And they're off!
This is long but well worth the read:
sabrina 1 (24,402 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
18. Hi lou, first, I'm not sure what Constitutional issues could be raised regarding
asking that our News Media reports the truth. While the 1st Amendment doesn't say they cannot lie, it doesn't say they can either. So I think it's a fair assumption that the Founders were not promoting a lying News Media.
I understand the Constitutional issues that would be raised, but isn't it funny how the Constitution is just a "piece of paper" with respect to certain issues and then an important document to uphold with respect to others?
It's remarkable how we are so often told, eg, that the destruction of our rights is 'Constitutional' when we are 'in a time of war'. Frankly, abiding by the Constitution when there are no challenging events taking place, is easy. Imo, the protections of the Constitution are most needed when elected officials and others, use circumstances, such as terror eg, to justify ignoring our Constitutional rights.
I would love to see a challenge to Fox's claim it can lie to the people in its news coverage, a claim they made in an appeal of a law suit they initially lost, but found a sympathetic judge on appeal, to their claim that it was okay to lie about the news.
I don't know if this has ever happened before. But maybe it's way past time to establish standards for news reporting since so much is at stake for the American people who cannot make rational decisions if their sources of information are lying to them.
Thanks for the thread, I will rec and sign the petition.
The single most telling aspect of all of this is how they naturally assume THEY are the gatekeepers and arbiters of what is true. They do not consider for even half of a moment that other people are entitled to a voice. They, for the simple virtue of being themselves, are the default voice of all that is true and good.
mmonk (46,068 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
53. I disagree with the decision it cannot be legislated.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents standards for news. Standards do not void freedom of speech rights.
RKP5637 (18,033 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
7. Imagine if politicians were held accountable for lies! n/t
onenote (19,835 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
38. Wow. Wouldn't it have been great if Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Department
could go after Democratic candidates alleging that they've lied? And have the cases heard by courts stacked with repub appointees and the Roberts' led SCOTUS. Wouldn't that have been super!!!
sarcasm smilie not needed I hope.
freeper troll
RKP5637 (18,033 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
10. +1,000,000 and many more. IMO actions such as this need to occur if we as a nation are
interested in stopping this nation from going even deeper into a pit of lies, distortions and more insanity.
sabrina 1 (24,402 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
32. I see the points you are making. But then, was the Fairness Doctrine unconstitutional?
I can imagine right-wingers claiming that anything that restricts Corporations from buying up any 'commodity' is unconstitutional.
Even people are commodities now. The Right's interpretation of Free Speech is 'how much money do you have', and since the SC ruled on Citizens United it appears to me that the Constitution is now meaningless in terms of protecting the rights of all citizens. It now only protects the rights of Wealthy Citizens and mostly Corporations.
How did this happen? Maybe because Corporations had already bought Congress?
Once upon a time Jim Crowe was constitutional.
onenote (19,835 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
36. It's constitutionality was last considered in almost 30 years ago
The court found the FD to be constitutional in 1969, focusing on the "scarcity" rationale. The court, however, did not rule out the possibility that in the future, technological developments might undermine this rationale.
Fifteen years later, in 1984, the court again hinted that technological developments might warrant a different outcome to a constitutional challenge to the FD, but stated that "We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required."
How the court would view the FD 30 years later in light of the explosion of content sources on cable, satellite, and the Internet is hard to predict.
In any event, as to suggestions that I've seen that the FD required truthful speech, the 1969 case made it clear that the FD didn't require truthful speech. Rather, the court stated that "It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.
So the question is whether, in light of the Internet, etc., the FD is necessary to "preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas." I could see the current SCOTUS concluding that its not. But its not a slam dunk case either way.
sabrina 1 (24,402 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
24. Then there needs to be some standards that will raise the ratings of our media out
of the 40s which is where we are this year on the list of best and worst news media in the world. That means the American people have no real way of making good decisions. If the press is the 4th estate, then maybe something needs to be done so we don't have a propaganda machine instead of a news media.
I can see where you don't want to pass laws that could put people in legal jeopardy for making errors, or for not reporting news that someone feels they should have eg.
Maybe the best way is to demand that Congress restore, at the very least, the standards of fairness that were in place before the de-regulation that happened in the nineties making it possible for Corps to buy up the airwaves.
I have read eg, that over 90% of radio is spewing out rightwing talking points round the clock. So something needs to be done to get some balance back and it's way past time imo.
Aw-w-w-w....she really just cares about you.
Occulus (18,756 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
52. It depends entirely on how the Constitution is read.
Apparently, even among Democrats, a certain amount of Unconstitutionality is fine when it deals with things like carving exceptions from the due process requirement. If we are willing to accept that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a valid form of free speech, then we can just as easily say that claiming all persons who are gay are child molesters (for example) is equally invalid.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I believe that such a law is already Constitutional.
Well that gets into how you define "gay."
If one defines "gay" as someone who enjoys sex with other persons of the same gender and has no personal control over their inclinations then while you may want "gay" to imply consenting adults you might find the net casts wider than you anticipated.
Even in then I do not trust liberals.
Case in point: liberals claim the overwhelming majority of climatologists subscribe to the theory of athropogenic global watrming.
But then any scientist that disputes AGW is denied credentials as a climatologist.
JSnuffy (328 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
46. A few things..
1) Illegal
2) Immoral
3) Internet petitions don't do squat except maybe get you an extra season of your favorite reality show...
Kingofalldems (8,480 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
48. How is a petition to stop lying immoral?
Does this have something to do with Rush? Bet it does, you seem to like him a lot.
JSnuffy (328 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
50. Lemme break it down for you..
Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2012, 10:26 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
It's immoral because as much as you think you have the one and only handle on what truth is, I'm willing to bet dollars to pesos you've missed a few.
The only possible outcome of an idiotic "law" like this would be a governing body that determined what is correct and allowable and what isn't. This group would be influenced by their own prejudices, beliefs, political correctness and the issues of the day.
People who said things that were determined to be outside of the official and government sactioned statements would be fined and punished.
I guess I'm just a sucker for the first amendment and freedom of speech and thought. I'm silly that way.
Of course, that all goes out the window if you are willing to claim that you really do have the insight into the human soul to know what is right all the time. Do you? Was the plan to leave it to "someone else?"
Seriously, just a whiff of critical thinking can help you out.
mmonk (46,068 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
64. Ask Phil Donahue, Ashley Banfield, and others what happened
to them when they questioned the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
And Michael Moore-on made a shit-ton of money off of his pack of demonstrable pack of lies in F9/11.
Kingofalldems (8,480 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
58. That's your made up scenario
Of course I'm pretty sure your version of the truth would be whatever Rush says.
Now check-out this takedown which starts with a shot about his opposite number's presumptive and arrogant name:
JSnuffy (328 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
61. Ok...
"King"
Explain exactly how that law would be codified and enforced. Feel free to chunk the 1st Amendment if it makes it easier for you.
I want you to explain any other way that "law" would turn out. Maybe we could all vote on whether or not something is true?
__________________________
Above all, I want to say Thanks for taking to the time to type out a reasoned and well thought out response. You really put in the effort to address the points and offer some deep insight of your own.
Oh, wait. No you didn't. You just ignored everything and called me a rushbot. Never mind...
cali (69,796 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
59. No. No way no how not now not ever.
who decides what is and isn't a lie?
What a ****ing nightmare.
When cali-mary is the voice of reason, you're ****ed.
