General Discussion

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)

70. Yes it is the best of ways

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:15 AM

Apr 2013

As the vast population in the center listens to this stuff, they reject it.

If you look around the world at all the "controlled" societies, they seem to breed extremism. In our society, our nutcases tend to expose themselves for precisely what they are. This breeds moderation and reason in the majority of the population.

This is no longer just a theory. Hundreds of years of history have shown that an open society slowly changes for the better, and it does so by placing the onus on each individual to decide for him/herself.

It is not perfect and it will always be somewhat unpleasant at times, but it does seem to work.

Also, any belief in humanism has to rest on the belief that the average person is capable of being morally just and reasonable. Those who claim that we need restrictions on free speech because it will corrupt the minds of the clueless masses are really on the side of totalitarianism, although they rarely realize it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I believe in free speech and all, BUT ... there really should be, somehow, a [View all] RKP5637 Apr 2013 OP

It seems that the hate mongers feel that free speech only avebury Apr 2013 #1

There are MANY laws regarding "free speech." Atman Apr 2013 #13

Actually, in the Heller case, every one of the Justices acknowledged that firearms can be regulated. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #64

"Congress shall make no Law....." brooklynite Apr 2013 #2

That might be, but that works both ways and can enable the destruction of the society we enjoy. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #3

Would you have accepted restrictions on criticism of GWB during the Iraq War? brooklynite Apr 2013 #44

I do agree ... it would be hard if not really impossible to "codify into an acceptable law." It RKP5637 Apr 2013 #46

There SHOULD be, and the only way, due to the Constitution, elleng Apr 2013 #4

Yes, that is an excellent link! We, can escape it, but for many it's not that easy ... so, they get RKP5637 Apr 2013 #11

hey excellent radio station, thank you!! Sunlei Apr 2013 #40

You're welcome, Sunlei. elleng Apr 2013 #43

the problem with limiting speech is that markiv Apr 2013 #5

There should be some level of control when it crosses the line ... It's not opposing anyone ... it's RKP5637 Apr 2013 #10

if lies and distortions were removed from the tv and radio markiv Apr 2013 #15

See #8. We used to have a cap (equal time, balance) that prevented this type of RKP5637 Apr 2013 #25

so they just create a straw man arguement, and knock it down markiv Apr 2013 #29

Yep, I certainly agree, as more and more people realize the source has bias, as another poster was RKP5637 Apr 2013 #33

great jack web quote from 'Dragnet' markiv Apr 2013 #47

Great quote!!! I loved that show. I still watch it on TV here and also on NetFlix. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #49

hannity had a token liberal on his tv show markiv Apr 2013 #48

Colmes? I think it was ... n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #51

I don't think Rachel Maddow should have to give half her time to opposing views. n/t Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #55

Good point! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #57

But who gets to decide what is and what isn't? Javaman Apr 2013 #38

Yep, I really do agree, it would be a horribly slippery slope. That limit would be twisted and RKP5637 Apr 2013 #41

Free speech is NOT fomenting hate and violence over the public airwaves. It's just not. Zen Democrat Apr 2013 #6

Yes! That is exactly what I'm trying to say. It's the outright lies and distortions on mass media RKP5637 Apr 2013 #12

We own the airwaves, and our government should ensure that they're used responsibly MannyGoldstein Apr 2013 #7

The answer to dumbass speech is more speech. It's our only recourse. MADem Apr 2013 #8

They have cornered the market with hatred. ... as you say, equal time would certainly balance the RKP5637 Apr 2013 #14

People are turning them off in droves, though. That's the good news. MADem Apr 2013 #20

Yep, very very true. It's way better. The local radio here was so vile last night with RKP5637 Apr 2013 #30

what swing? texasmomof3 Apr 2013 #53

Welcome to DU. MADem Apr 2013 #58

Comparing which of the niche, nearly unwatched cable outlets gets more viewers is silly Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #59

classic line that cali Apr 2013 #9

And that, IMO, is a root cause ... lack of responsibility when directed toward millions. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #16

Which is why th US has the best public political discourse on the planet jberryhill Apr 2013 #17

Yes, this is quite true ... it does result in "the best public political discourse on the planet." RKP5637 Apr 2013 #39

Except in the vicinity of Occupy-Wall-St protesters in NYC and elsewhere whenever Bloomberg and AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #69

You can't do that Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #18

Yep, that is the real difficulty, WHO, is one the one that controls the RKP5637 Apr 2013 #35

Yes it is the best of ways Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #70

Well said!!! RKP5637 Apr 2013 #73

There ought to be a law... toddaa Apr 2013 #19

That would require a Ministry of Truth Recursion Apr 2013 #21

I know for a fact what one of the 'Ministry of Truth's rules would be markiv Apr 2013 #22

And that would be quite scary! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #42

I wouldn't mind that if I was put in charge of it.... octothorpe Apr 2013 #75

I'm all for a benevolent Recursionogarchy Recursion Apr 2013 #77

The republicans use the laws to their advantage. That kind of free speech would be libel and/or Sunlei Apr 2013 #23

'I have no idea how it would work' ---> BINGO markiv Apr 2013 #24

Yep! Exactly! Well said! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #36

oh dear gawd MNBrewer Apr 2013 #26

See #70. I think that sums it up rather well. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #74

I agree with you 100% madokie Apr 2013 #27

Thats why they stopped the fairness document sorefeet Apr 2013 #28

I have a defense lawyer friend that told me in law school he was taught one RKP5637 Apr 2013 #56

"I believe in free speech..." egduj Apr 2013 #31

Yep, it would have the converse effect ... and in essence a lack of free speech. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #45

our media has given up any sense of responsibility whatsoever. it's broken beyond repair. spanone Apr 2013 #32

We Need MORE Free Speech...Not Less... KharmaTrain Apr 2013 #34

Yep, this way is best! As you say, " Hate radio is a dying beast..." Public opinion is swinging the RKP5637 Apr 2013 #37

I saw a popular commentator on a major network making an obvious pitch for a nexus... slackmaster Apr 2013 #50

I guess it's that time AGAIN: "Let's discuss limitations on the First Amendment." WinkyDink Apr 2013 #52

Yeah, you're certainly right, in the big picture it would lead toward more totalitarians. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #63

+1 RZM Apr 2013 #71

So after 9-11 should there have been a crack down on those who were critical of Bush? Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #54

Yep! It's really not possible, since the basic premise would shift depending on who TPTB were ... RKP5637 Apr 2013 #61

Well, the first step toward ending speech that offends you is to stop JDPriestly Apr 2013 #60

I saved this ... excellent sources. What does bother me are those that listen to this dribble RKP5637 Apr 2013 #62

I have a friend who keeps mentioning chemtrails. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #65

Thanks!!! RKP5637 Apr 2013 #66

And the religion serves the purpose of promoting ignorance and magical thinking Arugula Latte Apr 2013 #67

Yep, to me at least, it's often commingled. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #68

I wouldn't mind having a ministry of speech to decide what is acceptable speech and what isn't octothorpe Apr 2013 #72

lol ... DU would be banned! RKP5637 Apr 2013 #76

Naaah, because I'd be in charge of it. I like DU. :P octothorpe Apr 2013 #78

That's good to hear! Thank you! RKP5637 Apr 2013 #79