In what way do you want free speech regulated?

[Dr.Drock]

1.) The $354 million dollar FCC (that's a 1 year budget btw) in order to regulate every word in every version of media to make sure we don't have too naughty of words or too much of someone's bottom showing.

2.) The Fairness Doctrine, which tells media outlets what hosts to have on and what shows to play.

3.) Have Congress pass laws that makes unpopular speech illegal, such as the Westboro chants, Muslim speeches by certain individuals, KKK parades etc.


Do you approve of any of these 3 items? None? Another item I didn't list?

 

[Mini 14]

1.) The $354 million dollar FCC (that's a 1 year budget btw) in order to regulate every word in every version of media to make sure we don't have too naughty of words or too much of someone's bottom showing.

2.) The Fairness Doctrine, which tells media outlets what hosts to have on and what shows to play.

3.) Have Congress pass laws that makes unpopular speech illegal, such as the Westboro chants, Muslim speeches by certain individuals, KKK parades etc.


Do you approve of any of these 3 items? None? Another item I didn't list?

None of the above.

 

[signelect]

Free speech from you ends at my nose, when you come to me to tell voice your view which is different from mine you run the risk of my taking some type of action. Westboro made accusation about the solider that were not supported by any evidence, this is not free speech it is slander and not protected.. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[VaYank5150]

The Westboro protests at military funerals should be stopped. If the government won't do it, I hope American citizens are not held responsible for taking matters into their own hands to stop them.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sig, today's internet tough guy, wants hate speech regulated. I assume you want all hate speech regulated in terms of people hating soldiers, or hating gays, or hating muslims, or hating christians, etc etc etc. How much US taxpayer dollars should be committed to creating a new agency that regulates and defines what speech should be illegal and how long of prison terms and what size fines are handed out?

Vayank is hoping for violence and for government to allow this. Let's just let a 2 mobs fight it out in the streets, that sounds rational.

 

[bucs90]

Heard a good theory on this. From a friend of mine.

He said leave it to states to be able to pass a law banning any speech that "Intentionally attempts to provoke an emotional response from a targeted private group". So just walking around in public saying "God sucks" wouldn't be it. Targeting a funeral would. Targeting government action isn't a private group, thus, it is allowed.

BUT he added if it was his law, he'd also include: The charges is NOT jailable. Therefore, only a ticket could be issued, no jail at all on scene. Second, the charge would carry a mandatory jury trial. Thus, only a group of peers could determine if the speech was bad enough. I think Westboro would get convicted. The Tea Party or Union protestors would have almost no chance of being convicted by a jury of that type of speech, and both were targeting government, not a private group.

Anyway, his idea had some problems, but I thought it was a good starting point. Not a jailable offense, mandatory jury trial, only for targeted private groups or locations. Not a bad start.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The first, best and indeed ONLY answer to "bad" speech is, MORE SPEECH. Never, ever less.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Heard a good theory on this. From a friend of mine.

He said leave it to states to be able to pass a law banning any speech that "Intentionally attempts to provoke an emotional response from a targeted private group". So just walking around in public saying "God sucks" wouldn't be it. Targeting a funeral would. Targeting government action isn't a private group, thus, it is allowed.

BUT he added if it was his law, he'd also include: The charges is NOT jailable. Therefore, only a ticket could be issued, no jail at all on scene. Second, the charge would carry a mandatory jury trial. Thus, only a group of peers could determine if the speech was bad enough. I think Westboro would get convicted. The Tea Party or Union protestors would have almost no chance of being convicted by a jury of that type of speech, and both were targeting government, not a private group.

Anyway, his idea had some problems, but I thought it was a good starting point. Not a jailable offense, mandatory jury trial, only for targeted private groups or locations. Not a bad start.

That sounds like a slippier slope than a ski hill.

Couldn't a guy who beats his wife say he did it because the things she said caused him to do it?

This is what happens when people ask for more government and more regulation, never works out well for the taxpayers.

 

[Two Thumbs]

1.) The $354 million dollar FCC (that's a 1 year budget btw) in order to regulate every word in every version of media to make sure we don't have too naughty of words or too much of someone's bottom showing.

2.) The Fairness Doctrine, which tells media outlets what hosts to have on and what shows to play.

3.) Have Congress pass laws that makes unpopular speech illegal, such as the Westboro chants, Muslim speeches by certain individuals, KKK parades etc.


Do you approve of any of these 3 items? None? Another item I didn't list?

#2 is liberals trying to kill conservative media. Anyone says otherwise is lying or just ignorant.

#1 and 3) Sadly such groups won't self regulate. Individuals used to have to self regualte b/c there were consequences to going to far. "You have offended my honor!! It's pistols at dawn." So if you went into the media, you either knew how to fight or you were carefull about what you said. We have laws against defending your honor now, so now we end up with laws that regualate speech.

 

[Dr.Drock]

1.) The $354 million dollar FCC (that's a 1 year budget btw) in order to regulate every word in every version of media to make sure we don't have too naughty of words or too much of someone's bottom showing.

2.) The Fairness Doctrine, which tells media outlets what hosts to have on and what shows to play.

3.) Have Congress pass laws that makes unpopular speech illegal, such as the Westboro chants, Muslim speeches by certain individuals, KKK parades etc.


Do you approve of any of these 3 items? None? Another item I didn't list?

#2 is liberals trying to kill conservative media. Anyone says otherwise is lying or just ignorant.

#1 and 3) Sadly such groups won't self regulate. Individuals used to have to self regualte b/c there were consequences to going to far. "You have offended my honor!! It's pistols at dawn." So if you went into the media, you either knew how to fight or you were carefull about what you said. We have laws against defending your honor now, so now we end up with laws that regualate speech.

I'd rather use my remote to "defend my honor" or my dollar bill to choose which paper I buy, or use my dial to control which radio station I have on.

Those all sound like better ideas to me as a loony fiscal conservative than dumping $354 million taxpayer dollars into it.

 

[rightwinger]

I think that idiot who was sitting behind me in the movies last night should be forced to shut up. And that goes for phones too

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I think that idiot who was sitting behind me in the movies last night should be forced to shut up. And that goes for phones too

That's not a "free speech" issue, but here's a free market answer to that: Don't patronize public movie theaters. If you do and have this issue, walk out and demand a refund, then leave the facility.

I haven't been in a theater for years, there's nothing there I don't have at home including the dazzling big screen, the awesome Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, the popcorn, whatever.

Plus, I can smoke and drink beer during the movie if I want, and pause it when I need to make a head call. I can rewind, fast forward, whatever.

No one, ever, should be "forced to shut up."

 

[Dr.Drock]

I think that idiot who was sitting behind me in the movies last night should be forced to shut up. And that goes for phones too

That's not a "free speech" issue, but here's a free market answer to that: Don't patronize public movie theaters. If you do and have this issue, walk out and demand a refund, then leave the facility.

I haven't been in a theater for years, there's nothing there I don't have at home including the dazzling big screen, the awesome Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, the popcorn, whatever.

Plus, I can smoke and drink beer during the movie if I want, and pause it when I need to make a head call. I can rewind, fast forward, whatever.

No one, ever, should be "forced to shut up."

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I think that idiot who was sitting behind me in the movies last night should be forced to shut up. And that goes for phones too

That's not a "free speech" issue, but here's a free market answer to that: Don't patronize public movie theaters. If you do and have this issue, walk out and demand a refund, then leave the facility.

I haven't been in a theater for years, there's nothing there I don't have at home including the dazzling big screen, the awesome Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, the popcorn, whatever.

Plus, I can smoke and drink beer during the movie if I want, and pause it when I need to make a head call. I can rewind, fast forward, whatever.

No one, ever, should be "forced to shut up."

I think he was being sarcastic.

Me too.

 

[Two Thumbs]

1.) The $354 million dollar FCC (that's a 1 year budget btw) in order to regulate every word in every version of media to make sure we don't have too naughty of words or too much of someone's bottom showing.

2.) The Fairness Doctrine, which tells media outlets what hosts to have on and what shows to play.

3.) Have Congress pass laws that makes unpopular speech illegal, such as the Westboro chants, Muslim speeches by certain individuals, KKK parades etc.


Do you approve of any of these 3 items? None? Another item I didn't list?

#2 is liberals trying to kill conservative media. Anyone says otherwise is lying or just ignorant.

#1 and 3) Sadly such groups won't self regulate. Individuals used to have to self regualte b/c there were consequences to going to far. "You have offended my honor!! It's pistols at dawn." So if you went into the media, you either knew how to fight or you were carefull about what you said. We have laws against defending your honor now, so now we end up with laws that regualate speech.

I'd rather use my remote to "defend my honor" or my dollar bill to choose which paper I buy, or use my dial to control which radio station I have on.

Those all sound like better ideas to me as a loony fiscal conservative than dumping $354 million taxpayer dollars into it.

Hope you enjoy watching FOX all day every day. cuz that's what we will get.

I'm fine with it. the FCC is a load of crap that wants to be more relevant than it should be.

 

[Dr.Drock]

#2 is liberals trying to kill conservative media. Anyone says otherwise is lying or just ignorant.

#1 and 3) Sadly such groups won't self regulate. Individuals used to have to self regualte b/c there were consequences to going to far. "You have offended my honor!! It's pistols at dawn." So if you went into the media, you either knew how to fight or you were carefull about what you said. We have laws against defending your honor now, so now we end up with laws that regualate speech.

I'd rather use my remote to "defend my honor" or my dollar bill to choose which paper I buy, or use my dial to control which radio station I have on.

Those all sound like better ideas to me as a loony fiscal conservative than dumping $354 million taxpayer dollars into it.

Hope you enjoy watching FOX all day every day. cuz that's what we will get.

I'm fine with it. the FCC is a load of crap that wants to be more relevant than it should be.

We'd watch Fox all day if there were no FCC? I'm assuming that was a joke.

But overall I'm glad we agree. We need to get the O'Reilly types on the republican side and the Pelosi types on the democrat side to agree with us as well.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1.) The $354 million dollar FCC (that's a 1 year budget btw) in order to regulate every word in every version of media to make sure we don't have too naughty of words or too much of someone's bottom showing.

Nope,

1. Instead of FCC regulation broadcasters and manufacturers should provide indivdiuals the tools (which they mostly have with digistal parental controls) to regulate media that enters the individuals home. Because individual "A" doesn't like something, they shouldn't have the power to regulate what goes into individual "B's" home.

2. Cable/Fios etc... service providers should allow for ala cart channel selection so that individuals can select only those channels they want instead of mandating the purchase of predefined packages.

2.) The Fairness Doctrine, which tells media outlets what hosts to have on and what shows to play.

Nope

3.) Have Congress pass laws that makes unpopular speech illegal, such as the Westboro chants, Muslim speeches by certain individuals, KKK parades etc.

Nope.

Do you approve of any of these 3 items? None? Another item I didn't list?

That was pretty easy, thanks.


>>>>

 

[VaYank5150]

Sig, today's internet tough guy, wants hate speech regulated. I assume you want all hate speech regulated in terms of people hating soldiers, or hating gays, or hating muslims, or hating christians, etc etc etc. How much US taxpayer dollars should be committed to creating a new agency that regulates and defines what speech should be illegal and how long of prison terms and what size fines are handed out?

Vayank is hoping for violence and for government to allow this. Let's just let a 2 mobs fight it out in the streets, that sounds rational.

Just as the government feels they need to regulate my cigarettes and where and when I smoke them as they deem them dangerous to my health and those around me, they shoul dbe able to regulate other certain actions that are dangerous to others' health. Such as protesting at the funaeral for a dead US serviceman or woman.

 

[Truthmatters]

1.) The $354 million dollar FCC (that's a 1 year budget btw) in order to regulate every word in every version of media to make sure we don't have too naughty of words or too much of someone's bottom showing.

2.) The Fairness Doctrine, which tells media outlets what hosts to have on and what shows to play.this is not what the law says

3.) Have Congress pass laws that makes unpopular speech illegal, such as the Westboro chants, Muslim speeches by certain individuals, KKK parades etc.


Do you approve of any of these 3 items? None? Another item I didn't list?

Stop telling lies if you want real answers

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sig, today's internet tough guy, wants hate speech regulated. I assume you want all hate speech regulated in terms of people hating soldiers, or hating gays, or hating muslims, or hating christians, etc etc etc. How much US taxpayer dollars should be committed to creating a new agency that regulates and defines what speech should be illegal and how long of prison terms and what size fines are handed out?

Vayank is hoping for violence and for government to allow this. Let's just let a 2 mobs fight it out in the streets, that sounds rational.

Just as the government feels they need to regulate my cigarettes and where and when I smoke them as they deem them dangerous to my health and those around me, they shoul dbe able to regulate other certain actions that are dangerous to others' health. Such as protesting at the funaeral for a dead US serviceman or woman.

Give a lawyer that wording and lookout. There's gonna be a lot of speech put under that broad cloak.

Westboro hate speech at a funeral doesn't cause a heart attack, KKK hate speech at a parade doesn't cause cancer. Giving government power to regulate that stuff scares me a lot more than the meaningless idiotic words these groups say do.