Freedom of speech vs Technology

[BattleofHodow]

60 million was close to the figure that Solzhenitsyn gave. But who knows. Different people have different things to say. But the point is that you wrongly denigrate Hitler. Sure, the Nazis invaded Poland. But after WW I, Germany lost some of its territory to Poland. The main point is that at least Germany was a more Western and civilized country. To a large degree, the Russians weren't. History's greatest mass murder was a Russian named general Vasily Bolkhin. He was almost certainly a jew. He is said to have personally executed around 50,000 people. In the Katyn massacre he is said to have personally executed 7000 of the 22,000 Polish POW's. I will show you a picture that is said to have been him at work. Those two people kneeling could have very well been a couple of your fellow Poles. How does that make you feel.

Attachment 21392

You don't have to convince me on Jews.

I've already made a thread pointing out who the Globalist are.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...he-Globalists-!

[T. A. Gardner]

There was a time in the U.S. where the concept of freedom of speech meant something. At one time we had something called the freedom of the press. It was considered to be the Fourth Estate. Which went along with the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of government. And generally considered to be the equal of the other three in importance. But it would seem that our new technology has put a stake through the heart of that idea. Because of technology we now have places for people to communicate electronically. For instance, in forums like this. But because they label themselves as "private entities," freedom of speech has no place. There is one forum out there where I can see why. Because the truth to some extent is allowed to be spoken there, the place is practically a ghost town. Maybe if all the forums were the same, instead of a place for the self deluded to hide in and speak to each other, that would be different.

Another blow against freedom of speech happen during the Reagan administration. There used to be a thing in the media called the fairness doctrine. Where two sides to any issue were given equal time. But Reagan killed that. I wonder how the incidents with george floyd or ahmaud arbery (for instance) would have been handled if the fairness doctrine was still in place. Is it time we were honest and took the image of George Washington off the dollar bill?

Attachment 21373

The Fairness Doctrine did not increase freedom of speech, it restricted it, severely restricted it. Why you ask?

The Fairness Doctrine, in short, said that any media outlet--television, radio, whatever--the FCC had regulatory control over had to, by force of law, provide equal time for each side of an issue. This meant that if a radio station put a Republican on for 15 minutes, a Democrat had to be given the opportunity to have 15 minutes as well. Left, Right, Up, Down, whatever your political position was, the opposite one had to have equal time.

Now, that sounds all fair and wonderful doesn't it? Well, in reality it didn't work. Finding two opposing positions wasn't always possible. But it was possible that if a station put on some particular view then out of the woodwork would come someone claiming they needed equal time to present the opposite view--at the station's expense of course, or else (eg., a lawsuit). All of this resulted in stations simply refusing to put anyone on that was foisting an opinion as that was the only way to avoid being sued for not giving equal time.

Thus, speech was severely restricted. The reason the Fairness Doctrine was established to begin with was back in the day there were only three TV networks (well, there was PBS too, but nobody watched it). The same went for radio. In most locales there were a limited number of mostly AM stations to choose from.

By Reagan's time in office this had changed. Cable TV was widespread with now dozens, and moving towards hundreds, of channels. Radio had expanded to FM and there were often twice as many, or more choices to be had. The internet was on the horizon, and this would expand choice of venue to literally hundreds of thousands. There was now a panoply of outlets everyone could choose from. The Fairness Doctrine was obsolete. Everybody's opinion could find an outlet and those most wanted would get more exposure.

Then along came talk radio. This was a lifesaver for AM radio. Most talk radio ended up being Conservative. A few Liberal / Leftist stations tried to compete but found little audience. The Left went elsewhere for their news and information.

But the Left couldn't stand that AM talk radio for the Right existed at all. Thus, the Left and Progressives demanded a return to the Fairness Doctrine to shut Right wing talk radio down. So far, that hasn't worked. If the Fairness Doctrine were in place, and the FCC could regulate the Internet, this very board wouldn't exist simply because somebody could complain that by word count, post count, whatever measure you want to use, some side of an argument wasn't getting equal time on the board.

The Fairness Doctrine in our current world is a pile of bullshit meant to restrict speech.

[evince]

Blow me.

Blow you up along with your hate all of America lies



We would be a trump dictatorship if it were not for the Democratic Party you shitty Russo bot hole

[BattleofHodow]

The Fairness Doctrine did not increase freedom of speech, it restricted it, severely restricted it. Why you ask?

The Fairness Doctrine, in short, said that any media outlet--television, radio, whatever--the FCC had regulatory control over had to, by force of law, provide equal time for each side of an issue. This meant that if a radio station put a Republican on for 15 minutes, a Democrat had to be given the opportunity to have 15 minutes as well. Left, Right, Up, Down, whatever your political position was, the opposite one had to have equal time.

Now, that sounds all fair and wonderful doesn't it? Well, in reality it didn't work. Finding two opposing positions wasn't always possible. But it was possible that if a station put on some particular view then out of the woodwork would come someone claiming they needed equal time to present the opposite view--at the station's expense of course, or else (eg., a lawsuit). All of this resulted in stations simply refusing to put anyone on that was foisting an opinion as that was the only way to avoid being sued for not giving equal time.

Thus, speech was severely restricted. The reason the Fairness Doctrine was established to begin with was back in the day there were only three TV networks (well, there was PBS too, but nobody watched it). The same went for radio. In most locales there were a limited number of mostly AM stations to choose from.

By Reagan's time in office this had changed. Cable TV was widespread with now dozens, and moving towards hundreds, of channels. Radio had expanded to FM and there were often twice as many, or more choices to be had. The internet was on the horizon, and this would expand choice of venue to literally hundreds of thousands. There was now a panoply of outlets everyone could choose from. The Fairness Doctrine was obsolete. Everybody's opinion could find an outlet and those most wanted would get more exposure.

Then along came talk radio. This was a lifesaver for AM radio. Most talk radio ended up being Conservative. A few Liberal / Leftist stations tried to compete but found little audience. The Left went elsewhere for their news and information.

But the Left couldn't stand that AM talk radio for the Right existed at all. Thus, the Left and Progressives demanded a return to the Fairness Doctrine to shut Right wing talk radio down. So far, that hasn't worked. If the Fairness Doctrine were in place, and the FCC could regulate the Internet, this very board wouldn't exist simply because somebody could complain that by word count, post count, whatever measure you want to use, some side of an argument wasn't getting equal time on the board.

The Fairness Doctrine in our current world is a pile of bullshit meant to restrict speech.

Without the fairness doctrine most of the media went further Left & some went more Republican.

A true disaster for the USA.

[evince]

The Fairness Doctrine did not increase freedom of speech, it restricted it, severely restricted it. Why you ask?

The Fairness Doctrine, in short, said that any media outlet--television, radio, whatever--the FCC had regulatory control over had to, by force of law, provide equal time for each side of an issue. This meant that if a radio station put a Republican on for 15 minutes, a Democrat had to be given the opportunity to have 15 minutes as well. Left, Right, Up, Down, whatever your political position was, the opposite one had to have equal time.

Now, that sounds all fair and wonderful doesn't it? Well, in reality it didn't work. Finding two opposing positions wasn't always possible. But it was possible that if a station put on some particular view then out of the woodwork would come someone claiming they needed equal time to present the opposite view--at the station's expense of course, or else (eg., a lawsuit). All of this resulted in stations simply refusing to put anyone on that was foisting an opinion as that was the only way to avoid being sued for not giving equal time.

Thus, speech was severely restricted. The reason the Fairness Doctrine was established to begin with was back in the day there were only three TV networks (well, there was PBS too, but nobody watched it). The same went for radio. In most locales there were a limited number of mostly AM stations to choose from.

By Reagan's time in office this had changed. Cable TV was widespread with now dozens, and moving towards hundreds, of channels. Radio had expanded to FM and there were often twice as many, or more choices to be had. The internet was on the horizon, and this would expand choice of venue to literally hundreds of thousands. There was now a panoply of outlets everyone could choose from. The Fairness Doctrine was obsolete. Everybody's opinion could find an outlet and those most wanted would get more exposure.

Then along came talk radio. This was a lifesaver for AM radio. Most talk radio ended up being Conservative. A few Liberal / Leftist stations tried to compete but found little audience. The Left went elsewhere for their news and information.

But the Left couldn't stand that AM talk radio for the Right existed at all. Thus, the Left and Progressives demanded a return to the Fairness Doctrine to shut Right wing talk radio down. So far, that hasn't worked. If the Fairness Doctrine were in place, and the FCC could regulate the Internet, this very board wouldn't exist simply because somebody could complain that by word count, post count, whatever measure you want to use, some side of an argument wasn't getting equal time on the board.

The Fairness Doctrine in our current world is a pile of bullshit meant to restrict speech.

A pile of right wing crap


Lies are not news


Lies destroy a democracy


Your side lies and cheats non stop



You deny COURT FINDINGS

you deny SCIENCE


you deny KNOWN HISTORY



You deny MATH


you lie


And yes real Americans will always fight lies


No matter how much that ruins your evil plans

[evince]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...ml%3f_amp=true






Reagan’s Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill

BY PENNY PAGANO
JUNE 21, 1987 12 AM PT




WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation’s broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old “fairness doctrine,” the White House announced Saturday.
The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation’s radio and television stations to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.”

“This type of content-based regulation by the federal government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Reagan said in his veto message. “In any other medium besides broadcasting, such federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable.”



Staunch Opposition

The legislation had been staunchly opposed not only by the Administration, but also by the nation’s broadcasters, who maintain that the FCC policy is an unconstitutional intrusion that has a chilling effect on their operations.

Opponents also contend that the explosive growth of the telecommunications industry in recent years makes the fairness doctrine obsolete. In his veto message, Reagan noted that the FCC has concluded “that the doctrine is an unnecessary and detrimental regulatory mechanism.”

The legislation containing the doctrine passed the House on a 302-102 vote on June 3 and had been approved by the Senate in April on a 59-31 vote.

[evince]

Passed by the house and senate by a wide margin

But Reagan needed a compliant media

[T. A. Gardner]

Without the fairness doctrine most of the media went further Left & some went more Republican.

A true disaster for the USA.

With it, we would never have seen how Leftist most of the MSM is and how biased they are in their reporting across the board. That would still be there but hidden far better.

[T. A. Gardner]

A pile of right wing crap

Lies are not news
Lies destroy a democracy
Your side lies and cheats non stop
You deny COURT FINDINGS
you deny SCIENCE
you deny KNOWN HISTORY
You deny MATH
you lie
And yes real Americans will always fight lies
No matter how much that ruins your evil plans

Your spittle laden hysterics aside, prove anything I stated about the Fairness Doctrine is wrong. Question, does your computer screen come with a windshield wiper?

[BattleofHodow]

With it, we would never have seen how Leftist most of the MSM is and how biased they are in their reporting across the board. That would still be there but hidden far better.

The media has pushed extremism & division post Fairness Doctrine.

[T. A. Gardner]

The media has pushed extremism & division post Fairness Doctrine.

But it's visible as you point out. Before it was still there just not obvious because it couldn't be made obvious. Thus with the Fairness Doctrine, you go the same propaganda but didn't as easily recognize it.

[BattleofHodow]

But it's visible as you point out. Before it was still there just not obvious because it couldn't be made obvious. Thus with the Fairness Doctrine, you go the same propaganda but didn't as easily recognize it.

It's only visible to some.
It is invisible to the indoctrinated.

[Truth Detector]

There was a time in the U.S. where the concept of freedom of speech meant something. At one time we had something called the freedom of the press. It was considered to be the Fourth Estate. Which went along with the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of government. And generally considered to be the equal of the other three in importance. But it would seem that our new technology has put a stake through the heart of that idea. Because of technology we now have places for people to communicate electronically. For instance, in forums like this. But because they label themselves as "private entities," freedom of speech has no place. There is one forum out there where I can see why. Because the truth to some extent is allowed to be spoken there, the place is practically a ghost town. Maybe if all the forums were the same, instead of a place for the self deluded to hide in and speak to each other, that would be different.

The Constitution is sacrosanct with regard to free speech. The MOB, of course, hates it as does the Democratic Party of Lying Jackasses and their PHONY media supporters.

This forum is one of the few that is the definition of free speech. ALL the others are over moderated by leftist hacks.

Another blow against freedom of speech happen during the Reagan administration. There used to be a thing in the media called the fairness doctrine. Where two sides to any issue were given equal time. But Reagan killed that. I wonder how the incidents with george floyd or ahmaud arbery (for instance) would have been handled if the fairness doctrine was still in place. Is it time we were honest and took the image of George Washington off the dollar bill?

The Fairness Doctrine was BULLSHIT. There was nothing "fair" about it. You don't owe anyone equal time. The media owes nothing to anyone they don't want to give time to. Yes, it can appear to be unfair, but if they overdo it with one sided baloney like CNN and MSNBC, their ratings will eventually reflect it and few will give them the time of day.

[Flash]

An interesting hallucination. Apart from the one I mentioned, there is no forum out there that allows freedom of speech. At least not that I have found. Neither is it allowed on facebook or twitter. The only way you can have freedom of speech electronically is if you're talking to somebody on the telephone. And even then, the NSA monitors that. As for the "law," it is a joke too. Part of the reason is that jury's are a joke.

What media sources allowed more free speech than we have today? Language and sexual content were much more limited. I see all kinds of speech allowed on social media and message boards. I think you have been believing fake news by those claiming "Facebook removed my post...."

[Flash]

Everyone in the world has free speech. A meaningless concept.

Everyone does not have free speech without government locking them up as a "enemy of the state."