Regardless of one's political philosophy, does anyone think that this kind of intrusion by the FCC was a good idea? Even the FCC has backed off. Good to hear.
This was a bad example of why we have restrictions on freedom of speech. Why we need to regulate things. I do not believe any of the things I said. But I was trying to make a point that sometimes you cannot blindly follow the constitution.
But there aren't restrictions on freedom of speech. You were able to say what you did. Nobody regulated against it, fined you, came to your house to arrest you, etc.
Do they make a distinction in the Constitution you were quoting as the word of god? That is my only point. I choose a poor method to illustrate my point, but at least someone understood it. You cannot pick and choose when it's okay to supersede the constitution or not.
I am truly sorry if I offended you or you thought I was being serious. I was angry at you and Denny, but I did not mean for anyone to take my words as truth. I was trying to illustrate a point, which luckily Platypus was able to interpret. Oh and I didn't follow it up because I rarely post when I'm not at work.
I get it. But you see, you are allowed to own a gun per 2nd amendment, but you're not allowed to indiscriminately kill with it (or with an axe). You are allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater - nobody can stop you from doing that - but if you cause a panic and people get hurt, then you are responsible for the injuries. With freedoms come responsibilities and consequences. Who is picking and choosing about superseding the constitution? Not me. They should regulate everything, including axes! Oh wait, they don't. Seems someone is picking and choosing what to regulate.
Well simply by charging someone with injuries after yelling fire, clearly is regulating it. You are not truly free if you are penalized by those actions. That's like saying "In Russia you are free to protest, but you have to protest in a specific spot, and you have to get the government's approval."
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Charging someone with injuries is charging someone with injuries. They're not being charged with saying something unpopular nor do they need pre-approval by the government. The pre-approval thing is what this bad idea was all about - through intimidation at the very least.
"I'm sorry for calling you a pedophile." Something you can't take things back, even if you're "kidding." Disgusting. You should have been suspended, IMO.
It didn't seem to me to have anything to do with it. The FCC wanted to interfere with the press. It wouldn't be like YOU calling someone a pedophile, it would be like Obama (he is the president in this example) saying that Maddow can call Chris Christie a pedophile but Hannity can't call Biden one. I got the fire in a theater thing because it is a common cliche. The rest of it just threw me off.
We should always follow the constitution. If we change the constitition to make it legal for me to do whatever I want whenever I want then tough shit for everyone else.
The Fairness Doctrine was a rousing success for free speech and more importantly free hearing, despite the rewriting of history that the article presents. When Reagan basically threw it out is when this country's media morphed into a useless battle of government/corporate controlled political propaganda and stopped covering real news.
