut back on foreign aid contributions to your country this year? Awwww.
  • ......
    Awwww, are you sad because we cut back on foreign aid contributions to your countrythis year? Awwww.
    Not at all. You see, we as citizens don't notice a thing because our system works to some extent. It does allow for speculation about the US just having no money left to do anything really. And the same article shows, with it's graphs, that the US also cares less about following through on its promises and instead prefers to look good with said promises in the short term. Okay? n.n
Sign In or Register to comment.