The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Continued....avatar did then I don't know what to say.

 

[PapaG]

Wow, I'm surprised this was difficult to understand.

Denny and PapaG were going all "it's the 1st amendment...", and Eastoff apparently wanted to try to show that "freedom of speech" isn't all inclusive, that some speech is actually regulated. First he went with the old "fire in a crowded theater" standby, and then used obviously inaccurate, inflammatory statements to simulate libel. He clearly (by my view, at least) wasn't intending to legitimately claim that PapaG and Denny engage in criminal activities; he just intended to illustrate that speech that did intend such a thing would be actionable under the law.

He could have explained his odd point of raising pedophilia in the aftermath. Instead, he made the post, then hasn't posted since making those personal attacks. That's cowardly, IMO.

 

[PapaG]

I understand that people with disabilities don't like being called retarded. His post was more retarded than anything I've read here in...well, I did just read a thread about trading Lillard.

The analogy was pure stupidity and if you don't think the PapaG reference wasn't really an intentional act intended to strike the same nerve the Lupus and gun Hi PapaG avatar

I've already been in the heads of barfo and NB3 in terms of them dedicating their avatars to me. Looks like westnob/eastoff joins the club by going fully in on the pedophilia smears. I'd like him to explain himself, if not now on the board, but during the MGB dinner on March 4th.

 

[PapaG]

Why did my signature get deleted? The one where eastoff called me and Denny pedophiles? Selective moderation is bullshit. Let us self-govern the board via personal attacks on on signatures.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Explain what the fuck this is.........

Missed one........no they didn't. It showed up on my screen but not the post. I saved it anyway

 

[PapaG]

No that I come across as crazy, let me at least point out that Westnob/eastoff smeared bot myself and Denny Crane as being pedophiles. I find this to be disgusting, and the mods trying to sweep it into oblivion isn't helping. Let him own it. Otherwise, you're just escalating personal insults. If you erase those perverted smears, and expect posters to just forget them, well, that's not going to happen.

 

[jlprk]

What's so hard to "get"? This explains it just fine.

Wow, I'm surprised this was difficult to understand.

Denny and PapaG were going all "it's the 1st amendment...", and Eastoff apparently wanted to try to show that "freedom of speech" isn't all inclusive, that some speech is actually regulated. First he went with the old "fire in a crowded theater" standby, and then used obviously inaccurate, inflammatory statements to simulate libel. He clearly (by my view, at least) wasn't intending to legitimately claim that PapaG and Denny engage in criminal activities; he just intended to illustrate that speech that did intend such a thing would be actionable under the law.

Eastoff could have saved himself a suspension by explaining his point. He has disappeared.

 

[jlprk]

The Fairness Doctrine was voluntary and practically never enforced by the government. It worked fine as a philosophy. No one was ever punished.

It was created to silence the majority of Americans who were on the left in 1949. They had been long since silenced by the time Reagan got rid of it, to allow conservative bias. That's when talk radio turned right-wing.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

He could have explained his odd point of raising pedophilia in the aftermath. Instead, he made the post, then hasn't posted since making those personal attacks. That's cowardly, IMO.

No argument here. While I thought the intent was clear, it obviously wasn't clear to everyone, so if my interpretation was accurate, Eastoff has a responsibility to ensure that that intent was fully understood by all. Not doing so is a severe disservice, both to himself and the two of you.

 

[Denny Crane]

I took no offense, but it was out of nowhere.

There's a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Speech isn't regulated, but if you do slander someone in the press or otherwise, you can be sued.

I also don't think PapaG and I came to be opposed to this almost breach of civil rights by the government for the same reasons.

 

[maxiep]

Regardless of one's political philosophy, does anyone think that this kind of intrusion by the FCC was a good idea? Even the FCC has backed off.

Good to hear.

 

[Eastoff]

Explain what the fuck this is.........

This was a bad example of why we have restrictions on freedom of speech. Why we need to regulate things. I do not believe any of the things I said. But I was trying to make a point that sometimes you cannot blindly follow the constitution.

 

[Denny Crane]

This was a bad example of why we have restrictions on freedom of speech. Why we need to regulate things. I do not believe any of the things I said. But I was trying to make a point that sometimes you cannot blindly follow the constitution.

But there aren't restrictions on freedom of speech.

You were able to say what you did. Nobody regulated against it, fined you, came to your house to arrest you, etc.

 

[Eastoff]

I took no offense, but it was out of nowhere.

There's a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Speech isn't regulated, but if you do slander someone in the press or otherwise, you can be sued.

I also don't think PapaG and I came to be opposed to this almost breach of civil rights by the government for the same reasons.

Do they make a distinction in the Constitution you were quoting as the word of god? That is my only point. I choose a poor method to illustrate my point, but at least someone understood it. You cannot pick and choose when it's okay to supersede the constitution or not.

 

[Eastoff]

He could have explained his odd point of raising pedophilia in the aftermath. Instead, he made the post, then hasn't posted since making those personal attacks. That's cowardly, IMO.

I am truly sorry if I offended you or you thought I was being serious. I was angry at you and Denny, but I did not mean for anyone to take my words as truth. I was trying to illustrate a point, which luckily Platypus was able to interpret.

Oh and I didn't follow it up because I rarely post when I'm not at work.

 

[Denny Crane]

Do they make a distinction in the Constitution you were quoting as the word of god? That is my only point. I choose a poor method to illustrate my point, but at least someone understood it. You cannot pick and choose when it's okay to supersede the constitution or not.

I get it. But you see, you are allowed to own a gun per 2nd amendment, but you're not allowed to indiscriminately kill with it (or with an axe). You are allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater - nobody can stop you from doing that - but if you cause a panic and people get hurt, then you are responsible for the injuries.

With freedoms come responsibilities and consequences.

Who is picking and choosing about superseding the constitution? Not me.

They should regulate everything, including axes! Oh wait, they don't. Seems someone is picking and choosing what to regulate.

 

[Eastoff]

I get it. But you see, you are allowed to own a gun per 2nd amendment, but you're not allowed to indiscriminately kill with it (or with an axe). You are allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater - nobody can stop you from doing that - but if you cause a panic and people get hurt, then you are responsible for the injuries.

Who is picking and choosing about superseding the constitution? Not me.

They should regulate everything, including axes! Oh wait, they don't. Seems someone is picking and choosing what to regulate.

Well simply by charging someone with injuries after yelling fire, clearly is regulating it. You are not truly free if you are penalized by those actions. That's like saying "In Russia you are free to protest, but you have to protest in a specific spot, and you have to get the government's approval."

 

[Denny Crane]

Well simply by charging someone with injuries after yelling fire, clearly is regulating it. You are not truly free if you are penalized by those actions. That's like saying "In Russia you are free to protest, but you have to protest in a specific spot, and you have to get the government's approval."

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Charging someone with injuries is charging someone with injuries. They're not being charged with saying something unpopular nor do they need pre-approval by the government. The pre-approval thing is what this bad idea was all about - through intimidation at the very least.

 

[PapaG]

I am truly sorry if I offended you or you thought I was being serious. I was angry at you and Denny, but I did not mean for anyone to take my words as truth. I was trying to illustrate a point, which luckily Platypus was able to interpret.

Oh and I didn't follow it up because I rarely post when I'm not at work.

"I'm sorry for calling you a pedophile." Something you can't take things back, even if you're "kidding." Disgusting. You should have been suspended, IMO.

 

[Eastoff]

"I'm sorry for calling you a pedophile." Something you can't take things back, even if you're "kidding." Disgusting. You should have been suspended, IMO.

Very well, I will suspend myself; how long do you want me suspended and not posting?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Very well, I will suspend myself; how long do you want me suspended and not posting?

Last weekend.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

This was a bad example of why we have restrictions on freedom of speech. Why we need to regulate things. I do not believe any of the things I said. But I was trying to make a point that sometimes you cannot blindly follow the constitution.

It didn't seem to me to have anything to do with it. The FCC wanted to interfere with the press. It wouldn't be like YOU calling someone a pedophile, it would be like Obama (he is the president in this example) saying that Maddow can call Chris Christie a pedophile but Hannity can't call Biden one.

I got the fire in a theater thing because it is a common cliche. The rest of it just threw me off.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

We should always follow the constitution. If we change the constitition to make it legal for me to do whatever I want whenever I want then tough shit for everyone else.

 

[MARIS61]

The Fairness Doctrine was a rousing success for free speech and more importantly free hearing, despite the rewriting of history that the article presents. When Reagan basically threw it out is when this country's media morphed into a useless battle of government/corporate controlled political propaganda and stopped covering real news.