F for First Amendment - Page 3

bernie · #21 05-30-2005, 05:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In North Korea, citizens don't have access to the internet or even to outside news media. No CNN. No nothing, except North Korean government news.

In Myanmar, owning a modem without government permission is (or was, I read this more than a year or two ago) a capital offense.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was not disagreeing.

Mine was not a post about the plight of freedom in autocratic or dictatorial regimes. This was supposed to be a thread about the assault on free speech currently perpetrated in the United States - ostensibly the paladin of those freedoms, "home and abroad".

But this thread is already been hijacked by arguments like "The others are doing worse". Same old, same old.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because others do worse, doesn't mean that ours can't be better.

b

bernie · #22 05-30-2005, 05:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? You have complete freedom of speech on the radio providing you are the CEO of ClearChannel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or a 'beloved' daytime tv talkshow host.

b

ACPlayer · #23 05-30-2005, 11:56 PM

Umm, can you say baloney.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Pakistan all good friends getting support, money, munitions. We have warmer words for our dictator friends then for some democratic nations. The current policy is simple, if you agree with us you can be friends if you dont bug off.

ACPlayer · #24 05-31-2005, 12:23 AM

Considering relative performance is the only good way we have of measuring such things, I can't imagine why that might be.

I can see different people having different standards for right and wrong. But are you saying that you have no principles and can only measure or argue about things relative to others behaviours? Are you saying that the best we can do is to be just a little bit better than the next nutjob?

Try a little more imagining!

jaxmike · #25 05-31-2005, 11:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Except for some of the fallout from the J Jackson boob incident as far as some media is concerned. TV and Radio, that is. It's not quite as free as it once was. It's turning into a joke to some degree.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. Are you actually trying to make the assertion that TV and Radio are LESS free than they were 20 years ago?

bernie · #26 05-31-2005, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Except for some of the fallout from the J Jackson boob incident as far as some media is concerned. TV and Radio, that is. It's not quite as free as it once was. It's turning into a joke to some degree.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. Are you actually trying to make the assertion that TV and Radio are LESS free than they were 20 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

less free than they were 2 or 3 years ago.

b

jaxmike · #27 06-01-2005, 10:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Except for some of the fallout from the J Jackson boob incident as far as some media is concerned. TV and Radio, that is. It's not quite as free as it once was. It's turning into a joke to some degree.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. Are you actually trying to make the assertion that TV and Radio are LESS free than they were 20 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

less free than they were 2 or 3 years ago.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if they had been more responsible with the airwaves that belong to you and I, then they wouldn't have had to have been reigned in somewhat.

superleeds · #28 06-01-2005, 10:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Considering relative performance is the only good way we have of measuring such things

[/ QUOTE ]

Historical performance is another good way

bernie · #29 06-01-2005, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Except for some of the fallout from the J Jackson boob incident as far as some media is concerned. TV and Radio, that is. It's not quite as free as it once was. It's turning into a joke to some degree.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. Are you actually trying to make the assertion that TV and Radio are LESS free than they were 20 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

less free than they were 2 or 3 years ago.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if they had been more responsible with the airwaves that belong to you and I, then they wouldn't have had to have been reigned in somewhat.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean as opposed to the moronic people who can't seem to find the dial to turn on a tv or radio much less an off switch? Let's put the responsibility where it belongs.

Perhaps if they held everyone in the media to the same guidelines I wouldn't mind it as much. Unfortunately, they don't.

b

RR12 · #30 06-01-2005, 03:17 PM

I always wonder why people act like democracy is only politicians doing what the people want. True this is part of the reason for representation, but cant one argue that democracy is also the right of the individual to elect person whom they believe are more qualified to make major decsions on policy and direction then themselves, the comman man. Am I wrong to have faith that there are people smarter, more informed, and quite frankly more quailified to make policy than me? Isn't my check in democracy to get a vote every 2,4 or 6 years upon reviewing the job my offical did. I guess it seems to me that the majority of the people in this country complain about everything, yet a disgusting minority actually take the five minutes to vote. I vote and I exercise my part in democracy to put someone in office to do a job, not always to do what I think is right at the time.