Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it fascinating that the only people in this thread to use the word 'censorship' are the Righties.
Hmmm...did you read this in the story?
"When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down."
This may be tied in with the "Fairness Doctrine" saber rattling.
Originally Posted by sanrene So you advocate the government should silence a legitimate news source, one that is tops in the field, one that routinely exposes the lies, scandals, controversies and more lies about the administration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
If you guys couldn't set up bogus straw men, you'd have nothing to knock down.
So, if the 'you guys' weren't setting up straw men then there would only be ONE? The big 0 one? The ONE 'you guys' have been waiting for?
"When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down."
This may be tied in with the "Fairness Doctrine" saber rattling.
The proof of this is the way the word "racist" is thrown around, even here on CD, right out of the book.
I can't tell you how many times I have been called racist simply because I do not like the way Obama is ruining the country.
The problem isn't with posters at C-D calling each other racist. The problem is with responsible journalists and college professors calling leaders in journalism and <ahem> politics racists.
When it is other journalists doing it, the Constitution doesn't really apply.
You don't have First Amendment rights against private entities.
Talk is one thing but they were certainly advocating against the First Amendment.
"When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down."
It's clear Fox News routinely and deliberately lies. They do it constantly and it is the job of real journalists to point out what a fraud Fox News is.
Actully that was the same video released by other netwrks that they along with FOX news released after it was released on the internet.In fact they were the first to actauy allow her to appear and say what her story live on TV. It is the obama administration and NAACP that jumed to judgement on that.
Talk is one thing but they were certainly advocating against the First Amendment.
So what? They are not alone in their misunderstanding of how the First Amendment works. Just pick any "ACLU picks on Christians" thread and you'll see a lot of that too.
They're journalists, not constitutional scholars - not that it is an excuse. I would have expected better from them, but it's not the big deal this thread makes it out to be.
Quote:
"When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down."
Ignorance of the law is not limited to these people. It's disappointing, but it is still not a constitutional issue.
Quote:
We don't need no stinking Constitution.
Indeed, it doesn't apply here at all, except to protect the journalists' rights to hold the opinion that Fox should be censored. They are permitted their political opinions just as much as anyone else. We don't regulate the press in this country.
And we damn sure don't want to start. Unfortunately, these journalists don't seem to realize that this is exactly what they are asking for.
Unless and until the FCC takes some action that is not content-neutral or accomplishes prior restraint, or otherwise acts in violation of the First Amendment, then it is not a constitutional issue.
I see "conservatives" (in name only, I think) asking for stuff like this all the time. They have the right to express themselves and to petition the government for redress of their grievances, but unless the government actually does what they ask, there is no constitutional issue. Some want to keep gay marriage illegal, for instance, in blatant violation of the equal protection clause....
No one has said the law has been broken, only that it has been advocated, and that cannot be denied, so your constitutional issue argument is mute.
We don't need no stinking constitution is what was being discussed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
