What is the value in allowing Conservatives to speak?

I believe there is a value in it, but I want your thoughts on it. I can think of three responses myself.

1. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. This actually prohibits the Government from interfering with Free Speech. There are ways, as the Imus situation demonstrates, to silence speech that offends us without relying on the Government. As a student of the Red Scare, I know that while the Government did engage in intimidation tactics against Communists (the HUAC hearings and Tailgunner Joe), there were plenty of non-Governmental organizations dedicated to ensuring our airwaves were not corrupted by the Commies. The black list was developed by the Studies, not by the Government. All of this is, I am assured, completely constitutional. In effect, it is us as citizens driving people off the air, not the Government.

Imagine a world in which CNN, MSNBC, and the networks knew that if they put Coulter on the air, their sponsors would be boycotted by millions. Coulter would never get on the air, and it would be completely constitutional. One could debate whether or not it would be in harmony with the spirit of the Constitution (I rather feel it wouldn't).

2. You have to protect Coulter's speech, because it's the only way to really protect Olberman's speech. This is a good reason to prevent governmental censorship, but I doubt it would apply to a privately organized boycott/shutout of Conservative voices. Imagine we create a group, call it the DU Committee for Public Decency. The group watches to see that harmful speech doesn't appear on the airwaves, and the moment a Coulter rises her head, letters go out letting us all know what products not to buy, what restaurants not to eat at and so on and so forth. Well that mechanism could only be used to stop speech we don't agree with; it's not like they would suddenly decide to shut out Liberals. There'd be no point.

I suppose you could argue that such an organization might radicalize over time and start cutting off speech that is moderate liberal (say someone like Lieberman Circa 2000).

3. We might be wrong; it's good to have contrasting voices. Saved this one for the last because it is fairly easily dealt with. Consider for a moment, do you foresee a time ever when Ann Coulter is right and the collective wisdom of DU is wrong? Me neither.

What other possibilities are there? What is the value of letting a Coulter or a Limbaugh or a Hannity continue to do their thing?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

we wouldn't know how fucking ignorant they are. The constitution is a shield for all citizens, even the ignorant ones who want to destroy the constitution.

We need to get our message out which is getting increasingly more difficult as Clear Channel keeps shutting down AAR stations.

Bryant

dusting off the old fairness doctrine would be a great idea.

But if we could, yeah, I would enforce the Fed. Communications Act and install programming that serves the needs of the community. I don't want simply to balance their hour of lies with our hour of facts.

Right now there is no fairness of balance in the system. We are getting buried by right wing media. Three years ago we had three liberal radio stations in Ohio. Now we have zero. Clear Channel shut them all down. Now we have FOX-SPORTS-RADIO!! Yeah, thanks for the bread and circus, Caesar, except I'm still waiting for the bread.

You don't want even an hour of lies. Is that a fair summation of your position?

Obviously we don't have the power to do this, but what would you like to do if you did have the power.

Bryant

Additional NPR stations would be nice. The public own the airways, not private stations. They are there to act in our best interest. Diversity is one of the goals of the Fed. Comm. Act. If Limbaugh is on for three hours, you don't need Beck, O'Reilly and the rest of them too in one locality, especially if there is no liberal radio.

and Keith Olbermann something to use to help us laugh.

We have to let them speak, so we can have a hearty belly laugh from time to time! :evilgrin:

..is part of free speech. If they are coerced or compelled to broadcast views that otherwise might not, that is not free speech.

I'm also a big believer that just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean someone is required to provide that platform or outlet for you. There are times you may need to do it yourself.

As far as a response to the value of allowing conservatives to speak, I think it has very obvious value. I think your responses are far too narrow because they focus on one person as an example. Conservatism has many more voices than that, and if were basing their right to speak on the way they present themselves or the civility they bring to the table then they should have a spot at that table.

I also think there's value in testing and solidfying our own views and opinions. I find conservative texts vastly important for refining my own ideas. Sure, some of it has to do with contrasting ideas and challenging yourself...but understanding the ideas, mindsets and origins of conservative thought only makes my own progressive ideas a lot more clearer and helps to bring to mind newer ones. It's not only about debating points...it's really about fostering your own epiphanal moments....is "epiphinal" a word?

...point of view. It is not a marketplace of ideas when only major media companies have access to the medium.

I think the second you compel (by law, mind you) anyone to broadcast a message they don't want to broadcast, you are acting contrary to free speech. You are not being allowed to determine the content of your own message or the character of your own expression. That goes for anything and everyone...newspapers, blogs, TV stations, etc etc etc ad infinitum. I think this is very the conclusion that began the fall of the the fairness doctrine, and I think it's correct.

Boycotts are great because it forces outlets to make broadcasts decisions according to the public they want the business of. Not censorship, and perfectly legal.

1. Boycotts never work.

2. Broadcasters have a perfect right to free speech. They just do not have a right to use the public airways to do it. Radio and television are inherently different than other forms of communication because of the limited nature of the electromagnetic spectrum. That is why the Fed. Communications Act gives public ownership of that spectrum and licenses stations to use it as trustee for the public benefit. This is a soap-box the public built AND there are no other possible soap boxes. We cannot allow the public airways to be hijacked by four or five corporations to be used to send us pro-corporate (and therefore anti-human, anti-democracy) propoganda. We get a very limited set of ideas for the tay, vay and those ideas define our national dialogue. Ability to attract sponsors should not be the only factor in determining program and repressing diversity is not even a legitimate goal of broadcasting.

The right to talk is irrelevant. The right to be heard is what matters. As long as corporate media controls the networks, we (you and I) have not right to be heard and, therefore, no real right to free speech.

You have the right to talk, to write, and to express yourself any number of ways in the name of speech. But the right to be heard doesn't exist. You can put your speech out there, and the masses will do with it as they will: embrace it, consider it, ignore it. What the audience does is up to them, and there's nothing you can do about it. You cannot stop someone from throwing the newspaper away or changing the channel without having heard your message.

I agree that it would be a very bad thing for the airwaves to be hijacked by a few large entities. But I think current FCC licensure structures address that problem already. I don't think there is a need to explicitly compel broadcasters to broadcast certain views, people or ideas. If there was, the airwaves would be unmitigated chaos because the number of differing opinions out there laying claim to airtime would be staggering.

That has happened, FCC or not. The right to speech as you describe it is pretty meaningless. I sure as hell wouldn't fight to preserve that right.

Right now there are two views being expressed: RW hate mongering and and a watered-down conservatism that tolerates RW hate mongering. When was the last time you heard a story advocating socialism, for example?

...because frankly the left is terrible when it comes to media saavy. There's nothing an FCC or any other administrator can do to fix that. We have a very viable, fertile speech environm,ent here in America from which to take hold, and we keep screwing it up.

We very much enjoy the same rights to free speech that we always have, and it is not the least bit meaningless...but the left cannot get their shit together when it comes to media. That's the hard truth. I really can't stand the attitude that the deck has been stacked against us because we've stacked it against ourselves in a lot of ways. We have not treated the market for our views as well as the right wing has.

We have a few bright spots here and there, but that's about it.

Somebody finally understands what the First Amendment says!(good job Sammy). The government has absolutely no business regulating political commentary. In a free market, WE have the right to regulate through our cash dollars who and what goes on the air. If you don't like Rush, fine. Boycott his sponsors. If you like Air America and want to keep them afloat, then do business with their advertisers so that the revenues keep coming in to the stations. I know many here hate capitalism and free markets, but you cannot operate a business without money. Radio stations don't build themselves, transmission towers don't build themselves, the station's electric bill and payroll won't pay itself. The radio stations have to have income or they go out of business. Some here would do well to take a basic economics class. Clear Channel is shutting down Air America for one reason, THEY'RE LOSING MONEY! Remember, Clear Channel is a corporation whose sole purpose is to make money. If a station isn't bringing in the cash, they've got to cut the dead weight.

Besides that it is dangerouse to censor speech there is another reason why cons should be allowed to open thier big mouths all they want.

It helps us prove our point.

I used to some rather unflatterring opinions of conservativism when I was younger. Then I got to know many conservatives, really listened to what they had to say, where they were coming from. And doing that helped me come to the conclusion that ..WOW, it's much worse then I thought. Some of these are really awful people.

Yes, we know that many cons are racists, sexist homophobic callouse, war mongering, greedy, cowardly chaods who never had a moral rule they couldnt' justify breaking for themselves or a fact they wouldnt' ignore. And many of those that aren't are still willing to shill for the ones that are.

But we need to prove that. And what better way then to let the Right do it for us? Let them be hung by thier own words.

Silence them and not only will we be betraying our own Liberal values but we will give them credibility they don't deserve. It will look like we are trying to silence the truth and feed into this martyr complex so many cons have.

right. their voice is by far,the most predominant voice." Allow ", indeed.

I don't know if we actually learn much from "the past"... but we SHOULD! Without bigoted voices from the past reminding us that we have transformed into something better, how can we measure our progress? I'd like to think that someday we will be beyond the bullshit politics of the conservatives... but for now I believe that they have the right to their opinions, and their expression of said opinions.

I believe it is through education that we can overcome the majority of the problems that affect our world. Educate those who discriminate based on their lack of understanding that even though someone may be different they are the same. Educate about the mistakes of our ancestors so we can hopefully avoid future mistakes on the same scale. Educate, and cross your fingers that tomorrow we will look back on the voices of history and say, we have improved!

Oh yeah, now I remember you.

If you have something to say, go ahead and say it.

Bryant

If you got something to say, you should just fucking say it, asshole.

Bryant

allows more people to realize that Bush values aren't theirs. What if we had never heard about Cheney's dropping the F bomb in the Senate? Many of the BYU students wouldn't have protested.

And to quote Penn Jillete "nobody has the right to go through life and not be offended".

Otherwise you end up like the Maoists in China. Invite people to express their views, then send them off to work camps when they say things you don't like.

And self doubt is an important thing. Ann Coulter may indeed by right about some things, and you all and myself could be very wrong. If you don't share your own ideas with other people, and test them with those whom you disagree, you have the equivalent of verbal diarrhea. Spouting whatever feels good. It's that whole thesis>antitheses>synthesis thing. Good ideas don't come about in an anechoic chamber.

why is there so much endorsement of fascist principles in your threads today?

That's the only possible explanation.

thanks for the verification.

Bryant

In truth, it's a spectrum, or a complex fabric. This idea of a dichotomy could very well be a recent invention by the right wing Republican media machine, to make it look as though their ideas were of equal weight with left wing and Democratic ideas, which actually tend to enjoy more support among the population when you add it all up. I mean most Americans by far are tolerant of cultural and political diversity. It's just a relatively small but powerful sliver of the whole that has made as part of its agenda the goal to have its views become the official currency of the media. And these people are not left, progressive or Democratic.

Nazi Germany?

the very notion of some kind of institutionalized censorship is quite offensive to me. I couldn't ever approve even of rightwing hatemongers like Rush and Beck being banished from the airwaves because I think the ill effects of censorship on culture or society wouldn't be worth the momentary twinge of satisfaction. On the other hand, if the audience for this style of hatefotainment were to get small enough, and subsequently led to shrinking profits and disappearing advertisers (like what happened with Imus) and the eventual cancellation of their shows, I'd think that was worth celebrating.

and a conservative? She really doesn't add to any debate with the things she says. It's not a political point of view when she calls Edwards a "faggot" or says we should go to a Muslim country and convert them to Christianity or kill them or calls liberals "Godless".

:shrug: