04-15-2010, 11:12 AM
It's no longer an issue of free speech. It is becoming is an issue of unrestricted access to the media, driven by the free market. Currently, there is a move afoot to place a de facto restriction on market-driven media access through methods such as the "fairness" doctrine, "community standards boards" and other types of restrictions.
It's not the elimination of free speech that is at issue; it's the elimination of the ability to say what you believe in a forum that has a wide listening audience, by choice. What the "fairness" doctrine, et. al. are trying to do is to allow government to decide what speech is allowable for mass distribution.
If your site gets the power to restrict media access to those sources who only approved, then free speech is pointless. If you can't be heard, it doesn't matter if you have the right to say what you want. Those who look to increase the Districtâs power over the individuals and restrict their liberties are those who wish to avoid having to debate the many issues within the District.
In this blog, I can say pretty much what I want, as long as I don't use words that offend" or other words that set off this site's obscenity filters. However, only a couple of hundred people read this thing. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has more than 300 stations carrying his show, and more than twelve million people listen to him every week. His show is paid for by advertisers, which makes economic sense because of his popularity. NPR, on the other hand, has more than 600 stations, yet they're paid for by the taxpayers.
NPR is decidedly liberal, while Limbaugh is conservative; however, if the "fairness" doctrine or its breed comes back, NPR's point of view will be allowed (and paid for by us), while Limbaugh's will be outlawed. While liberals might jump for joy at the thought, a moment's calm reflection might tell them that politics is cyclical, and if a conservative government took over and used the same rules, NPR would be gone the next day.
Free speech, and now free access through the marketplace to the media, is at the core of our republic. It's no accident that the first amendment is about freedom of speech and the press. It's first because it's the most important.
If the District preferred that the people of this forum voices are only to eject constructive feedback, then maybe the District should practice running a more favorable School system. Market-driven popular shows shouldn't be restricted so that only they will determine what's allowable on the airwaves, then let me mention please banned me, for I will continue to point out the Districtâs foul-ups and personal driven schemes. As you're looking over this paragraph, it might not hurt to remember Edmund Burke's admonition that "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Here I am a citizen with children (where political corruption exists) and as a citizen fighting for life. As a result, hoping that the individuals in charge start doing what our tax dollars pay for. I think many people of this forum motivation are clearly to voice concerns and views, if the Districtâs poor practices are obtainable, please expect those poor practices to come under scrutiny... The Districtâs seemly mission is to provoke âDamage Controlâ. If itâs felt compulsory that Iâm silenced and restricted of your site privileges of voicing a concern of this administration in charge of my childrenâs future, then yes permanently banning me is in order.
It's not the elimination of free speech that is at issue; it's the elimination of the ability to say what you believe in a forum that has a wide listening audience, by choice. What the "fairness" doctrine, et. al. are trying to do is to allow government to decide what speech is allowable for mass distribution.
If your site gets the power to restrict media access to those sources who only approved, then free speech is pointless. If you can't be heard, it doesn't matter if you have the right to say what you want. Those who look to increase the Districtâs power over the individuals and restrict their liberties are those who wish to avoid having to debate the many issues within the District.
In this blog, I can say pretty much what I want, as long as I don't use words that offend" or other words that set off this site's obscenity filters. However, only a couple of hundred people read this thing. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has more than 300 stations carrying his show, and more than twelve million people listen to him every week. His show is paid for by advertisers, which makes economic sense because of his popularity. NPR, on the other hand, has more than 600 stations, yet they're paid for by the taxpayers.
NPR is decidedly liberal, while Limbaugh is conservative; however, if the "fairness" doctrine or its breed comes back, NPR's point of view will be allowed (and paid for by us), while Limbaugh's will be outlawed. While liberals might jump for joy at the thought, a moment's calm reflection might tell them that politics is cyclical, and if a conservative government took over and used the same rules, NPR would be gone the next day.
Free speech, and now free access through the marketplace to the media, is at the core of our republic. It's no accident that the first amendment is about freedom of speech and the press. It's first because it's the most important.
If the District preferred that the people of this forum voices are only to eject constructive feedback, then maybe the District should practice running a more favorable School system. Market-driven popular shows shouldn't be restricted so that only they will determine what's allowable on the airwaves, then let me mention please banned me, for I will continue to point out the Districtâs foul-ups and personal driven schemes. As you're looking over this paragraph, it might not hurt to remember Edmund Burke's admonition that "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Here I am a citizen with children (where political corruption exists) and as a citizen fighting for life. As a result, hoping that the individuals in charge start doing what our tax dollars pay for. I think many people of this forum motivation are clearly to voice concerns and views, if the Districtâs poor practices are obtainable, please expect those poor practices to come under scrutiny... The Districtâs seemly mission is to provoke âDamage Controlâ. If itâs felt compulsory that Iâm silenced and restricted of your site privileges of voicing a concern of this administration in charge of my childrenâs future, then yes permanently banning me is in order.