Sen. Rockefeller: FCC Should Take FOX News, MSNBC Off Airwaves

[thereisnospoon]

FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain. The country would be better off without them.

Oh please. The alternative is keeping the American people in the dark while being fed propaganda from DC?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
What you are implying is "the actions of the people in the news are not the issue, The news sources reporting those actions area the problem."..
Yes, let's turn out the lights. In fatc let's repeal the Freedom of Information Act. Let's outlaw "sunshine provisions" and transparent government.
Open meetings? Fuck it. Get rid of that....

The USSR had TAAS. The official government news agency of the Soviet Union.
Is THAT what you want?
Now you're going to spout of about bias in news reporting. You're going to tell me FNC is biased conservative and MSNBC is biased Liberal. You'll try to convince me that the Alphabets are fair and balanced.
Don't bother because we both know that is a big steaming pile of bullshit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I agree with what the Senator said 100%

Both corporations mentioned are far more interested in fear mongering and "spinning" than actually providing truth and information that is useful to debate.

Many forget that the airways are ours..not thiers.. It would serve the public if THEY remembered that also.

Since I do not watch either of these corporations blatherings I have no problem if thier liscences were terminated for doing more harm than good with the privilege they have abused.

First off, they are ours, that's the point. Second, the government does not have the right to shut down the press because they do not like it. And third, and actually the only thing that really matters, these are cable channels, and thus do not need anyone's permission to broadcast. they do not go over the air, they go through cables. You have to pay for them to watch them at all, and no one is forcing you, or anyone else, to buy them.

Then I suggest they be regulated under the ricco act for conspiracy to commit a fraud(callling themselves "news").

And even anti trust laws could be applied as they have pushed out the transmission of local actual airways broadcasted news and programming.

I get it...without your "fix" of Glenn beck to masterbate with and the EVIL Oberman to get mad at you hacks wouldn't have an idea in your pin heads.

I think a good public fraud case could be built with the Florida Supreme Court ruling in favor of "the right to lie" case as it's foundation.

OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T TAKE AWAY MY PRECIOUS FOX!!!!!

How would the country EVER survive??????

You people are pathetic!

Not at all happy with that pesky First amendment now that liberals are not the only ones with a voice. Sheesh.
Talk about pathetic.
Look, if you are more comfy with your news censored and sanitized by a dictatorship or totalitarian government, move the fuck out.
By the way, genius that is the RICO Act.
What Is the Rico Act?.....
United States Code: Title 18,CHAPTER 96—RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

In order for the federal government to bring a RICO case, there has to be evidence....not a pissed off feeling of an ongoing criminal conspiracy.

 

[rdean]

So you guys show a black guy carrying a gun to a political rally and the proves MSNBC lied?
You guys are hilarious. Let me tell you, a "real" lie is "Obama spent 200 million dollars a day on a state visit". Or Obama wants to add in "death panels". Those things are lies. And I have a hundred more.

Appearently you do not pay very good attention.

The death panels are alive. Or in Obamas case one man says you are to old.

We are letting the lobbyists write the regs. Damn you repubs for opposing.

Death Panels are alive.

Republican run Death Panels in Arizona.net

In Arizona, 98 low-income patients approved for organ transplants have been told they are no longer getting them because of state budget cuts.

---------------------

These people could have been fundraising or something to help them get the money for their needed operations. But they didn't because those operations had already been approved.

So Republican Death Panels stepped in and reneged. Now, the majority of these people will probably die.

Remember when Alan Grayson said the Republican Health Care Plan was to "Die Quickly". Seems it wasn't just a campaign slogan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both MSNBC and Fox News are opinion mills, and neither really serve the public interest well. Knowledgeable adults know that, and if they are good parents, they will make sure their kids know that and help them to grow a skill in vetting information to be aware of and eliminate the taint. Their people often accuse the other side of doing what they themselves are doing. Simple, don''t trust an opinion mill to do more than mill opinion.

 

[HUGGY]

First off, they are ours, that's the point. Second, the government does not have the right to shut down the press because they do not like it. And third, and actually the only thing that really matters, these are cable channels, and thus do not need anyone's permission to broadcast. they do not go over the air, they go through cables. You have to pay for them to watch them at all, and no one is forcing you, or anyone else, to buy them.

Then I suggest they be regulated under the ricco act for conspiracy to commit a fraud(callling themselves "news").

And even anti trust laws could be applied as they have pushed out the transmission of local actual airways broadcasted news and programming.

I get it...without your "fix" of Glenn beck to masterbate with and the EVIL Oberman to get mad at you hacks wouldn't have an idea in your pin heads.

I think a good public fraud case could be built with the Florida Supreme Court ruling in favor of "the right to lie" case as it's foundation.

OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T TAKE AWAY MY PRECIOUS FOX!!!!!

How would the country EVER survive??????

You people are pathetic!

Not at all happy with that pesky First amendment now that liberals are not the only ones with a voice. Sheesh.
Talk about pathetic.
Look, if you are more comfy with your news censored and sanitized by a dictatorship or totalitarian government, move the fuck out.
By the way, genius that is the RICO Act.
What Is the Rico Act?.....
United States Code: Title 18,CHAPTER 96—RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

In order for the federal government to bring a RICO case, there has to be evidence....not a pissed off feeling of an ongoing criminal conspiracy.

I support the first amendment until it is used as a shield to do intentional harm. Words and video have a "pesky" way of being missused by criminals. The fact that an enterprise is able "to sell it" is not relief from responsibility of doing harm.

Since YOU seem to like the outrageous statement as the way to communicate your case I could use many examples of outrageous free speach to suppport my argument. Child pornography in ANY form is illegal. Why is that? No one is FORCED to watch it or store it on thier TVO or computer. It is totally possible to computer generate images of a 30 year old appearing man fucking a 5 year old child. There are many sick individuals willing to pay for such images. Of course that is an extreme example but since we are defining parameters of an arguement we can start somewhere in THAT vicinity because most of us and the existing law can agree that THAT form of free speach is unacceptable and work back towards what is acceptable or not and WHY we should draw any lines at all as to what "doing harm" really means.

BTW..I reject your inference that "anything goes" or HUGGY must leave the country.

Fraud is generally definded as tricking someone or a group of people out of money or property or legal rights by the use of words or images. Why is fraud a crime? No one is FORCED to be a victim of fraud. One could easily in YOUR world just change the chanel or not pick up the telephone or not answer the door and all would be well. And what about accidents like the Janet Jackson "nipple shot". No one was harmed by the original split second view of Janets nipple. I am in the camp that unintentional harm is not culpable.

Fraud could also be viewed morally and legally as tricking someone or a group of people into believing something using words and images intentionally so they are willing to unwittingly become a participant in a fraud or some other crime. On a small scale..Let's say just to illustrate a point that I wanted the property right next to your house but it is occupied by a decent family. So..I go to you and convince you that the occupants have some deadly disease or that they are plotting to murder your family. I offer no proof. I just call you on the phone or tap into your tv cable and keep hammering that your neighbor is your enemy and a threat to your survival. Eventually you act on this information and burn down your neighbors home. Extreme example..sure.. That's YOUR cup of tea so that's where we need to go for demonstration purposes. Now I can buy thier property burnt dirt cheap from thier insurance company at a quick claim sale.

On a much grander stage we can or should all agree that outting a CIA operation tracking funding for WMDs is treason and definitely not acceptable. So why is no one in prison for this clear act of sabotage? Freedom of speach?

I remember an America when such an action would lead to quick trials and executions.

I can continue but I would like you to digest this much.

 

[Full-Auto]

So you guys show a black guy carrying a gun to a political rally and the proves MSNBC lied?
You guys are hilarious. Let me tell you, a "real" lie is "Obama spent 200 million dollars a day on a state visit". Or Obama wants to add in "death panels". Those things are lies. And I have a hundred more.

Appearently you do not pay very good attention.

The death panels are alive. Or in Obamas case one man says you are to old.

We are letting the lobbyists write the regs. Damn you repubs for opposing.

Death Panels are alive.

Republican run Death Panels in Arizona.net

In Arizona, 98 low-income patients approved for organ transplants have been told they are no longer getting them because of state budget cuts.

---------------------

These people could have been fundraising or something to help them get the money for their needed operations. But they didn't because those operations had already been approved.

So Republican Death Panels stepped in and reneged. Now, the majority of these people will probably die.

Remember when Alan Grayson said the Republican Health Care Plan was to "Die Quickly". Seems it wasn't just a campaign slogan.

Yes arizona cut back, just like the feds will.

Thats the part you dont get.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Both MSNBC and Fox News are opinion mills, and neither really serve the public interest well. Knowledgeable adults know that, and if they are good parents, they will make sure their kids know that and help them to grow a skill in vetting information to be aware of and eliminate the taint. Their people often accuse the other side of doing what they themselves are doing. Simple, don''t trust an opinion mill to do more than mill opinion.

Why am I not surprised that the person who thinks a statist is anyone who disagrees with him approves of the government shutting down news and opinions?

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB, I know you aren't talking about me, so tell who are you talking about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I support the first amendment until it is used as a shield to do intentional harm. Words and video have a "pesky" way of being missused by criminals. The fact that an enterprise is able "to sell it" is not relief from responsibility of doing harm.

Intentional harm? What intentional harm is MSNBC and Fox trying to lead people into? Are they following you around, and controlling your thoughts through the TV? Should we ban computers because they have a "pesky" way of being used by criminals to commit crimes?

Since YOU seem to like the outrageous statement as the way to communicate your case I could use many examples of outrageous free speach to suppport my argument. Child pornography in ANY form is illegal. Why is that? No one is FORCED to watch it or store it on thier TVO or computer. It is totally possible to computer generate images of a 30 year old appearing man fucking a 5 year old child. There are many sick individuals willing to pay for such images. Of course that is an extreme example but since we are defining parameters of an arguement we can start somewhere in THAT vicinity because most of us and the existing law can agree that THAT form of free speach is unacceptable and work back towards what is acceptable or not and WHY we should draw any lines at all as to what "doing harm" really means.

Because there is no way to make child pornography without committing a criminal act. That is also why anime and computer generated child pornography has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court. I think that both explains the actual, and completely valid, reasoning behind child pornography laws, and your complete lack of understanding of the subject.

BTW..I reject your inference that "anything goes" or HUGGY must leave the country.

So do I, but you are still free to leave.

Fraud is generally definded as tricking someone or a group of people out of money or property or legal rights by the use of words or images. Why is fraud a crime? No one is FORCED to be a victim of fraud. One could easily in YOUR world just change the chanel or not pick up the telephone or not answer the door and all would be well. And what about accidents like the Janet Jackson "nipple shot". No one was harmed by the original split second view of Janets nipple. I am in the camp that unintentional harm is not culpable.

Because a bunch of people are too stupid to not get defrauded, and too immature to simply take it as a lesson learned. There are enough of these idiots that they managed to convince the powers that be that fraud should be a crime, even though no force is used.

Fraud could also be viewed morally and legally as tricking someone or a group of people into believing something using words and images intentionally so they are willing to unwittingly become a participant in a fraud or some other crime. On a small scale..Let's say just to illustrate a point that I wanted the property right next to your house but it is occupied by a decent family. So..I go to you and convince you that the occupants have some deadly disease or that they are plotting to murder your family. I offer no proof. I just call you on the phone or tap into your tv cable and keep hammering that your neighbor is your enemy and a threat to your survival. Eventually you act on this information and burn down your neighbors home. Extreme example..sure.. That's YOUR cup of tea so that's where we need to go for demonstration purposes. Now I can buy thier property burnt dirt cheap from thier insurance company at a quick claim sale.

That would be slander, which is illegal because you are using a lie with the intent to harm a person's reputation. That family could sue you and force you to stop saying those things, and get money for whatever damage they suffered as a result. They could also get punitive damages to make sure you never did that again. You would end up spending all the money you wanted to spend on their property, and get nothing in return, all without committing any fraud at all.

On a much grander stage we can or should all agree that outting a CIA operation tracking funding for WMDs is treason and definitely not acceptable. So why is no one in prison for this clear act of sabotage? Freedom of speach?

We could also agree that the Earth is flat, it doesn't make it flat.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Legal Definition of Treason

Exactly how does reporting this constitute treason? The person who told the reporters about it is guilty of some things, but it would be difficult to convict even him of treason.

I remember an America when such an action would lead to quick trials and executions.

I can continue but I would like you to digest this much.

I remember an America where people were blacklisted because they refused to rat our there friends. It still disgusts me, and is still indigestible. You might want to go back to that, but the rest of us have grown up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QWB, I know you aren't talking about me, so tell who are you talking about?

How do you know I am not talking about you? Aren't you the one who calls people statists whenever they advocate for a smaller government, or did you get taken over by pod people recently?

 

[HUGGY]

I support the first amendment until it is used as a shield to do intentional harm. Words and video have a "pesky" way of being missused by criminals. The fact that an enterprise is able "to sell it" is not relief from responsibility of doing harm.

Intentional harm? What intentional harm is MSNBC and Fox trying to lead people into? Are they following you around, and controlling your thoughts through the TV? Should we ban computers because they have a "pesky" way of being used by criminals to commit crimes?

Since YOU seem to like the outrageous statement as the way to communicate your case I could use many examples of outrageous free speach to suppport my argument. Child pornography in ANY form is illegal. Why is that? No one is FORCED to watch it or store it on thier TVO or computer. It is totally possible to computer generate images of a 30 year old appearing man fucking a 5 year old child. There are many sick individuals willing to pay for such images. Of course that is an extreme example but since we are defining parameters of an arguement we can start somewhere in THAT vicinity because most of us and the existing law can agree that THAT form of free speach is unacceptable and work back towards what is acceptable or not and WHY we should draw any lines at all as to what "doing harm" really means.

Because there is no way to make child pornography without committing a criminal act. That is also why anime and computer generated child pornography has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court. I think that both explains the actual, and completely valid, reasoning behind child pornography laws, and your complete lack of understanding of the subject.



So do I, but you are still free to leave.



Because a bunch of people are too stupid to not get defrauded, and too immature to simply take it as a lesson learned. There are enough of these idiots that they managed to convince the powers that be that fraud should be a crime, even though no force is used.



That would be slander, which is illegal because you are using a lie with the intent to harm a person's reputation. That family could sue you and force you to stop saying those things, and get money for whatever damage they suffered as a result. They could also get punitive damages to make sure you never did that again. You would end up spending all the money you wanted to spend on their property, and get nothing in return, all without committing any fraud at all.



We could also agree that the Earth is flat, it doesn't make it flat.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Legal Definition of Treason

Exactly how does reporting this constitute treason? The person who told the reporters about it is guilty of some things, but it would be difficult to convict even him of treason.

I remember an America when such an action would lead to quick trials and executions.

I can continue but I would like you to digest this much.

I remember an America where people were blacklisted because they refused to rat our there friends. It still disgusts me, and is still indigestible. You might want to go back to that, but the rest of us have grown up.

Well..I can say without arguement that you at least got your Avie name right. That's a lot of hot air but not enough to raise your thoughts to a level of intelligent debate on my points. I'm not going to go point by point because the only sliver of truth might be your addressing the Child porn example. I am certain with todays technical capabiities the burden of proof could easily be met for a crime. And what about child porn not produced here in the USA as in Denmark where it is legal to fuck a twelve year old prostitute. As I mentioned there are probably ways to circumvent the law ...that does not make your arguement a "good" one.

On all of the other gas you passed..FAIL!

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB, I know you aren't talking about me, so tell who are you talking about?

How do you know I am not talking about you? Aren't you the one who calls people statists whenever they advocate for a smaller government, or did you get taken over by pod people recently?

QWB, aren't you the one in the past who called me a statist and a liberal.? You were wrong about that, so you are going to try the other approach? Either way, kiddo, you are wrong.

Walking it backwards, you will find that I don't like either MSNBC or Fox News, because they are opinion mills, but I don't think the government has the constitutional power to regulate their content based on opinion milling.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QWB, I know you aren't talking about me, so tell who are you talking about?

How do you know I am not talking about you? Aren't you the one who calls people statists whenever they advocate for a smaller government, or did you get taken over by pod people recently?

QWB, aren't you the one in the past who called me a statist and a liberal.? You were wrong about that, so you are going to try the other approach? Either way, kiddo, you are wrong.

Walking it backwards, you will find that I don't like either MSNBC or Fox News, because they are opinion mills, but I don't think the government has the constitutional power to regulate their content based on opinion milling.

You called me a statist my first week here because I was advocating for the government to stay out of health care. You then argued that the government is required to provide health care. That makes you both a statist, and a liberal, whatever you think it means.

 

[rdean]

Appearently you do not pay very good attention.

The death panels are alive. Or in Obamas case one man says you are to old.

We are letting the lobbyists write the regs. Damn you repubs for opposing.

Death Panels are alive.

Republican run Death Panels in Arizona.net

In Arizona, 98 low-income patients approved for organ transplants have been told they are no longer getting them because of state budget cuts.

---------------------

These people could have been fundraising or something to help them get the money for their needed operations. But they didn't because those operations had already been approved.

So Republican Death Panels stepped in and reneged. Now, the majority of these people will probably die.

Remember when Alan Grayson said the Republican Health Care Plan was to "Die Quickly". Seems it wasn't just a campaign slogan.

Yes arizona cut back, just like the feds will.

Thats the part you dont get.

Because Republicans say we need tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. See? I get it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How do you know I am not talking about you? Aren't you the one who calls people statists whenever they advocate for a smaller government, or did you get taken over by pod people recently?

QWB, aren't you the one in the past who called me a statist and a liberal.? You were wrong about that, so you are going to try the other approach? Either way, kiddo, you are wrong.

Walking it backwards, you will find that I don't like either MSNBC or Fox News, because they are opinion mills, but I don't think the government has the constitutional power to regulate their content based on opinion milling.

You called me a statist my first week here because I was advocating for the government to stay out of health care. You then argued that the government is required to provide health care. That makes you both a statist, and a liberal, whatever you think it means.

Got it wrong, but you can look it up. You really do have me mixed up with somebody else.