| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Kratom Powder for Sale  Buy Kratom Capsules  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Red Vein Kratom |
| |||||||
 Nomez journeyman Registered: 12/17/01 Posts: 71 Last seen: 21 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I know its kind of cliche to relate the govt to 1984 but its really is relevent. Does anyone else seem to be kind of pissed at the way our country pulls together only in the case of great tragedy? Like Orwell said... if you keep the country in a constant state of war it will keep people's minds off of domestic issues. Every person that critisizes the govt these days is raped up the ass (like Bill Mayer (possible sp)). Has anyone noticed the way that nearly all the anachist groups and almost all other extreme groups have just been quietly sitting there (no matter how wrong or right they may be) so as not to get shut up by all the temporarily patriotic citizens of this country. People need to remember that this country isnt perfect and simply because some crazy fucks agree doesnt mean that it is perfect. Im not agreeing with what they did or even why. They tried to take their beliefs an force them appon others and show us how wrong we are and how right they are. That not what this country was founded apon. This is a good country but its not great. It has problems and these reactions to the 11th are not gonna make it get any better. They have silenced any voice that speaks out against the government or its actions. The point of democracy (though it is just a shitty form of democracy *not a big fan of the consept of republic democracy) is to have different ideas and from discussion and debate try to make things better.
I realise these ideas arent exactly kosher but sometimes we have to take an objective look at what is happening. Like people say 'Forgive but never forget'. We need to get America back to the way it was.. with its freedom of speech that wasnt nearly as corrupted as it is now(not that it was ever truely free of coruption). Those are just my thoughts. Why dont we try to look at this in a civilized, objective manner? Instead of continuing the morning we need to get over it (cliche sorry) and get america back to the debating and disagreeing state that has the ablility to make us a better nation as a whole. For similar thoughts check this out http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/092401.html *note I found this after I wrote this rant -------------------- i wish i could give out my thoughts let someone else feel them and experience who i am its difficult sometimes impossible always impossible? i hope not Edited by Nomez (01/11/02 01:19 AM)
| |||||||
|
Nomez journeyman Registered: 12/17/01 Posts: 71 Last seen: 21 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Sorry.. I kinda turned that topic into a rant.
None the less Id like to hear some thoughts. -------------------- i wish i could give out my thoughts let someone else feel them and experience who i am its difficult sometimes impossible always impossible? i hope not
| |||||||
 wingnutx  Registered: 09/24/00 Posts: 2,287 |
| ||||||
|
Orwell was also very much in favor of defending secular democracy against totalinarianism:
Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war-effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism. -- George Orwell People get verbally jumped on for their views, true. Free speech goes both ways. I don't know of a single instance where someone was physically or legally stifled or sanctioned for their views. In fact, groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. get free airtime on CSPAN to air their view that the war in Afghanistan is absolutely immoral. If you criticize me for my view here, that does not violate my rights. It is merely you exercising yours in turn. If you dislike my views, you have every right to choose not to associate or cooperate with me. The fact that people are jumping down each others throats and calling each other names is indicative of a healthy First Ammendment. BTW, my official position on the war is: It is legitimate self defense, and long overdue. We were allowed ourselves to be percieved as an easy target that lacked the resolve to fight back in any meaningful way, and we paid a terrible price for that.
| |||||||
|
wingnutx Registered: 09/24/00 Posts: 2,287 |
| ||||||
|
As an example, Bill Mahr suffered no official sanction whatsoever for his views. He was heavily criticized, and lost sponsors. He is still just as free today to say anything he likes. He has no inherent right to use a television network that he does not own, so if he loses his show it does not disenfranchise him at all. It merely puts him on the level of someone like you or me, free to rant here or elsewhere in public. If he pissed people off, they have the same free speech rights as he does to call him an ass.
| |||||||
|
Nomez journeyman Registered: 12/17/01 Posts: 71 Last seen: 21 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I see your point. But basically what you are saying is that if you speak your mind, and people diagree with whay you say... you can lose your job and all that youve worked for because others disagree? On the one hand thats good... say if some senator claimed to be a nazi. On the other hand, just because a large group of people disagree with you does not mean your ideas should be shut up.
Take MLK Jr. His ideas were very inflamitory in the south, but they were right. He was shut up by the majority. I dont remember who said it but its call the "tyranny of the majority". When the little guy gets shut up by the big guy... no matter who's right. I dont plan on flaming anyone here, I am a reasonably open minded person and I read all posts with the asumption that I could be wrong. -------------------- i wish i could give out my thoughts let someone else feel them and experience who i am its difficult sometimes impossible always impossible? i hope not
| |||||||
|
PGF square  Registered: 07/20/00 Posts: 8,642 Loc: Malaysia |
| ||||||
|
If I work for McDonald's and I wear a "kill sandniggers" hat to work, I will be fired for expressing my views because my views would reflect on McDonald's hiring choices.
MLK Jr. did not work for a network television station. What he did, he did in the name of his church and his peoples. -------------------- ***The Real Shroomery nigger
| |||||||
|
Nomez journeyman Registered: 12/17/01 Posts: 71 Last seen: 21 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Fair enough, but do you think its right? Im not arguing why happened but shit man... it pisses me off when all these self rightious patriotic-only-when-its-convenient conservative fucks decide that they dont like someones views. Sorry... getting a little emotional about this whole situation.
-------------------- i wish i could give out my thoughts let someone else feel them and experience who i am its difficult sometimes impossible always impossible? i hope not
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Nomez writes:
"Has anyone noticed the way that nearly all the anachist groups and almost all other extreme groups have just been quietly sitting there (no matter how wrong or right they may be) so as not to get shut up by all the temporarily patriotic citizens of this country." No private citizen or group of citizens has the power to "shut someone up". Censorship can be enforced ONLY by a government. A private citizen may WANT the extremists to shut up, and curse them and denigrate their viewpoints in order to make it unpleasant for them to speak, but he can't FORCE them to shut up. Only a government can do that. If the anarchist groups are in fact silent, perhaps it is because they choose not to expose themselves to strong negative reactions from non-anarchists. Anarchists have the right to remain silent if they feel the consequences of speaking up will make them unpopular with other people. Of course, they also have the right promote their views, but if they do they can't piss and moan and cry "Censorship!" when those who disagree with their views express their outrage. "We need to get America back to the way it was.. with its freedom of speech that wasnt nearly as corrupted as it is now" You haven't had your freedom of speech "corrupted". If you want to speak out against the actions the American government is taking at the moment, no one will stop you. It's no different now than it was in the Sixties, when the Woodstock Generation spoke out against the Viet Nam war. They risked being unpopular, but felt it was an important enough issue that they were willing to endure being hassled by mainstream America in order to publicize their discontent with the situation. "it pisses me off when all these self rightious patriotic-only-when-its-convenient conservative fucks decide that they dont like someones views." Hmmm. Obviously it is okay for you to be pissed off at their views, so why is it NOT okay for them to be pissed off at yours? I'm curious... you have mentioned twice now that you have no respect for the "patriots of convenience". To whom are you referring, specifically? What leads you to believe that they are unpatriotic at other times? Can you give us an example of unpatriotic actions they have performed, either verbal or physical? Do you consider YOURSELF to be a fulltime patriot? For that matter, what is your definition of patriotism? "Sorry... getting a little emotional about this whole situation." Doubtless those who object to what they consider "extremist gibberish" also get a little emotional about the situation. Face it, dude, this is a situation which polarizes opinions. A certain percentage of folks on each side of the issue will sling nasty words. That's life. But no matter how loud and nasty those who support America's current course of action may get, they CAN'T shut you up. Only the government can do that. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
wingnutx Registered: 09/24/00 Posts: 2,287 |
| ||||||
|
One thing conservatives/libertarians got criticized for before 9/11 was their patriotism. If anyone has jumped on a bandwagon, or honestly reviewed their own beliefs about the merits of western society, it is many leftists. Christopher Hitchens, for an example.
Read something by Susan Sontag, despairing that the conservatives now have many liberals waving the same American flag. Hate conservatives all you want, but please make an accurate criticism. Anything else damages your own argument.
| |||||||
|
Nomez journeyman Registered: 12/17/01 Posts: 71 Last seen: 21 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Every Pre-9/11 American has at some point bitched about the corruption in our govt and all the things that this country does that are detrimental to humanity... such as supplying weapons to iran then blowing the shit out of them when they use them. Dispite what everyone says this country should not be thought of as the best country in the world and more of as the lesser of the evils. Im not an anarchist I just believe we are capable of much better.
The power to shut someone up is here... once again... the majority can shut anyone up. The key thing here is money (as with all things american). If a large number of people dont like what someone says they can easily shut them up. Take Ralph Nader being kept out of the pres. debates.. over what you ask? money. Once again I will refer to the tyranny of the majority. Read about it. All the leftists have shut up because they fear the reaction of the conservatives. If the make statements that could be construed as un-american they will be flamed by every god-fearing patriotic american. Its interesting that so many people get so enthusiastic about a country that is so far from perfect. And of course does anyone believe that our government will get better as a result of 9-11 or just more powerful and controling? -------------------- i wish i could give out my thoughts let someone else feel them and experience who i am its difficult sometimes impossible always impossible? i hope not
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Nomez writes:
"...the majority can shut anyone up. The key thing here is money... No the majority can't, at least not legally. Short of physical force, there is no way to prevent an American from speaking his mind, and spreading his opinions worldwide. As for money, there are hundreds of Internet hosts that will give you FREE webspace. You don't even need to own a computer. You can upload stuff to your website from a Cyber Cafe for peanuts, then use a Spam generator to send links to your site to hundreds of thousands of e-mail addresses. "If a large number of people dont like what someone says they can easily shut them up." How? Give us a specific method, please. "...Take Ralph Nader being kept out of the pres. debates.. over what you ask? money." Nader was kept out of the Presidential debates by GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, not by private individuals. As I said before, only GOVERNMENTS have the power of censorship. Federal campaign laws have requirements that must be met by presidential candidates in order to receive FREE air time on major networks. Note that I am not defending these restrictions, merely pointing out that the restrictions are a form of GOVERNMENT censorship. They have nothing to do with 'the majority' at all. Sadly, Nader didn't meet these government-generated requirements, so the government (not 'the majority") said he couldn't be on the air in the same studio at the same time as the other candidates. But he was perfectly free to buy air time to present his own views. Hell, cheesy vendors of "hair-in-a-can" and "ab-rollers" buy half hour chunks of air time for "infomercials" all the time. "All the leftists have shut up..." So you admit they have shut up of their own accord, rather than being forcibly gagged by others. "...because they fear the reaction of the conservatives..." So their motive for choosing to remain silent is to avoid being shouted at? I guess the Leftists of the Sixties and Seventies were made of sterner stuff. The right to speak freely doesn't mean you also have the right to be greeted with universal applause regardless of the views of your audience. Ask any stand-up comedian. "...If the make statements that could be construed as un-american they will be flamed by every god-fearing patriotic american." So what? It is clear that they disagree with 'every god-fearing patriotic American'. Why should the opinions of those they consider wrong matter to them? If some brain-damaged halfwit in this forum starts insulting me and calling me names, I don't stop posting... I ignore him. Of COURSE he's going to go ballistic when he reads something he disagrees with: he's a brain-damaged halfwit, after all. I don't fear him, I pity him. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
nugsarenice Carpal Tunnel Registered: 06/04/00 Posts: 3,442 Loc: nowhere Last seen: 18 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
The leftist did not shut up. The green party did a big restructuring of their platform, to include non violent retalition to the 9 11 attacks. That is definitely against the majority.
Still though, i do not trust the voting methods of this country. How can you really know that people's votes got to where they belong. I mean don't you think a dictatorship would be much better. With the new apostle of jesus placed in power. I seem to trust jesus and his sons. So let it be known that bush has acted against the own morals of his faith, christianity, and broke parts of the commandments. Which god himself laid down to jesus to pass on to freedom fighters who used violence. So in that non violence is the way of the lord. I think this type of christian theology can be used for the green campaign and against hyprocritical christians such as George Bush. He obviously has never read the bible. Or put his trust in the works.
| |||||||
|
Senor_Doobie Snake Pit Champion   Registered: 08/11/99 Posts: 22,678 Loc: Trump Train |
| ||||||
|
Let's not pretend that a website with a capability to reach hundreds of thousands of people compares to the capabilities of a major television network.
This is a serious problem, as there are different sides to every argument, and the constitution was founded on the free flow of information. Dude makes points. To get your opinion heard, you need money. Where this is not by definition censorship, it is highly restrictive of the free flow of information. Hopefully, television will lose its power through time. The internet is the key. -------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Senor_Doobie writes:
"Let's not pretend that a website with a capability to reach hundreds of thousands of people compares to the capabilities of a major television network." I never suggested it did. But it ain't easy to get time on a major network, even if you've got bags of money and political clout. There's only so much available broadcast time in a day. Even the president does not have unlimited access to the networks. My point was that just because you wish to spread your views to the widest possible audience, it is unrealistic to expect the networks to grant you all the time you feel is appropriate whenever you feel like it. If they did that for everyone who had a burning message to convey to the public, no one would ever watch tv... it would be an endless parade of babbling loons, 24/7. In the days before the Internet, people used to write letters to the editor. Many still do. In the days before there were newspapers, people used to express their opinions on street corners. Many still do. "This is a serious problem, as there are different sides to every argument, and the constitution was founded on the free flow of information." It's not a serious problem at all. Not ALL of the opponents of the government have chosen to remain silent, only those who find being criticized unpleasant. Do you really believe that by now there is an American left anywhere in the country who has not heard or read or seen on tv NUMEROUS criticisms of the way that the Bush administration is handling things? Lord knows I've been exposed to enough of it. The "free flow of information" hasn't been hampered. It's just that it's a two-way flow. All that is different these days is that those who are criticizing the government's actions are being greeted with vociferous negative feedback rather than the usual boredom and indifference. "Dude makes points." He makes points, yes. But none of them support his accusation that "the majority" are somehow preventing the dissenters from expressing their views. "To get your opinion heard, you need money." To get almost anything, you need money. Dope costs money. Food costs money. Cars cost money. Those with more money can get more of everything, not just airtime. It was like that before September 11. It'll be like that for a long time to come. Ironically, getting your opinion heard is one of the few things left that DOESN't require money. A letter to the editor costs a stamp. A letter to your congressman costs nothing. Air time on local cable channels costs nothing. Even getting your opinion heard on a major network's popular primetime newsmagazine doesn't require money. 60 minutes and other similar shows don't charge a penny to those whose stories are aired... quite the reverse. They often (despite their protestations to the contrary) will PAY someone to appear on the show if they feel the story is hot enough. "Where this is not by definition censorship, it is highly restrictive of the free flow of information." How is it restrictive? Do you think that the owner of a TV network should be forced to apportion free air time to any random individual whose ideas run completely counter to his own? Do you think that advertisers should be forbidden to withdraw their ads from shows who air viewpoints they find repugnant? You have the right to speak your mind, but you don't have the "right" to make anyone provide you the means to reach a nationwide audience. pinky --------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (01/19/02 10:54 PM)
| |||||||
|
Senor_Doobie Snake Pit Champion Registered: 08/11/99 Posts: 22,678 Loc: Trump Train |
| ||||||
|
You have the right to be heard. Ceratainly. The Supreme Court through many lawsuits have always maintained that the "free flow of information" is the essence of what the first amendment is all about.
Information has to be received in order for the flow to be considered free. After all, "only through the free exchange of information can the truth be revealed." "Do you think that the owner of a TV network should be forced to apportion free air time to any random individual whose ideas run completely counter to his own?" The airwaves are owned by the people. The FCC serves to regulate who controls them so that there isn't a different broadcaster every five miles with a different message. However as to your question, the answer is that they are required by law to do exactly that. A TV network is in fact forced to apportion free air time to any random individual whose ideas run completely counter the position of the network. It's called equal time. Look into it. The airwaves belong to all of us. There are no "owners" to the airwaves. There are licensees. The FCC was given power in order to ensure that the airwaves remained in the people's hands. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out that way but legally it still stands that the airwaves belong to the people and the people still have the right to challenge any stance taken by any of the major networks. Now, I'm not sure what you are arguing because you keep going back and forth. You say at one point that only the govermnent can restrict free speech but at other times you say stuff like "it is unrealistic to expect the networks to grant you all the time you feel is appropriate whenever you feel like it." So you admit that the tv networks have the ability to restrict free speech. You are trying to defend something that doesn't make sense. I am a strong fan of freedom of information. The Supreme Court has also proven to be a strong advocate ot this philosophy. Unfortunately, it ain't common knowledge. So, those with the power hold the cards. Just like in everything else. It would be a failure to assume that the media does not control public opinion. Especially the television media. If it were more fair, and gave what they are obligated to give by federal law, we would probably be a lot better off than we are. -------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Senor_Doobie writes:
"Information has to be received in order for the flow to be considered free." True. But the major networks are not the only channel through which one can receive information. Believe it or not, a surprising amount of people still don't have a television. I don't. I don't have a radio, either. I receive my information mainly through the internet, but also through conversations, and the occasional newspaper or print magazine. "The airwaves are owned by the people." That's the position of the US government. Technically speaking the airwaves are owned by no one. "The FCC serves to regulate who controls them so that there isn't a different broadcaster every five miles with a different message." The FCC was originally charged with apportioning specific frequencies for a simple technical reason: if two or more stations that are too close to each other broadcast on identical frequencies, the reception of the broadcasts is garbled due to interference. As is the case with every other government agency, the FCC increased its mandate over time until its current dictatorial status was reached. The original purpose of the FCC was not to regulate the CONTENT of the message, but to assure that the message would be received. "However as to your question, the answer is that they are required by law to do exactly that. A TV network is in fact forced to apportion free air time to any random individual whose ideas run completely counter the position of the network." If that's the case, I fail to see the problem. If the dissenters can force the networks to give them free time to express their discontent with the War on Terrorism, clearly there is no restriction of the free flow of information. "You say at one point that only the govermnent can restrict free speech but at other times you say stuff like "it is unrealistic to expect the networks to grant you all the time you feel is appropriate whenever you feel like it." How is that contradictory? NBC has no power to prevent you from speaking your mind. They can decline your request for some of THEIR programming time, but they can't prevent FOX or CBS or whoever from giving you time. The reason NBC exists is not to entertain people, or even to spread information. It exists to make a profit for their shareholders. If NBC gave equal time to every conspiracy theorist, KKK member, pedophile, neo-Nazi, or just plain boring idiot who wanted their "fifteen minutes of fame", no one would watch NBC, and NBC would go bankrupt. "So you admit that the tv networks have the ability to restrict free speech. You are trying to defend something that doesn't make sense." I admit no such thing. Your error in logic is that you seem not to have grasped the fundamental difference between "restricting" free speech and "assisting" free speech. When a network declines to give airtime to someone, they are neither restricting nor assisting free speech. They are remaining neutral. "It would be a failure to assume that the media does not control public opinion." It appears you have a lower opinion of the intelligence of the American people than I do. It is absurd to assert that people's opinions are "controlled" by the media. Good grief -- I hear people carping all the time about what crap is being spewed out of their televisions, and how "this dude on tv last night was so full of shit", etc. Are YOUR opinions determined by the tv shows you watch? If not, why do you assume that the opinions of others are? "Especially the television media. If it were more fair, and gave what they are obligated to give by federal law, we would probably be a lot better off than we are. " Privately-owned networks are not obligated by federal law to turn over control of their programming to any Tom Dick or Harry off the street. Not even publicly-funded networks are. However, PBS does present a broader spectrum of viewpoints than CBS. PBS is just a click of the remote away from CBS. If you are afraid of having your opinions controlled by NBC or CBS, don't watch them. Watch PBS. Or read a book. Or read the Political Discussion Forum at The Shroomery. No one will stop you, trust me. --------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (01/20/02 08:30 AM)
| |||||||
|
wingnutx Registered: 09/24/00 Posts: 2,287 |
| ||||||
|
The frequencies are leased, and do belong to the people, but the transmitters are the property of whatever network/station is operating them.
Cable tv and the Internet are already taking a huge chunk out of the big networks. Look at Matt Drudge. He's just a guy with a website, basically.
| |||||||
|
Eightball whore consumer   Registered: 07/21/01 Posts: 3,013 Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Networks tend to show a limited scope of the story, usually democratic, republican, or their version of neutral. By doing this, they leave out unsupportive factual information which SHOULD be told to the people. The average person can't simply refute a news story without doing their own research(and having a reason to be refuting it), and most americans either don't realize the whole story isn't being told and accept it as a truth or suspect bias, but do not know the whole story. What we see on network television news is usually regarded as factual because they claim they are delivering us the truth and they appeal to our logic and emotions in the stories they choose to run. Any story can be shifted in perspective enough to justify anything or potray an alternate truth (ie. watch the previews to a movie, then the movie, then the previews again and notice how much they took most scenes shown out of context, sometimes creating ideas that weren't in the movie) resulting in the average american taking these biased accounts as truths.
Also heres a quote from http://www.zmag.org/content/Economy/Ivins_disregard.cfm regarding the lack of media exposure of taxes being lowered for the wealthiest 1% of the population and huge tax breaks for large corperations while the lower and middle classes have to dish out more, and the cutting of "helping organizations" that help the lower and middle classes. From the 9/11 attacks, this country has built a substancial debt and the lower and middle classes are carrying the burdon, while the rich get tax cuts. "We live in a society in which the bad stuff flows downhill, and the people on the bottom are drowning in it. This is not a story to which the corporate media pay attention. Bad demographics doesn't attract advertisers--not upbeat, no patriotism, too busy with Russell Crowe's love life. " -------------------- If you're frightened of dying and you're holding on.you'll see devils tearing your life away. But...if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels Freeing you from the earth.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Eightball writes:
"Networks tend to show a limited scope of the story, usually democratic, republican, or their version of neutral." Agreed. As do all media... print, radio, tv, internet. What gets published is what fits the standards of the owners and editors. The Manchester Guardian prints leftist gibberish, Rush Limbaugh spews conservative gibberish. But this does not mean that "the majority" are preventing dissidents from exercising their right of free speech. That was Nomez's original assertion. The fact that a given network or newspaper chooses not to report every word of every press release from every special interest group does not mean that they are interfering with the rights of these groups to speak freely. "The average person can't simply refute a news story without doing their own research(and having a reason to be refuting it), and most americans either don't realize the whole story isn't being told and accept it as a truth or suspect bias, but do not know the whole story." I doubt that the average American makes up his mind on any issue that he feels is of real importance based solely on information from a single source. I'm sure that SOME do... those who are too lazy to switch the channel on the tube, or read a newspaper or listen to radio news on the way to work, but I suspect that these people are in the minority. "Any story can be shifted in perspective enough to justify anything or potray an alternate truth... resulting in the average american taking these biased accounts as truths." I have a higher opinion of the average American than you do, I guess. Do YOU take these biased accounts as being true? If not, what makes you assume that others do? "Also heres a quote from (some website) regarding the lack of media exposure taxes being lowered for the wealthiest 1% of the population ..." So the information is available, just not front page news in every newspaper. So what? It's not like anyone is HIDING it or sealing files or whatever. Stories, often big stories, get yanked at the last minute every day to make room for something else that is, in the judgement of the editor, more likely to be of universal interest. It drives reporters nuts. Sometimes the article gets reinserted at a later date, sometimes not. That's journalism. In the US and everywhere else, too. Besides, the selective publishing of news stories by a privately-owned business is NOT a violation of the right to speak freely. If you have a pet peeve that you feel is not being given enough coverage by the big guns, you are free to spread the word through other methods. Maybe no one will help you with your mission, but no one will stop you. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Kratom Powder for Sale Buy Kratom Capsules Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Red Vein Kratom |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
American Media |  Floydian |
3,673 | 13 | 06/07/01 01:56 PM by jihead |
|
 |
Gov't imposes censorship and secretly seizes book records |  Lana |
570 | 1 | 03/05/03 06:23 AM by Rono |
|
|
Help Fight Censorship In The War On Drugs!!! |  Ekstaza |
2,008 | 8 | 01/17/04 01:37 PM by Anonymous |
|
 |
American imperialism - for RailGun | headphone |
1,519 | 4 | 09/06/01 01:08 AM by MrKurtz |
|
 |
Americans Embrace Tolerance, Freedom |  Ravus |
663 | 8 | 12/18/04 06:39 AM by Phred |
|
|
The Great American Treason |  usefulidiot |
1,816 | 13 | 12/23/04 01:55 PM by afoaf |
|
 |
D.A.R.P.A'S TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS...is alive and well |  HagbardCeline |
869 | 7 | 06/09/04 09:25 AM by whiterasta |
|
|
Judge: Ad Restrictions Unconstitutional |  luvdemshrooms |
524 | 2 | 06/03/04 07:55 PM by Redo |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 1,410 topic views. 3 members, 5 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
