General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

77. I'm all for a benevolent Recursionogarchy

Reply to octothorpe (Reply #75)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:39 AM

Apr 2013

That's the problem, n'est-ce pas?

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