Who shows more disdain for freedom of speech more - Republicans or Democrats?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by kavika411, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #1
    Even though everyone seems to say that freedom of speech is good, our actions/comments often demonstrate otherwise. For example (and these are not perfect examples), some Democrats believe limits should be placed on conservative talk radio. As another example, some Republicans are intimidating to people voicing opposition to the war in Iraq. Again, those are not perfect examples. I am just curious who you think, at the end of the day, shows more disdain for freedom of speech - Republicans or Democrats.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    That would depend on where you sit. I think both sides do their fair share, but it's done differently and with regards to different kinds of speech by both.
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    It varies from issue to issue. And it's not just limited to government either. Look at how vigorously Apple pursues those who post information they find objectionable.
     
  4. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #4
    What are you taking about? Republicans are all for free speech, especially if they can secretly record it to use against you in the future.

    Of course our defenders of freedom, the Democrats, also want the Republicans to be able to secretly record your speech, as evidenced by their recent voting habits.

    Screw 'em all. I'm no longer in the mood for their games. Except at the airport. The games they play at the airport can get me booked on a flight to [redacted].

    ****ers.
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #6
    I wouldn't say the Democratic effort to restore the Fairness Doctrine constitutes limiting conservative radio, only asking for equal time for liberals.
     
  6. kavika411 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #7
    Hence I said those were not perfect examples ... twice.
     
  7. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #8
    I thought it had more to do with taking the media out of the hands of a few select people? Before Reagan dismantled the Fairness Doctrine, people couldn't own massive amounts of media (Murdoch) like they can now, could they?

    At least that's the reason I'd want it restored. I honestly don't care about the equal time thing. Conservatives can crazy themselves up all they want by listening to their trashy talk radio.
     
  8. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #9
    I suppose this a question whether or not you think Democrats have the worst intentions (to kill conservative talk radio). I don't think that's what they after at all, rather as you put it, stemming the tides of monopolists like Murdoch. Personally, I think it's too little too late to bring an even playing field.
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    I disagree. As usual. I'd actually say both. Anything is objectionable if you're against it and I see both sides doing things that make me uneasy when it comes to the free speech thing.

    But are we talking about those in the gov, or private sectors, because free speech is really about gov interaction.
     
  10. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11
    IMO either party will show varying amounts of love or hate for the 1st Amendment depending on what best suites their political goals at the time.

    The Fairness Doctrine applied to things said on air, not media ownership.
    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which oddly enough I just mentioned in another thread here) was a huge act of deregulation that pretty much opened the door for the giant media conglomerates that we all know and love today.


    Lethal
     
  11. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    Oh, okay. I wasn't quite sure exactly what it was that ruined the media. Thank you.
     
  12. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    To mangle a Homer Simpson quote, "To Government! The cause of -- and solution to -- all of life's problems!" ;)


    Lethal
     
  13. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #14
    Well, that was more of a function of the FCC in general than the Fairness Doctrine in particular. The Doctrine, AFAIK, has to do with the equal distribution of airtime to opposing points of view.

    It had always been the view of the FCC that the airwaves belonged to the public, and that as the custodians of such, the public was best served by not allowing a concentration of ownership. Thus you had the rules where a single company could not own more than one TV station and three radio stations in one city (or something like that). Nowadays, you can have Clear Channel own half the radio in your town. :rolleyes:

    But again, that was a function more of the FCC itself, not the Doctrine. Starting with Reagan, as you said, the FCC began to look at the airwaves more as a commodity than a resource with which they were entrusted. Hence the eventual decision to auction off parts of the spectrum for HDTV. I cringe at the idea of selling off the public airwaves as if they were foreclosed housing, or used CDs on eBay.
     
  14. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #15
    In one of my classes last semester we had this guest speaker come talk to us. He used to own a big local TV news station. But he had said once that limit on ownership was removed, he and other local TV station owners got completely wiped out by the large corporations buying up all of their competitors, then installing better (and really expensive) equipment. He had said they all had to sell eventually because they just couldn't compete.

    It reminds me of this.

    I guess it was only aired once. NBC cut it from all re-runs of that particular episode.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    It's just a function of laissez faire capitalism, which is the best system in the world. It'll take care of everything we could possibly ever need. I don't know why you're all so upset by this- it's how things are supposed to work. :rolleyes: ;)
     

Share This Page