Speak Out: Liberal Groups Want FCC to Police Talk Radio, Cable News

Replies (39)

• Exactly what is "hate speech?" Suppose it is any utterance that does not agree with or is approved by Liberals.

  Using the traditional defination of "liberal," how can those left wing organizastions mentioned in the link be even remotely be defined or considered "liberal."

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 9:30 AM

• Yawn. Get back to me when this is legislation instead of a letter.

  -- Posted by FriendO on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 9:34 AM

• FriendO,

  Go back to bed if we bore you.

  But in regrd to what is currently being attempted to further restrict freedom of speech in this country, some of us don't wait until the horse is stolen to attempt to lock the stable.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 9:53 AM

• Voyager,

  Maybe hate speech could better be defined as, what you cannot say about a minority without being branded a racist, but what can be spoken openly about when it regards someone who is not a minority.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 9:57 AM

• This is one of the issues I addressed when I interviewed with KZIM.

  Thanks,

  Larry Bill, Independent Consevative Candidate for Congress, 8th District, Missouri

  Visit: http://larrybill.com/a-link-to-the-radio-interview-at-kzim/

  -- Posted by nolimitsonthought on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 12:31 PM

• In other words, FriendO and Caddyman, you really do not have a clear concise definition of "Hate speech." It means whatever you want it to mean at any given but changeable time...kinda.

  On such vagueness you would attempt to "hush" up and censor those with whom you disagree.

  Let us fervently pray that neither of you ever get anywhere near the levers of power to regulate and control speech.

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 12:58 PM

• I think the issue here is libel and slander, types of defamation. Suddenly some think it is fair to say anything about anyone under the umbrella of "free speech". They are wrong of course.

  -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 1:09 PM

  Theorist,

  Are you have a "reading comprehension" problem here? The issue they are going to the FCC about is what they determine to be hate speech.

  Even if libel and slander were involved, that is not an FCC thing. Libel and Slander is pursued by the wronged party, not government.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 1:15 PM

• But I don't, Theorist, certainly not knowingly. Which is one of the bones of contention with Ike who seems to accept anything (with which he agrees) posted on the internet.

  By the way, who decides whether something is libel, slander, or defamation?

  Find me one instance, ONE, in which I have ever called anyone a "Liar." The same goes for libel, slander, or defamation. But be prepared to prove it.

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 1:22 PM

• Caddie, Would hate speach be that of Rev. Wright?

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 1:37 PM

• Read the link Ike. It was pretty clear to me. Some 30, mostly liberal groups want to have the FCC intervene on some talk radio and cable shows. Now just which ones would you suppose those are?

  Wish I could draw you a picture, but they won't allow the posting of graphics on here.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 1:45 PM

• Ike, read this again (knowing how you like references):

  http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/liber...

  Or do you wish to refute it.

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 1:49 PM

• So who gets to decide what hate speech is? The politicians?

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 4:39 PM

• Now with regards to the media and your article, do you truly not see the correlation? Or are you being obtuse just to annoy?

  -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 4:23 PM

  No Theorist, I do not really see the correlation. In the first place, what is being said is not necessarily hate speech, unless of course the liberal groups involved can gin up some new definitions for hate speech.

  The obvious reason for the letters to the FCC is to silence conservative voices, and we both know it. The liberals have tried numerous different voices to give their side, and quite frankly no one will pay to hear it. They failed miserably, so they try another tact.

  It is a deliberate attempt to stifle free speech, nothing less.

  Please explain this to me "false and unprivileged statement of fact". To me a statement of fact is just that and not false. If it is false, it certainly cannot be a statement of fact.

  I think you may have tangled yourself up in some of your own words.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 4:45 PM

• Would these 30 odd liberal group petitioning the FCC if the situation were reverse, if talk radio mostly liberal talk and very little or no conservative programing? Their silence on the subject would be deafening/

  Would they support the same rules and prohibitions they propose to ALL media and all forms of communication? They have remained remarkably quiet on that issue. Besides, they know perfectly well it would be challenged in court and could not withstand a constitutional test.

  So what is the purpose of the drive these organizations are pushing. My opinion is a rather crude attempt to intimidate conservative talk (or silence it if they can).

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 5:10 PM

• Precisely, vulcan.

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 6:00 PM

• Ah, Freedom of Speech, Wheels ... Wonderful, isn't it?

  "Freedom of speech means what the government says it means. In other words, you don't truly have freedom of speech."

  In a utopian world, there would be no such thing as 'hate.' Not sure our government is capable (yet) of legislating something so personal. But fairly positive it will keep trying ...

  "Maybe hate speech could better be defined as, what you cannot say about a minority without being branded a racist, but what can be spoken openly about when it regards someone who is not a minority." And that, my dears, says a lot!

  "Would hate speach be that of Rev. Wright?" Good example!

  Would it be too much to ask that we leave 'defamation' claims to the individuals who believe they are being harmed by what may be falsehoods to fight in court ... instead of legislating more restrictions on that 'freedom of speech' thing that we do still have a little bit of left?

  Sorry, but the idea of 'Thought Police' disturbs me more every year.

  The groups pushing this haven't realized that less 'freedom of speech' might also severely affect them ... like the Rev. Wright speeches? Still ... this sort of thing might eventuallly lead to restrictions on all lying ... even for political candidates and presidents! Hmmm ...

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 7:08 PM

• The groups pushing this haven't realized that less 'freedom of speech' might also severely affect them ... like the Rev. Wright speeches? Still ... this sort of thing might eventuallly lead to restrictions on all lying ... even for political candidates and presidents! Hmmm ...

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 7:08 PM

  Mom,

  Now listen here, we gotta draw the line somewhere, and you stepped over it when you even suggested restrictions on lying politicians. How in the devil do you suppose any of them would ever get elected to an office higher than dog catcher. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 7:19 PM

• Now Wheels,don't belittle the dogcatcher whose probably the most useful and honest one of the lot. Think they are now called Animal Control Officers. Nowadays they are called upon to attend to all sorts of animals under varied conditions. Like removing a bear from a neighborhood back out to the woods someewhere. Or capturing a threatening alligator who eyes someones pet pooch as potential dinner. I said useful and honest.

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 9:15 PM

• "....but what can be spoken openly about when it regards someone who is not a minority."

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 9:57 AM

  Wheels, would you be so kind and provide me with an example? I'm serious, I am curious. I do not support any restrictions on free speech but in the same right, if that is the way you feel, you must own it.

  -- Posted by Turnip on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 9:20 PM

• Well turnips I suppose some of the slang names one might laughingly call one of the majority, had danged well not be even accidentally done to one of the various minority groups or the ugly word racist comes out. Doesn't bother me when someone calls me a flat headed Dutchman or a host of other things.

  Another example, to be pushed back in spite of superior testing scores because minority quotas must be filled. We get labeled unfairly as racist if we complain of those things.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 10:01 PM

• ....flat-headed dutchmen, eh? I could come up with something way better, Wheels! :o)~

  -- Posted by Turnip on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 10:15 PM

• I've been called the stingiest Scotsman in the Northern Hemisphere. I agreed and said, "yea, I squeezed a nickle so hard the buffalo passes gas."

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 10:22 PM

• I've been called the stingiest Scotsman in the Northern Hemisphere. I agreed and said, "yea, I squeezed a nickle so hard the buffalo passes gas."

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 10:22 PM

• I've been called the stingiest Scotsman in the Northern Hemisphere. I agreed and said, "yea, I squeezed a nickle so hard the buffalo passes gas."

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 10:23 PM

• ....flat-headed dutchmen, eh? I could come up with something way better, Wheels! :o)~

  -- Posted by Turnip on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 10:15 PM

  Turnips,

  Please be nice I am very tired this evening. I fell asleep while ago sitting here and then one of my friends called and talked for an hour. No longer sleepy, just tired.

  Voyager,

  The devil is making me do this, I cannot help it. But reading your post(s), it is obvious you are not paying by the post.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 11:40 PM

• "... we gotta draw the line somewhere, and you stepped over it when you even suggested restrictions on lying politicians" Oh, shoot, you're right, Wheels!

  I apologize for even suggesting such an absurd thing!

  Wheels, I thought you might reply by referencing some of the 'you're a racist' posts on another thread ... but no one seemed to have a problem with the other side of the coin when there were comments about 'honkies' not being a 'forbidden word? Just thought; I can call someone like, say, Obama a liar and would earn the label of racist ... but I can call you a liar, and that would just be a 'personal opinion' that I have a right to have, right?

  Wish you hadn't mentioned that dumbing-down of tests to accomodate those of 'another race.' If I were a Black person, that would insult me personally and deeply (and it does insult several blacks I know), because it's the same as saying a 'certain race' is not intelligent enough to pass the tests the 'majority' can. Those crying 'discrimination' in testing just don't seem to comprehend what they are saying about at least themselves.

  Off-topic ... about an hour ago, all my internet windows have become ... smaller? Smaller type (can hardly see the thread comments), some that cannot be 'expanded' are so small all the site won't fit into them ... Didn't do anything unusual that I know about ... anyone have a clue what I might have done to 're-size' everything? I don't even know what my resolution was or should be ...

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 12:18 AM

• "Would hate speach be that of Rev. Wright?" Good example!"

  So much has been implied about Rev. Wright, it may be opportune time to interject some sanity.

  The fact that Reverend Wright is somewhat extreme in some areas is nothing new. However, you have to remember what he was talking about in his (possibly most) famous sermon.

  One situation he was addressing was slavery in America in an earlier age. He asked in a somewhat shocking fashion whether God blessed slavery in America, or did God **** slavery in America. Likewise he addressed lynching of negroes in early America and asked whether God blessed lynching of negroes, or God damned lynching. Obviously the rhetoric he used was designed to stir emotions and it did. But before anyone gets overly critical, the context needs to be take into account.

  And even the most religious would probably not insist the God blessed slavery and lynchings.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 8:10 AM

• Wheels, I thought you might reply by referencing some of the 'you're a racist' posts on another thread ... but no one seemed to have a problem with the other side of the coin when there were comments about 'honkies' not being a 'forbidden word? Just thought; I can call someone like, say, Obama a liar and would earn the label of racist ... but I can call you a liar, and that would just be a 'personal opinion' that I have a right to have, right?

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 12:18 AM

  Mom,

  I came home last night dead tired and about as near brain dead as you can get and still function.

  Those were the type things I was thinking of. The honkie term certainly always comes to mind. You know I don't feel like the term racist fits most of us. Race has little to do with how I feel for another person. As far as a for instance, yesterday I severed ties so to speak with a tenant, who was way behind in his rent on a gross lease situation where I was paying the utilities. We came to an agreement on certain properties that he turned over to me as partial compensation, I still lost as I know he certainly did. This guy was of a mixed race background, young, likeable and hardworking. His business enterprise failed. We parted with a handshake, both feeling a bit of more than a financial loss I think. We still had respect for one another.

  Regards your computer problem, I had something like that happen to me and Spank told me to do something that worked, now I cannot remember what it was. Somebody go wake Spank up, Mom needs help.

  Just remembered, what I believe Spank told me, go to View up at the top and reset to 100%. I believe that is what I had to do. The coffee is starting to kick in and I may make it through the day yet.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 9:33 AM

• Common,

  I watched more than a single sound byte of that Sermon as well. Nice job on spinning what he really said.

  Reverend Wright is a racist in my opinion. Slavery was wrong, but it has been over for more than 150 years and it is time to move on by all sides. I have no ancestors that ever owned a slave to my knowledge but some black men certainly owned slaves themselves. So who, at this late stage of the game, should carry the most guilt and shame connected with slavery... me a descendant of a white family who never owned slaves or the descendants of the black family that did?

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 9:46 AM

• Thanks Spank,

  Had to yank your chain just a little there. I knew you would come through with an answer. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 11:58 AM

• Spank, how is Dumplin'? Did you like your experience with the Cape vet or is it too soon to tell.

  -- Posted by Turnip on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 12:40 PM

• Common and Wheels, Thanks for putting the Rev Wright talk into perspective. I always felt what he was saying [in a poor way] made a point. But the point does not need to be made and only served to incite ill feelings.

  It also directed attention away from what Obama was telling us he planned to do if elected.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 4:23 PM

• commonsense ... One of the most 'uplifting' sermons I ever heard was in a black church (one of Pops' men invited us for his first sermon after becoming a bonafide minister). It was a wonderful, inspiring thing to witness and feel. How very different, yet the same, from Wright's psychological hate-inspiring sermons.

  Because of that one incident, I understood how that type of ministerial 'enthusiasm' could be accepted without the congregation really stopping to think just what they were getting enthused about. Not putting this well, but maybe someone can understand ...

  As far as slavery, lynchings ... all the atrocities ... It IS time to 'get over it' (and try to remember that most slave owners considered their slaves valuable property--although we never hear much about that aspect) ... because until everyone does, it will continue to be an excuse, so to speak, for racial divisions and hatred and ...

  If we ever, ever come to a point in time when we (our government) can conclude that every race, every gender in this country has exactly the same opportunities to do well, to learn, to succeed ... if they want to ... that is when those people who now seem to believe that there are excuses for not doing so will begin to succeed in their lives/futures. Until then, they are the primary ones holding themselves ... and their children ... back.

  However, the Wright's and certain politicians of our country NEED racial divisions, even if it means fostering hatred and resentment. It's their bread-and-butter.

  Spank! What is happening with Dumplin? Bless her heart, sure hope it isn't anything serious! Must have missed something recently, as didn't know she'd had stitches for something again? Uh ... oh, and how are YOU doing? ~laughing~ Thanks ... I think, so far, it looks like your suggestion is working ... the icons are still tiny, but I can read the print on Missourian now! If Scrabble doesn't show the whole board this evening, I'll ask for more advice.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 4:29 PM

• Gurus, "Make no mistake about it, let's make this perfectly clear, let me say this about that", [a little political lingo there] YOU SAID IT WELL!

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 5:42 PM

• Spank, The lower GI thing is not something to dread. Been there, done that.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 6:49 PM

• Spank, it will probably look worse before it looks better. Good luck. You also just reminded me of the commercial where all the men are crying while waiting for their colonoscopy. funny stuff.

  -- Posted by Turnip on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 7:05 PM

• I'm hoping it's an upper. I'm not real sure I would like the lower. ☻

  -- Posted by SpankTheTank on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 6:36 PM

  Spank,

  If you are about 50 and headed for beyond, they are going to want to give you one of those every so often. They are fun... take my word for it. ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻

  Little demeral (However it is spelled) and you could care less!

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 8:12 PM

• I think I'd rather do the lower as well. They don't give demeral with a upper GI, last I heard. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺

  -- Posted by Turnip on Sat, Jun 5, 2010, at 9:06 PM

• Do they still make you drink that stuff that is so thick, it's like trying to swallow almost-set-up concrete for the upper GI?

  Anyway, Spank ... take Old J.'s word for it; Pops didn't think it was bad at all, nor was the 'procedure' they had to do because of the results. Sure hope the tests find nothing whatsoever wrong!

  Resolution is 1024x768. Maybe I just dreamed the icons were a little bigger on the desk top ... or perhaps my eyesight got even worse overnight?

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Jun 6, 2010, at 12:04 AM