Reason Interviews Michael Powell

Phlinn writes "In the Reason interview with Michael Powell, it is possible to develop a clearer understanding of the FCC's recent actions. It would appear that despite recent actions, he's not the pro censorship icon many people think. Beware of actions based on a "greater good" however."

Comments

actions vs. words

[the arbiter]

The article's nice. He sounds like a smart, reasonable guy, who's not in any way interested in being an Orwellian nightmare come to life. He's just doing his job. He's just enforcing the law.

His actions speak to me far more loudly than his words. His actions tell me he's interested in enforcing certain aspects of the law in a manner which suits those who put him where he is today.

Just like his daddy does. It seems, sadly, to be a Powell family legacy that they're perfectly willing go along with orders of very dubious morality. Even if those orders are legally correct.

Sad to see good men knuckle under to the evil ones in charge of them.

Re:actions vs. words

[the arbiter]

This will suprise you, but I'm about as liberal as it gets, and would far rather shoot myself in the head then watch either Faux News or the Corporate News Network.

The My Lai coverup was merely the first of many incidents where Mr. Powell, Sr., followed orders rather than his conscience. He did it again and again. Really, it's how he got to where he is. I'd like to attribute his abrupt retirement to pangs of conscience, but he may be just looking out for his career again. I don't know.

As to whether he's a good guy, I rather think that, fundamentally, he is. When left to his own devices, he tends to make fairly good, reasoned decisions. When following orders, not so much. The problem, really, is that he's been following orders most of his life. And regardless of what the judges at Nuremburg said, there are a lot of situations in life where you do have to follow immoral orders. Or else. Is it evil to allow yourself to be a tool for those are perpetuating evil? I can't answer that either.

What I do know is that you owe me an apology for implying that I watch Fox News and CNN. I'll take a lot of abuse, but that is really hitting below the belt.

Re:Flip-flop - not at all

[FredThompson]

Your comment shows a basic lack of understanding of the responsibilities of freedom and even what the concept of freedom entails.

All "freedoms" include responsibility for associated consequences.

Public standards of decency, while difficult to define ("I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it."), most certainly are the prerogative of the society.

They screaming the words "anthrax" in an American airport as loudly as you can, repeatedly and see how long your "freedom of speech" lasts.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction applies not just to basic physics experiments but also to everything else in life.

Society does not give YOU freedom from consequences. When your actions harm others, you will be held accountable. Sometimes that is immediate, sometimes it has less visible repurcussions but you will receive the consequences if every action you take.

"Freedom of speech" does not mean others are forced to be exposed to such speech nor that the speaker will be free of responsibility.

Homework assignments (since you seem to be living in a world of first week Civics 101):

1) What would have been the result of you exposing yourself in public in 1777 America?

2) Explain how your selected excerpt from the Bill of Rights could possibly have included a definition of speech which meant anything other than sound made from human lips absent of any recording of transmission technologies as none existed in the 1770s.

3) Explain and demonstrate a preponderance of American court decisions in which individuals are granted complete and total absence of repurcussion from actions deemed offensive when using community-owned resources.

4) In the case your are unable to properly answer assignment #3, demonstrate through the presentation of historic documents that "freedom of speech" in late 1770s America guaranteed lack of repurcussion from any and all public speech.

Re:Flip-flop

[Xabraxas]

Saying you can't swear on publicly owned TV or radio is like saying you can't swear in a publically owned library. Swearing in a publically owned courthouse can land you in the tank if the judge is in a bad mood. Swearing in my home can get you a punch in the face.

That's exactly the problem. Those places are public. I could understand the ability to limit speech (not by way of law though) in a private establishment, but public places are the last places that your freedom should be limited. How is speech free at all if it is limited publicly?

Definitions

[AtariAmarok]

"Definition of an Activist Judge: One who gives forth a judgement you don't like."

You got it: Definition of propaganda: opinion you don't like.

Definition of biased news: news where people don't have your exact opinions, or where they report stories you don't wnat reported.

Definition of rhetoric: speech you don't like.