Posted by
Hemos
on from the removing-things-from-the-domain dept.
SnapShot writes "There's a very scary article at slate about the revision and reclassification of public, U.S. Government documents made available over the last thirty years. This is supposedly to protect us from the terrorists. Do you feel safer?"
91 comments
Why is this surprising?
by
BoomerSooner
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It seems like McCarthy was a liberal by current standards. Land of the free my ass. Maybe if you're a corporation.
Re:Why is this surprising?
by
ZephyrXero
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
If they took the real terrorists out of office I might feel a little safer;)
-- "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Re:Why is this surprising?
by
Jeremiah+Cornelius
·
· Score: 4, Informative
And there are no terrorists! Only CIA employees, angry former CIA employees, and the shadow category: "former" CIA employees.
Saddam: Documented CIA payroll
Pinochet: Documented CIA payroll
Taleban: Documented CIA payroll
Osama: Documented CIA payroll
What dots can't people connect?
-- "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Why is this surprising?
by
Jeremiah+Cornelius
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Oh - I forgot:
GHW Bush: Documented CIA payroll.
-- "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Why is this surprising?
by
Jeremiah+Cornelius
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Act of terror.
More documentary evidence links Pinochet to this incident than proven links of Osama to WTC/NY.
-- "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Why is this surprising?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What was this modded flamebait? Here is a guy who just yesterday said that we should "err on the side of life", but who, as governor of Texas, signed the death warrants of hundreds of people, and later as President has sent over a thousand Americans to their deaths, not to mention tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
A terrorist is someone who uses terror to inflict his (or her) views on others. By this measure, George W. Bush is a terrorist, as has been every President since Ronald Reagan.
Anyone else worried?
by
Richie1984
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
a growing number of these sources are now barred to the public as "sensitive but unclassified" or "for official use only."
For a start, what does "sensitive but unclassified" actually mean? Does it have any legal status? Or is it simply there because of the connotations? The subtle purposes of the phrase are easily explained; the government isn't hiding the material, but it's in everyone's best interests that you don't and anyone who says otherwise could be dangerous.
-- I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
Who cares. Anything can be researchable if giving enough resources. Credit card companies hold more info about you than the government anyways.
Re:Anyone else worried?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
woosh!
That's the point going right by you.
This isn't about the government withholding info it has on any person(s). This is about hiding information the details what the government, itself, is doing.
The democracy that this country aspires to be is predicated on an informed people.
"sensitive" is a somewhat-meaningless modifier to "unclassified". the basic levels are:
unclassified unclassified + sensitive ----- confidential secret top secret
other modifiers exist, including "secret/special compartmentalized information" added on to "top secret" to make TS/SCI, and "special access programs" or SAPs.
Such a poignant response from a quintessential new generation puppet, with a signature paying homage to the obsession of playing videogames.
Things are like this because of people like you. Who can't be bothered to divert some of their brain cells away from Halo 2 and contemplate the cause-and-effect that's going on with our society and government.
Ironically, those of us who aren't so mentally handicapped, continually ask ourselves the same question, why should we care, when we see who we're trying to save.
Consider for a moment the admission, on September 10, 2001, that the Pentagon has "lost" several trillion dollars over the course of a decade; roughly a third of its budget. Apparently it would prefer to be considered grossly negligent, than to admit to a deep black budget with no oversight.
-- "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Anyone else worried?
by
Hognoxious
·
· Score: 1
The democracy that this country aspires to be is predicated on an informed people.
Well, assuming you're a leftpondian it's game over. Informed people don't believe in fairies and magic skydaddies. I'm sure that has no bearing at all, no no no, not even a little bit round the edges, on how shrub got elected. I was going to say re-elected, but then I realised the prefix "re" only applies to something has actually happened at least once before.
-- Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hmm, another person who has no idea how the elctorial process actually works. they just sad they lost AGAIN.
Re:Anyone else worried?
by
Hognoxious
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, another person who has no idea how the elctorial process actually works.
Hmmmmmm, another mindless mindreader. I'm perfectly aware how the electoral college system works. I'm just not convinced everything that happened in Florida was totally above board.
they just sad they lost AGAIN.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm not even a US citizen. Therefore I neither lost nor won. You, however, fail it, unless the "it" in question is being a pompous ass.
-- Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Who really cares?... nobody
by
ka9dgx
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Flamebait? Hmmmm.... maybe.... you decide.
I'm done caring about it... we're now firmly in the shoes of the Germans circa 1935, we're not stopping the cult that siezed power. Protesting on a weekend doesn't count, nor to buttons. (I've done both, too).
If we really cared, we'd march to the Capital Mall, in DC... and stay, until we got our troops home, and had an honest election, for a change.
--Mike--
Re:Who really cares?... nobody
by
Zareste
·
· Score: 1
Y'know the Allies didn't exactly march up to Hitler's living quarters and hold up protest signs until he gave up.
-- I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
You're disgusting. Suggesting the US is Germany 1935 is an egregious overstatement and shows little regard for those unfortunate enough to actually suffer throught that period.
Did you think maybe the reason the democrats can't win an election is because you actively promote hatred of those who's votes you wish to capture? Until you learn that a vast majority of the US citizenry is on the same side you will continue to be blasted in "fair elections."
? fair elections maybe i do not know , fair treatment for officials... Let me ask you this , why was clinton on trial for having a sex , whilst bush has lied to start a war caused the deaths of thousands and is not on trial .
"whilst bush has lied to start a war caused the deaths of thousands and is not on trial."
The reason is because he did not lie, and he did not start the war. Saddam Hussein had been attacking Americans and many others for years before the U.S. finally retaliated 2 years ago.
I live in germany , a couple of my inlaws were alive during that time.You know why most of them did nothing,It was because it sliped in slowly , most of the changes were great for the standerd of living and the demonisation of the jewish people was not highly promoted at first so it slipped by most people. The thing is back then to these people Hittler was a hero , he brought them wealth and rebuilt the nation , it was not untill far too late that some people saw his true nature , he marched into checkoslovakia not fighting an oposing army , but to a parade. He was a very evil monster , but a very evil monster who was a hero to the people
The Bush administration may well be a problem or perhaps it is not ( i wont state my opinion here as i dont want to bias people against my point) This in most ways is very very diffrent to Germany 1935,
-- The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Sorry but the parent is pure flamebait/trolling , first he starts by insulting the Grandparent for his views which may not be totaly correct but that does not make him disgusting. Then he goes on to insult a large number of people who think the 2000 election was unfair(most of europe and alot of the USA) not to mention every single democrat who reads this. why is this +5 insightful, he may have a point but he makes it in such a way as to cause an argument
And what evidence do you have of any attacks on American citizens or property by Saddam Hussein or any individual or group under his direct influence since we kicked him out of Kuwait?
Or do you believe that he is somehow linked to the 9-11 attacks and Al-Qaeda.
Replace American with Israeli and you'll then have a case for Israel to have done the job instead of us.
Saddam Hussein did not start the war. We were attacked by a fanatic group supported by oil-rich Saudis who hold a similar fanatic world view.
If feeble-minded Americans continue to believe whatever their mass-media and government spoon feed them we will be worse off as a country than Germany in May of 1945.
George wants to be seen as some sort of conquering hero. A 'hero of freedom' throughout history. Such megalomania by anyone in power is extremely dangerous in any age.
-- Fantasy and superstition should be used for entertainment purposes only.
You're disgusting. Suggesting the US is Germany 1935 is an egregious overstatement and shows little regard for those unfortunate enough to actually suffer throught that period.
You are right. This kind of slanted, exaggerated rhetoric is disgusting and obscures accurate discussion of the issue.
For the record, the U.S. is Germany c. 1933.
-- "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If we really cared, we'd march to the Capital Mall, in DC...
Just make sure you don't try to march in the sections that have been cordoned off in the name of father^H^H^H^H^H^Hhomeland security.
Re:Who really cares?... nobody
by
shadowzero313
·
· Score: 0
Hitler was a hero to the people back then. GWB isn't. He's not bringing wealth to anyone but the wealthy, he's destroying the nation with his policies, and everyone who pulls the veil from their eyes can see his true nature. Even before it was too late(Nov. 2000) we could see signs of what would happen.
You're right, this is very different from Germany 1935.
Re:Who really cares?... nobody
by
00squirrel
·
· Score: 0
If you're making such an extreme claim, would you care to provide some good examples, and demonstrate how they relate to 1933 Germany? Or would you prefer to be written off?
Re:Who really cares?... nobody
by
ShieldW0lf
·
· Score: 1
The thing is back then to these people Hitler was a hero , he brought them wealth and rebuilt the nation , it was not until far too late that some people saw his true nature , he marched into checkoslovakia not fighting an oposing army , but to a parade. He was a very evil monster , but a very evil monster who was a hero to the people
You forgot to mention that Hitler, monster that he was, could be considered one of the most brilliant orators in recorded history. GW on the other hand...
partisan politics are nothing but a big fat red herring.
Re:Who really cares?... nobody
by
unitron
·
· Score: 1
"If we really cared, we'd march to the Capital Mall, in DC... and stay, until we got our troops home, and had an honest election, for a change."
You might want to familiarize yourself with what the government did to the "bonus army" (and they were all World War I vets) before you make your travel plans.
--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:Who really cares?... nobody
by
tsalaroth
·
· Score: 1
why this isn't modded funny, I have no idea.
Re:Who really cares?... nobody
by
mjh49746
·
· Score: 1
Uh, have you been watching the news lately? With the recent Congressional intrusion into our private lives regarding the right to live/die, I'll submit that the neocon retards are going to lose a whole lot of seats in Congress in 2006. Far as I'm concerned, I've had more than enough of this radical right wing garbage and I'll wager that most of the American Public will agree with me.
Of course, if the liberals have any sense, then they better not push for Howard Dean in 2008, either, lest it be a stupid pissing match between him and Jeb Bush.
Far as I'm concerned, anybody that compares the US today with 1935 Germany is nothing but a greasy political tool and is disrespectful not only to those that faced persecution and annihilation in 1935 Nazi Germany, but also dishonors all that died in 9/11 just for going to work and doing their jobs, and also dishonors all that fought against tyranny and died in World War II as well. But some people are completely shameless, I suppose.
Build Your Own A-Bomb
by
Hinkkanen
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Perhaps they are already searching out and destroying copies of Analog Science Fiction, April 1979, which included George W. Harper's fine article "Build Your Own A-Bomb and Wake Up the Neighborhood". It had useful information on how to convert a small house to a nuclear facility for building your own nuclear devices.
Re:Build Your Own A-Bomb
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We were not aware of this article...please dispose of your copy...thanks, your friendly Fed.
The current administration doesn't want to help compile their own "I messed up..."-list.
For example, if they disclose the former environmental data from the Environmental Protection Agency, nobody can easily compare actual data with the old data.
-- Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Definition of honest election
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Your definition of "honest election" being "one in which your guy wins for once". Anything other than face reality that your guys lost fair and square twice in a row.
Wait for the troops to come home? Good luck. WW2 ended a LONG time ago, and that still hasn't happened.
A long history of information hiding
by
ClosedSource
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The US government has a long history of hiding information and even classified documents aren't always classified to protect the country.
A lot of classified documents are classified to avoid embarrassing the military or the current administration. The most famous example was the so-called "Pentagon Papers" which were a secret history of the Vietnam War. They proved that several Presidents had lied about the war (sound familiar?).
Re:A long history of information hiding
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
' They proved that several Presidents had lied about the war (sound familiar?).'
It only "sounds familiar" until you know the facts of the entirely justifable and legal retaliation against the government of Iraq two years ago. If you wanted a president who actually lied about war, I hope you voted for Kerry. He lied a lot about both wars.
Re:A long history of information hiding
by
ClosedSource
·
· Score: 1
"It only "sounds familiar" until you know the facts of the entirely justifable and legal retaliation against the government of Iraq two years ago."
One can only "know the facts" if there are facts to know. Please feel free to tell us what these facts are.
Keep in mind though, that I didn't express an opinion on whether the Vietnam War was justified or legal, I just said that Presidents had lied about it and that the government attempted to hide the truth. That's what sounds familiar.
Re:A long history of information hiding
by
Mr.+Slippery
·
· Score: 1
It only "sounds familiar" until you know the facts of the entirely justifable and legal retaliation against the government of Iraq two years ago."
Oh? Who did that one? Because the only action against Iraq I recall from two years ago was the immoral, illegal, and tactically stupid U.S. invasion. Maybe Liechtenstein or somebody conducted a legal and justifable attack around that same time?
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Slate are self-admitted Liberal Leftists...
by
ZephyrXero
·
· Score: 0, Troll
-- Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Welcome to Nazi Germany.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Papers please.
How long before one group of people in the US is forced to wear an emblem on their person? No, not Jews and the Start of David. Maybe the government will come up with another symbol for "trouble-makers" that refuse to stand by and allow our rights to be trampled?
Sure, they're slowly taking away access to previously public data and information. These aren't necessarily rights per se. But where's it going to stop? We're already required to show our "papers" for interstate travel. How long before its INTRASTATE travel?
Re:Welcome to Nazi Germany.
by
Jeremiah+Cornelius
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Who needs emblems?
US can pick outthe dark ones already. They have more than 10% of their black males in prison already.
-- "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Welcome to Nazi Germany.
by
innerweb
·
· Score: 1
RFID chip implants would accomplish this quietly. You would be tagged, and the database would have the information. You would not know what the tag means, nor what the information says about you. Kind of like the credit agencies today, but far more invasive. Watch for it to come as an extra to a program that is publicly good, like health information or credit information (in place already). If you doubt the existance of information like this, do some seartches online, have a company research your SSN, your name, etc. I like shocking people with the information we dredge up no them from these sources. Kind of brings back to reality.
Do you know what information different group shave stored on you? Do you want to know? Odds are it is not correct.
InnerWeb
-- Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Democrats are still destroying themselves.
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"Until you learn that a vast majority of the US citizenry is on the same side you will continue to be blasted in "fair elections.""
Things are not looking too good for those of us who think that America is best served with at least two viable parties. The Democrats are diminishing themselves even further under the leadership of Howard Dean. A few weeks ago, he called Republicans and those who support them "evil". Just recently he called them "brain dead". I'm sorry, it is just not a winning strategy to go out of your way and attack and write off HALF of the U.S. population.
Clinton was successful, and helped the Democrats, because he knew it was important to appeal to the middle, including those who nominally sympathized with Republicans and their causes. Clinton won only due to "Clinton Republicans", just like Reagan only won with "Reagan Democrats". Howard Dean is problematic not because he is a "left wing extremist" or any other sort of extremist. He isnit. However, he is problematic because his mean and divisive manner turns off a lot of people. It is no surprise that Rush Limbaugh loved him. While Dean fires up "the base", he tends to turn off way too many outside the base with insulting language.
When you attack half of the people as "evil", you are automatically making sure that 50% will not vote for you. Since you can't get everyone in the 50% you have left, you have ensured that you will lose.
-- Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Re:Democrats are still destroying themselves.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I would more compare it to pre-reveloution China , than nazi era Germany
Re:Democrats are still destroying themselves.
by
mabu
·
· Score: 1
You're right about the party thing, but America now only has one party, the Corporate Party. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians... none of it matters because now that the Fairness Doctrine has been eradicated, it's all about who has the most media influence.
Secrecy - because we are at War
by
dpilot
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Most of the nation, including for instance the Supreme Court, accepts that the nation is at War. Not really Iraq, but the War on Terror.
How does the War on Terror end?
From whom do we accept surrender? Osama Bin Laden? What if Bin Laden were to surrender, but other terrorists disagree and want to continue fighting the US.
How and when can a War on Terror possibly end? If you really want to consider this a War, then the answers have to be, "no way" and "never". Terrorism only requires people willing to be terrorists in order to continue, and I forsee no shrinkage in that pool of people in either near or distant futures.
So we'd probably better get ready for the "temporary restriction of liberties during Wartime" to become permanent, because there is no forseeable way to end that war.
-- The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Who declared this "war", with what Constitutional authority?
Even Eisenhower warned about this stuff. The plan is not new. They started 50 year or more ago - takin' their time slowly closing the trap. We are past 3/4 now. 15 years from now, you will all wonder how you didn't see it coming - and the archived thread of this discussion will be retreived from Echelon^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGoogle, and used against you in "court".
-- "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Secrecy - because we are at War
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Me, I'm enlisting to fight in the War on Sadness.
Re:Secrecy - because we are at War
by
SpaceLifeForm
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The 'War on Terror' will only end when the
real war against the citizens being orchestrated
by the government ends.
So, figure 20 years or never. It all depends
upon when the sheeple wake up.
-- You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:Secrecy - because we are at War
by
Gryffin
·
· Score: 1
So we'd probably better get ready for the "temporary restriction of liberties during Wartime" to become permanent, because there is no forseeable way to end that war.
Correct. "Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania." Just substitute "terrorism" for "Oceania".
-- Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
Re:Secrecy - because we are at War
by
slothman32
·
· Score: 1
I made a journal entry about that but instead of eastasia and urasia(sp) I used communism and terrorism.
... that when confronted with a highly skilled enemy who's ghouls and spooks rivaled our own during the peak of the cold war... we didn't really have this issue.
--
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Your statement answers your wonder. It was precisely because it would have been a wasted exercise. What we declassified was a backhanded measure of what we reasonably believed the other side would have already compromised. Hence, why hide it? It was not as though we were up against an enemy who would cross the line so heavily and blatantly as Al Queda and the rest of the loony schmucks on the loose do today.
Now we have a ragtag enemy without the appropriate experience and intelligence infrastructure to penetrate really deep and who are in any case, showing themselves very good at abusing commonly availible information to attack wide open targets.
Why should be aid and abet the terrorists? We've already been shown graphically on 9/11/1 how they work.
That said, much of the missing info looks like it was capriciously chosen by public service drones more than it was seasoned intelligence and anti-terror people. But then, this IS government we're talking about. Did you really expect it to be intelligent and sensible from start to finish?
-- If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
...can we please grow up and stop harkening to Nazi anything? If Slashdotters get any faster at Godwining themselves, they'll violate causality and do it before the fact.
This is nothing new under the sun. During the 80s the USSR sent physicists here to discuss information on nuclear fusion which was directly generated by the USSR. The USSR declassified it. They were giving the data on USSR government orders. The USA saw it differently and decided that since similar information generated by the USA was still classified, this information was also classified. Their reasoning was shallow at best regarding
Anyone who's done any time working for the government expects this inane nonsense anti-thinking. The concept that you should not bother closing the barn door once the horses have all left is firmly rejected by almost any government composed of humans never mind the USA. In their minds, closing the door will cause the horses to do a Casper and float right back through in the barn as if they never left.
This has nothing to do with Nazi, fascist, or any other tinfoil hat paranoia serving puerile fantasies of fighting some uphill struggle or whatever it is that drives people to think that way. I tell this to raving rightists as well as leftists. Grow up. They're too busy being incompetent to spend energies on hassling you personally. Any hassles they give you are merely SOP for everyone.
Illogical idiot non-thinking is what this reclassification is. Par for the course. Did you really think that prior to George W. Bush that the US government was some brain trust under Bill Clinton? Wow. Between the IRS during the 70s, USPS since inception, and the Hoover years of the FBI, I didn't think anyone could miss it. You want a better and more troublesome conspiracy? Ask why hot dogs and buns never seem to come in the same number at the same time at the store.
-- If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Re:First...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
can we please grow up and stop harkening to Nazi anything?
Sure, as soon as the Republicans stop harkening to Nazi everything.
Did you really think that prior to George W. Bush that the US government was some brain trust under Bill Clinton?
The fact that George W. Bush is a contemptable scumbag who, in any sane society, would be institutionalized for his own protection and that of others, in no way implies that Bill Clinton is not a contemptable scumbag who, in any sane society, would be institutionalized for his own protection and that of others.
Still, just like I'd rather have gonorrhea than lung cancer, I'd take Clinton over George W. for president any day.
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
White House Search Exclusions
by
mabu
·
· Score: 1
It's even more telling when you look into the White House's web site and their robots.txt Search Exclusions which basically deny Google and other indices the permission to archive content, and specifically if it relates to Iraq.
Was not there a bunch of articles and editorials in 2001-2002 describing, how easy it is to obtain technical documents and blueprints for various public infrastructure objects and private buildings? Brooklyn Bridge, Hoover Dam?
That the government is trying to stem this information flow through legal means at its disposal is, actually, somewhat reassuring. Whether the actions are effective is unclear, of course. Nor is it clear, whether our terrorism-free 3.5 years after 2001 are thanks to, in spite of, or unrelated to the government's actions.
You can now return to your regular Bush-bashing.
-- In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Do you feel safer?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Terrorism free?
Maybe the US hasn't had terrorist incidents, but the US doesn't make up the whole world, contrary to what many americans think. Terrorism world wide is on the rise and the US response to the events of 2001 only made it worse.
I was talking about USA -- that is, what American government should worry about first. As all other governments do.
-- In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 1
"... none of it matters because now that the Fairness Doctrine has been eradicated, it's all about who has the most media influence."
The Fairness Doctrine was designed to censor media. With it gone, political discussion (including the diversity thereof) has flourished in the "mass media". Under this doctrine, the government imposed its own standard of "Fair". Now, fairness is left to the mind of the listener. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, anything is possible. I'm glad its gone. Government had no business censoring media in the name of "Fairness".
"You're right about the party thing, but America now only has one party, the Corporate Party."
That is weak thinking. The parties only look all the same if you look at it from an extreme wing.
-- Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Re:Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
mabu
·
· Score: 1
The Fairness Doctrine was designed to censor media. With it gone, political discussion (including the diversity thereof) has flourished in the "mass media". Under this doctrine, the government imposed its own standard of "Fair". Now, fairness is left to the mind of the listener. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, anything is possible. I'm glad its gone. Government had no business censoring media in the name of "Fairness".
Bullshit. You obviously know nothing about the Fairness Doctrine. Read about it before you make wildly erroneous claims.
The Fairness doctrine was designed to:
a) mandate EQUAL TIME for multiple sides of important issues b) recognize that the holders of public broadcast licenses had an obligation to use these public licenses for the public interest (and therefore could not bury news that was of local interest)
It was NEVER about "censoring" the media. You're clueless. And in the wake of the eradication of the Fairness doctrine we don't have more "fair" political discussion... in fact it's so heavily right wing and conservative that the notion of moderate media has been pushed far right of center.
Ask your parents for some money. Go purchase a few clues. Read up on the Fairness Doctrine and what it was, and you'll see it was the most impartial, non-ideological set of rules ever imposed by government, which is exactly why the Republicans had to have it revoked.
Re:Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 1
"Bullshit. You obviously know nothing about the Fairness Doctrine. Read about it before you make wildly erroneous claims."
I did. I've read it, and read about it for years. This is why I prefer the First Amendment to the censorship involved with the "Fairness Doctrine. I opposed it the first time I read it, since I realized that it ripped the heart out of any idea of "freedom of the press".
"a) mandate EQUAL TIME for multiple sides of important issues"
First, that is entirely incorrect. It mandated "Equal time" for what government censors THOUGHT were important issues. Second, that is censorship. If you are publishing something, whose business is it what views you decide to put on the editorial page? The same applies to TV/radio broadcasts. It is the heart of "freedom of the press". The publisher decides what is fair, not government censors.
"b) recognize that the holders of public broadcast licenses had an obligation to use these public licenses for the public interest (and therefore could not bury news that was of local interest)"
If you really think this is important, you would oppose the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine forces the stations to serve government elites. Without it, they tend more to serve the public.
"It was NEVER about "censoring" the media."
It is 100% about censoring the media. Let's say that you wanted to run a "Nader 2008" blog. The government steps in and in the name of "Fairness" forces you to edit your postings and let Buchanan guys speak on your behalf. That is the exact sort of thing the fairness doctrine demands. The goverment would force stations to remove material 1) to make room or 2) because if they said something controversial the government would come down on them.
"in fact it's so heavily right wing and conservative that the notion of moderate media has been pushed far right of center"
In this you are clueless. Only Fox is right wing on TV. The others are a little to the left of center. FM talk radio is left wing, while AM radio is right wing. Another big point you miss is that the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable TV or other closed-circuit media. This includes Fox News. Sorry to break it to you, but if you bring back the old Fairness Doctrine it would leave Fox News and its opinions you hate so much intact.
Do you want to expand it to cable? That would be a dangerous precedent, from government censoring airwaves to government censoring closed-circuit electronic communication.
Besides, you are now betraying the fact that your main idea is to censor. You want the "fairness doctrine" to silence those who do not have your political opinions. Again, refer to the Constitution. Political speech is not except from first amendment protection because it is of a "wing". You have certainly betrayed the fact that you are no-where near the center.
It certainly puts the lie to your claim that you are not about censorship, when you give vent to conspiracy theories about nonexistent media bias as a justification. It then becomes clear that you want the "Fairness Doctrine" as a means to silence the political opinion and views of your opponents. I have YET to see an argument by anyone in favor of it who does not support his argument for the Fairness Doctrine by mentioning expression of political views he/she does not like.
"And in the wake of the eradication of the Fairness doctrine we don't have more "fair" political discussion... "
We have a lot more political discussion, period. It is a lot more diverse, too. "Fair" does not matter. However, if it did, it is clear that more diverse viewpoints are being heard, and this is more fair to more groups. Read the Constitution. No-where does it demand that we censor political views that the government does not think is "fair". The writers of th
-- Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Re:Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
mabu
·
· Score: 1
Your response again shows your total ignorance of the Fairness Doctrine. It warrants no reply except to again, suggest you get a clue as to what you're talking about because you don't right now.
The Fairness Doctrine does not suggest/impose/recommend any form of censorship in any manner, period. It merely provides a mechanism whereby any disenfranchised party, regardless of ideology, has an opportunity to petition for equal time in the media. If you don't understand that, nobody can help you. Stop spreading lies about things you know nothing of.
Re:Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
unitron
·
· Score: 1
You have mistaken the press, that is, stuff printed by anyone who could afford to run a printing press, with stuff sent over the airwaves which belong to the public by entities holding licenses to use those airwaves in the public interest.
Also, the Fairness Doctrine was instituted in a time when most households got only a few stations (usually affiliates of NBC, ABC, and CBS) via rabbit ears or an outdoor antenna, i.e., over the publicly owned airwaves.
The Fairness Doctrine basically said that if your local station did a 5 minute editorial in favor of "issue x" that they had to give opponents of that issue equal air time to argue against it so that both sides got equal use of the publicly owned airwaves.
The local newspaper, on the other hand, could take any position they wished to (as long as it didn't drive away so many purchasers that they could no longer afford to run the presses, that's the free market at work) and said newspaper could refuse to print any differing view 'cause it's their paper.
Anyone who disagreed could go into their own pockets and print their own newspaper.
Anyone who disagreed with the TV station editorial, on the other hand, could not just start their own over the air TV station due to not being licensed to use the public airwaves, so the existing license holder was compelled to share the airtime.
--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
tsalaroth
·
· Score: 1
censor:to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Looks to me more like censorship means removing of rights TO SAY SOMETHING, not forcing the media to allow ANOTHER PERSON TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
The Fairness Doctrine only required that the opposing view be given the same amount of time on the air. If a broadcaster didn't want to do that, then he best not give HIS side the air time. I think that's where you got confused and called it "censorship".
Re:Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 1
"You have mistaken the press, that is, stuff printed by anyone who could afford to run a printing press, with stuff sent over the airwaves which belong to the public by entities holding licenses to use those airwaves in the public interest."
There is no mistake. The First Amendment does not demand the censorship of broadcasters. Besides, if you want them to serve the public interest, they should be able to communicate to the public without the government micro-managing content.
In light of your points, I should not say that the Doctrine was designed specifically to censor. However, it is clear that those who want it desire it mainly for censorship. I've argued with several individuals about it. One of them, Concern, began his discussion by saying that Rupert Murdoch must be banned from the airwaves. Mabu also mentioned silencing the 'right wing' as his reason. Neither of them, in many lengthy messages, ever mentioned groups who had their views silenced and were in need of media access. They want the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to silence, not as a tool to diversify speech.
You are correct, however, that the Fairness Doctrine made much more sense when the electronic media was (were) so limited, and you did not have the situation like today where public access cable is common, and someone can respond to that editorial with their own little show if they wanted.
"Anyone who disagreed could go into their own pockets and print their own newspaper"
I live in a market where the local TV stations outnumber the newspapers.
-- Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Re:Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
unitron
·
· Score: 1
" The First Amendment does not demand the censorship of broadcasters."
The First Amendment really has nothing to do with broadcasters, both because the concept of broadcasting didn't exist and wasn't forseen at the time of the writing of the First Amendment, and because the concept of a communications medium owned by the people as a whole didn't really exist then either.
The Fairness Doctrine is only capable of censorship to the extent that a broadcaster might not air a particular view because if they had to give equal time to an opposing view they couldn't sell that time to advertisers.
When a newspaper prints something it does so on presses and paper it owns, but broadcasters "publish" over airwaves that you and I own so it ain't the same thing.
--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 1
"The First Amendment really has nothing to do with broadcasters"
Nor did the Internet and blogs. However, it is clearly an extension of the newspaper press that existed when the amendment was written.
"The Fairness Doctrine is only capable of censorship to the extent that a broadcaster might not air a particular view because if they had to give equal time to an opposing view they couldn't sell that time to advertisers."
That is only part of the story. For one, they could use that time for other programs (not just selling ads). You also did not mention the "chilling" effect that discourages political content at all (lest the government start to manage their schedule). This chilling effect caused profound censorship expecially in radio. When it was lifted, talk radio in both AM and FM flourished. If it came back, they would go back to music again. I don't know if it was you, or the other guy that said that the broadcaster should shut up if they are going to say something that someone might judge is "unfair". That is strong censorship.
"When a newspaper prints something it does so on presses and paper it owns, but broadcasters "publish" over airwaves that you and I own so it ain't the same thing"
THey are licensed to use these airwaves in the public interest. Why shouldn't they be allowed to serve the public the way newspapers are, without government censorship? It is because we own the airwaves that I want them to be a free medium, just like newspapers, accountable to the public and not to censors.
-- Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Re:Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
unitron
·
· Score: 1
Apparently we are incapable of understanding one another's points and shall have to agree to disagree (provided of course that we can understand each other sufficiently to agree about what it is about which we are disagreeing:-) )
--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 1
I agree!
-- Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The problem lies with Google.
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 1
"It's even more telling when you look into the White House's web site and their robots.txt Search Exclusions which basically deny Google and other indices the permission to archive content, and specifically if it relates to Iraq"
The choice to exclude is something made by Google. They can perfectly well include stuff despite "robots.txt". "Robots.txt" is something I've never liked the idea of anyway: if you posted it on the public Internet, and leave it up on the public Internet, what is the problem if it gets indexed?
This comes at a time when lots of records from Bush I and the aftermath of the Reagan years are becoming available.
For example, records from Gulf War v 1.0 are set to be made public. So are records that would clear up some big questions in the Iran-Contra (aka Arms for Hostages) scandals.
-- Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Fairness Doctrine = censorship
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 1
"Your response again shows your total ignorance of the Fairness Doctrine"
How so? Can you back up your blanket claim with any specifics?
"The Fairness Doctrine does not suggest/impose/recommend any form of censorship in any manner"
This is entirely false. Whenever the government gags someone or controls what they say, it is censorship. It is also false since you yourself have argued that the "Fairness Doctrine" should be used to censor what you perceive to be "right-wing media".
"It merely provides a mechanism whereby any disenfranchised party, regardless of ideology, has an opportunity to petition for equal time in the media"
Aside from the fact that this sentence is not true, it does show part of the mechanism of censorship involved in the "Fairness Doctrine". "Equal time" for your opponents goes against freedom of the press. Why can't you print/publish/say whatever you want, without the government forcing you to speak with the voice of what the government says is a "disenfranchised party"? Look up the meaning of censorship before you respond.
Another detail of how the Fairness Doctrine censors is that it discourages stations from airing anything political at all. Once they air something political, the government can come in and censor the content it deems "unfair" and force them to say stuff they do not agree with.. The Fairness Doctrine encourages radio stations to replace talk shows with music this way.
Also, you are totally unaware of the fact that "disenfranchised parties" views are aired a LOT more without the censoring "Fairness Doctrine". It is not just the Limbaughs that talk more, but the Diane Rheim's and the Pacifica's and the Al Franken's. Yes, the right wing talks more without the Doctrine. But so does the left wing.
Not that it matters. The First Amendment is entirely neutral to subjective matters as "balance" and "disenfranchised". It left such determination to the people, and said to keep the government out of it.
" Stop spreading lies about things you know nothing of."
I know more about the Fairness Doctrine than you ever will. So does Mario Cuomo. Do you want any more quotes from people who believe that freedom of the press must be protected even if the press says something that someone can arbitrarily call "unfair"?
By the way, thanks for entering me in your foes list just because I support freedom of the press. Why does it go against the grain for so many people to "let them say it if they want to say it"? How can anyone with any sense argue (as you do) that government gagging and controlling of political speech is not "censorship"?
I am guessing that if you actually thought matters through, and did some research, you might change your mind. Unless you really are a Fascist who open admits that they want opposing political views silenced. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt so far, but your paranoid and false claims about right-wing media do not bode well for the idea that you respect freedom of the press.
-- Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
No confusion: the Fairness Doctrine is censorship
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 1
"Looks to me more like censorship means removing of rights TO SAY SOMETHING, not forcing the media to allow ANOTHER PERSON TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT."
The last part should be replaced with "forcing someone to say what the government wants them to say". Then, the fairness doctrine says both.
The Doctrine removed the right to say something by opening the station up to government management of content if they aired something controversial. It is a situation of "if you air music, you can air whatever you want. But if you air political content, watch what you say or we will force you to alter your schedule to air whatever we think is fair". After the fairness doctrine was removed, a lot of radio stations converted to a talk format.
"If a broadcaster didn't want to do that (give equal time), then he best not give HIS side the air time"
Thanks for illustrating exactly how the censorship works. You can you say it is not censorship when here you admit that the Fairness Doctrine says to the broadcaster "he best not give HIS side the air time."
Telling the broadcaster to shut up is a perfect example of "censor:to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
-- Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Re:No confusion: the Fairness Doctrine is censorsh
by
tsalaroth
·
· Score: 1
ya got me there.
My point was more along the lines of:
If a broadcaster wants to give his opinion on a matter, great. But if he's going to say "All Christians are evil because they eat babies.." He better be ready to allow a Christian on the air to defend himself. Why? Because that's what's -fair-.
They're given the right to use public airwaves to put out some pretty horrid crap - why CAN'T the government tell them to allow people to defend themselves over the same airwaves? The government didn't HAVE to allow public broadcasting. It didn't even have to allow HAM radios.
bleh. I'm not for censorship by the government, but I'm also not for the censorship of the other side of the story, either.
Re:No confusion: the Fairness Doctrine is censorsh
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 1
"But if he's going to say "All Christians are evil because they eat babies.." He better be ready to allow a Christian on the air to defend himself. Why? Because that's what's -fair-"
I strongly disagree. The freedom to be able to express opinions like this is the reason the First Amendment was written. In the real world, if someone said this and you really want "Fairness", chances are that there is a Christian radio station at the low end of the FM dial to "speak back": on their own station, not yours (if you are the one saying Christians are evil).
"but I'm also not for the censorship of the other side of the story, either."
The decision of a station not to air such things is part of "freedom of the press", and is not censorship: just like when the New York Times chooses not to print a letter from a neo-nazi crank on its op/ed/letters page. Broadcast radio must be treated just the same. There are ways to help with the fairness that you want that do not involve government micro-management of programming decisions or "if you air this, you must air that" mandates.
I think that the government needs to take a "hands off" approach to the editorial process of a station. I am not opposed to fairness or more voices getting access: perhaps the method to do this is to make it easier to get your own station. Attempts have been made to do this, which I have strongly supported. Or, perhaps there needs to be a station set up for the purpose of "talkback". I just want the government out of station editorial/political content decisions. I will quote again Mario Cuomo: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." In this context, fairness is determined by the broadcaster and the listener, not by the government.
Your take on this is refreshing. I'm tired of those whose reason for supporting the Fairness Doctrine comes explicitly out of a desire to reduce the speech of someone they do not like.
-- Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Re:No confusion: the Fairness Doctrine is censorsh
by
tsalaroth
·
· Score: 1
Your take on this is refreshing. I'm tired of those whose reason for supporting the Fairness Doctrine comes explicitly out of a desire to reduce the speech of someone they do not like.
I'm fine with idiots being able to state their opinions, I guess my issue is that since they entered a contract w/ the government to provide public service with the airwaves, they should at least be responsible with it.
Free press is a double-edged sword. You get the Truth and the "truth" out of the deal. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have the bill of rights and many of the other amendments. I just wish there were more responsible journalists out there, and more responsible broadcasters as well.
"Informed people don't believe in fairies and magic skydaddies"
Translation: Only those who have your religious faith are informed. Thank you, Mr Ayatollah.
"I was going to say re-elected, but then I realised the prefix "re" only applies to something has actually happened at least once before."
The other responder had a good point. You need to learn about the electoral college. Just because you do not like it or do not know about it does not mean it does not exist. Turns out that Bush was elected the exact same way Clinton was: he won enough states to get the majority of electoral votes. At least the right-wingers didn't do what the bush bashers do now: insist that the guy they did not like was "not elected" just because they did not like him. The right-wingers impeached him instead:)
Translation: Only those who have your religious faith are informed. Thank you, Mr Ayatollah.
A pretty poor translation, since what I wrote does not say that I believe in any supernatural beings. ROFLMAO, an atheist ayatollah!
Turns out that Bush was elected the exact same way Clinton was: he won enough states to get the majority of electoral votes.
You'd think that if Clinton had a brother who delivered him a a state on a plate it would be common knowledge.
-- Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I have little to add to that.
by
AtariAmarok
·
· Score: 1
I have little to add to that. I see what you are saying. Except that yes, the broadcasters should do what some judge to be responsible, but due to the subjective nature of this, and the tendency for government action to be a tool of party (and other) ideology, the government should stay out of judging what is responsible or not.
-- Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
National Socialism and Political Correctness
by
random+coward
·
· Score: 1
National Socialism comes up as a comparison to things we find wrong largely because Universities and schools today teach that all coltures morally are identical. We learn that we should not judge other cultures and other idealogies. They are all the same. The leftist montra that we should "try to understand them" and "alternative lifestyles are just different not wrong" lead to some problems for the leftists and for the rightist idealoges.
With these new foundations of thought in the university there is only one thing that can be pointed to in history that is truly "evil" or "bad" or "wrong." That is National Socialism. The left admits that it is truly evil. It is the truly wrong that admits no situational ethics. It was wrong no matter what situation.
So when the left wants to say that something if fundamentally wrong regardless of the situation, the way to do it is to shout "NAZI" about it. Strangely enough when the right wants to communicate to the left that something is truly wrong regardless of situation they use the language of the left and also shout "NAZI" Examples of the left: Bush Hitler comparasons at anti war demonstrations. Example of the right comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler.
So what we see is that Godwin is fighting an up hill battle. As soon as the cultural elites can agree that there is right and wrong and not "right" and "wrong" that only are due to the situation; as soon as they can come up with a rational yardstick for right and wrong and stop saying everything is equal; THEN and ONLY THEN will all the National Socialism comparisons go away. Because then we could have a yardstick and not a single point for comparisons of badness.
Don't believe me about all of this? Then why was President Bush critisized so much for Calling North Korea, Iraq, and Iran an Axis of Evil?
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like McCarthy was a liberal by current standards. Land of the free my ass. Maybe if you're a corporation.
a growing number of these sources are now barred to the public as "sensitive but unclassified" or "for official use only."
For a start, what does "sensitive but unclassified" actually mean? Does it have any legal status? Or is it simply there because of the connotations? The subtle purposes of the phrase are easily explained; the government isn't hiding the material, but it's in everyone's best interests that you don't and anyone who says otherwise could be dangerous.
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
I'm done caring about it... we're now firmly in the shoes of the Germans circa 1935, we're not stopping the cult that siezed power. Protesting on a weekend doesn't count, nor to buttons. (I've done both, too).
If we really cared, we'd march to the Capital Mall, in DC... and stay, until we got our troops home, and had an honest election, for a change.
--Mike--
Perhaps they are already searching out and destroying copies of Analog Science Fiction, April 1979, which included George W. Harper's fine article "Build Your Own A-Bomb and Wake Up the Neighborhood". It had useful information on how to convert a small house to a nuclear facility for building your own nuclear devices.
The current administration doesn't want to help compile their own "I messed up..."-list.
For example, if they disclose the former environmental data from the Environmental Protection Agency, nobody can easily compare actual data with the old data.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Wait for the troops to come home? Good luck. WW2 ended a LONG time ago, and that still hasn't happened.
The US government has a long history of hiding information and even classified documents aren't always classified to protect the country.
A lot of classified documents are classified to avoid embarrassing the military or the current administration. The most famous example was the so-called "Pentagon Papers" which were a secret history of the Vietnam War. They proved that several Presidents had lied about the war (sound familiar?).
It was an inside job...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
George W. Harper's fine article "Build Your Own A-Bomb and Wake Up the Neighborhood for US$ 20,00.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Papers please.
How long before one group of people in the US is forced to wear an emblem on their person? No, not Jews and the Start of David. Maybe the government will come up with another symbol for "trouble-makers" that refuse to stand by and allow our rights to be trampled?
Sure, they're slowly taking away access to previously public data and information. These aren't necessarily rights per se. But where's it going to stop? We're already required to show our "papers" for interstate travel. How long before its INTRASTATE travel?
Things are not looking too good for those of us who think that America is best served with at least two viable parties. The Democrats are diminishing themselves even further under the leadership of Howard Dean. A few weeks ago, he called Republicans and those who support them "evil". Just recently he called them "brain dead". I'm sorry, it is just not a winning strategy to go out of your way and attack and write off HALF of the U.S. population.
Clinton was successful, and helped the Democrats, because he knew it was important to appeal to the middle, including those who nominally sympathized with Republicans and their causes. Clinton won only due to "Clinton Republicans", just like Reagan only won with "Reagan Democrats". Howard Dean is problematic not because he is a "left wing extremist" or any other sort of extremist. He isnit. However, he is problematic because his mean and divisive manner turns off a lot of people. It is no surprise that Rush Limbaugh loved him. While Dean fires up "the base", he tends to turn off way too many outside the base with insulting language.
When you attack half of the people as "evil", you are automatically making sure that 50% will not vote for you. Since you can't get everyone in the 50% you have left, you have ensured that you will lose.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Most of the nation, including for instance the Supreme Court, accepts that the nation is at War. Not really Iraq, but the War on Terror.
How does the War on Terror end?
From whom do we accept surrender? Osama Bin Laden? What if Bin Laden were to surrender, but other terrorists disagree and want to continue fighting the US.
How and when can a War on Terror possibly end? If you really want to consider this a War, then the answers have to be, "no way" and "never". Terrorism only requires people willing to be terrorists in order to continue, and I forsee no shrinkage in that pool of people in either near or distant futures.
So we'd probably better get ready for the "temporary restriction of liberties during Wartime" to become permanent, because there is no forseeable way to end that war.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
... that when confronted with a highly skilled enemy who's ghouls and spooks rivaled our own during the peak of the cold war... we didn't really have this issue.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
...can we please grow up and stop harkening to Nazi anything? If Slashdotters get any faster at Godwining themselves, they'll violate causality and do it before the fact.
This is nothing new under the sun. During the 80s the USSR sent physicists here to discuss information on nuclear fusion which was directly generated by the USSR. The USSR declassified it. They were giving the data on USSR government orders. The USA saw it differently and decided that since similar information generated by the USA was still classified, this information was also classified. Their reasoning was shallow at best regarding
Anyone who's done any time working for the government expects this inane nonsense anti-thinking. The concept that you should not bother closing the barn door once the horses have all left is firmly rejected by almost any government composed of humans never mind the USA. In their minds, closing the door will cause the horses to do a Casper and float right back through in the barn as if they never left.
This has nothing to do with Nazi, fascist, or any other tinfoil hat paranoia serving puerile fantasies of fighting some uphill struggle or whatever it is that drives people to think that way. I tell this to raving rightists as well as leftists. Grow up. They're too busy being incompetent to spend energies on hassling you personally. Any hassles they give you are merely SOP for everyone.
Illogical idiot non-thinking is what this reclassification is. Par for the course. Did you really think that prior to George W. Bush that the US government was some brain trust under Bill Clinton? Wow. Between the IRS during the 70s, USPS since inception, and the Hoover years of the FBI, I didn't think anyone could miss it. You want a better and more troublesome conspiracy? Ask why hot dogs and buns never seem to come in the same number at the same time at the store.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
It's even more telling when you look into the White House's web site and their robots.txt Search Exclusions which basically deny Google and other indices the permission to archive content, and specifically if it relates to Iraq.
Was not there a bunch of articles and editorials in 2001-2002 describing, how easy it is to obtain technical documents and blueprints for various public infrastructure objects and private buildings? Brooklyn Bridge, Hoover Dam?
That the government is trying to stem this information flow through legal means at its disposal is, actually, somewhat reassuring. Whether the actions are effective is unclear, of course. Nor is it clear, whether our terrorism-free 3.5 years after 2001 are thanks to, in spite of, or unrelated to the government's actions.
You can now return to your regular Bush-bashing.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The Fairness Doctrine was designed to censor media. With it gone, political discussion (including the diversity thereof) has flourished in the "mass media". Under this doctrine, the government imposed its own standard of "Fair". Now, fairness is left to the mind of the listener. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, anything is possible. I'm glad its gone. Government had no business censoring media in the name of "Fairness".
"You're right about the party thing, but America now only has one party, the Corporate Party."
That is weak thinking. The parties only look all the same if you look at it from an extreme wing.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The choice to exclude is something made by Google. They can perfectly well include stuff despite "robots.txt". "Robots.txt" is something I've never liked the idea of anyway: if you posted it on the public Internet, and leave it up on the public Internet, what is the problem if it gets indexed?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This comes at a time when lots of records from Bush I and the aftermath of the Reagan years are becoming available. For example, records from Gulf War v 1.0 are set to be made public. So are records that would clear up some big questions in the Iran-Contra (aka Arms for Hostages) scandals.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
How so? Can you back up your blanket claim with any specifics?
"The Fairness Doctrine does not suggest/impose/recommend any form of censorship in any manner"
This is entirely false. Whenever the government gags someone or controls what they say, it is censorship. It is also false since you yourself have argued that the "Fairness Doctrine" should be used to censor what you perceive to be "right-wing media".
"It merely provides a mechanism whereby any disenfranchised party, regardless of ideology, has an opportunity to petition for equal time in the media"
Aside from the fact that this sentence is not true, it does show part of the mechanism of censorship involved in the "Fairness Doctrine". "Equal time" for your opponents goes against freedom of the press. Why can't you print/publish/say whatever you want, without the government forcing you to speak with the voice of what the government says is a "disenfranchised party"? Look up the meaning of censorship before you respond.
Another detail of how the Fairness Doctrine censors is that it discourages stations from airing anything political at all. Once they air something political, the government can come in and censor the content it deems "unfair" and force them to say stuff they do not agree with.. The Fairness Doctrine encourages radio stations to replace talk shows with music this way.
Also, you are totally unaware of the fact that "disenfranchised parties" views are aired a LOT more without the censoring "Fairness Doctrine". It is not just the Limbaughs that talk more, but the Diane Rheim's and the Pacifica's and the Al Franken's. Yes, the right wing talks more without the Doctrine. But so does the left wing.
Not that it matters. The First Amendment is entirely neutral to subjective matters as "balance" and "disenfranchised". It left such determination to the people, and said to keep the government out of it.
" Stop spreading lies about things you know nothing of."
I know more about the Fairness Doctrine than you ever will. So does Mario Cuomo. Do you want any more quotes from people who believe that freedom of the press must be protected even if the press says something that someone can arbitrarily call "unfair"?
By the way, thanks for entering me in your foes list just because I support freedom of the press. Why does it go against the grain for so many people to "let them say it if they want to say it"? How can anyone with any sense argue (as you do) that government gagging and controlling of political speech is not "censorship"?
I am guessing that if you actually thought matters through, and did some research, you might change your mind. Unless you really are a Fascist who open admits that they want opposing political views silenced. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt so far, but your paranoid and false claims about right-wing media do not bode well for the idea that you respect freedom of the press.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The last part should be replaced with "forcing someone to say what the government wants them to say". Then, the fairness doctrine says both.
The Doctrine removed the right to say something by opening the station up to government management of content if they aired something controversial. It is a situation of "if you air music, you can air whatever you want. But if you air political content, watch what you say or we will force you to alter your schedule to air whatever we think is fair". After the fairness doctrine was removed, a lot of radio stations converted to a talk format.
"If a broadcaster didn't want to do that (give equal time), then he best not give HIS side the air time"
Thanks for illustrating exactly how the censorship works. You can you say it is not censorship when here you admit that the Fairness Doctrine says to the broadcaster "he best not give HIS side the air time."
Telling the broadcaster to shut up is a perfect example of "censor :to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
ya got me there.
My point was more along the lines of:
If a broadcaster wants to give his opinion on a matter, great. But if he's going to say "All Christians are evil because they eat babies.." He better be ready to allow a Christian on the air to defend himself. Why? Because that's what's -fair-.
They're given the right to use public airwaves to put out some pretty horrid crap - why CAN'T the government tell them to allow people to defend themselves over the same airwaves? The government didn't HAVE to allow public broadcasting. It didn't even have to allow HAM radios.
bleh. I'm not for censorship by the government, but I'm also not for the censorship of the other side of the story, either.
I strongly disagree. The freedom to be able to express opinions like this is the reason the First Amendment was written. In the real world, if someone said this and you really want "Fairness", chances are that there is a Christian radio station at the low end of the FM dial to "speak back": on their own station, not yours (if you are the one saying Christians are evil).
"but I'm also not for the censorship of the other side of the story, either."
The decision of a station not to air such things is part of "freedom of the press", and is not censorship: just like when the New York Times chooses not to print a letter from a neo-nazi crank on its op/ed/letters page. Broadcast radio must be treated just the same. There are ways to help with the fairness that you want that do not involve government micro-management of programming decisions or "if you air this, you must air that" mandates.
I think that the government needs to take a "hands off" approach to the editorial process of a station. I am not opposed to fairness or more voices getting access: perhaps the method to do this is to make it easier to get your own station. Attempts have been made to do this, which I have strongly supported. Or, perhaps there needs to be a station set up for the purpose of "talkback". I just want the government out of station editorial/political content decisions. I will quote again Mario Cuomo: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." In this context, fairness is determined by the broadcaster and the listener, not by the government.
Your take on this is refreshing. I'm tired of those whose reason for supporting the Fairness Doctrine comes explicitly out of a desire to reduce the speech of someone they do not like.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Your take on this is refreshing. I'm tired of those whose reason for supporting the Fairness Doctrine comes explicitly out of a desire to reduce the speech of someone they do not like.
I'm fine with idiots being able to state their opinions, I guess my issue is that since they entered a contract w/ the government to provide public service with the airwaves, they should at least be responsible with it.
Free press is a double-edged sword. You get the Truth and the "truth" out of the deal. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have the bill of rights and many of the other amendments. I just wish there were more responsible journalists out there, and more responsible broadcasters as well.
Translation: Only those who have your religious faith are informed. Thank you, Mr Ayatollah.
"I was going to say re-elected, but then I realised the prefix "re" only applies to something has actually happened at least once before."
The other responder had a good point. You need to learn about the electoral college. Just because you do not like it or do not know about it does not mean it does not exist. Turns out that Bush was elected the exact same way Clinton was: he won enough states to get the majority of electoral votes. At least the right-wingers didn't do what the bush bashers do now: insist that the guy they did not like was "not elected" just because they did not like him. The right-wingers impeached him instead :)
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I have little to add to that. I see what you are saying. Except that yes, the broadcasters should do what some judge to be responsible, but due to the subjective nature of this, and the tendency for government action to be a tool of party (and other) ideology, the government should stay out of judging what is responsible or not.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
National Socialism comes up as a comparison to things we find wrong largely because Universities and schools today teach that all coltures morally are identical. We learn that we should not judge other cultures and other idealogies. They are all the same. The leftist montra that we should "try to understand them" and "alternative lifestyles are just different not wrong" lead to some problems for the leftists and for the rightist idealoges.
With these new foundations of thought in the university there is only one thing that can be pointed to in history that is truly "evil" or "bad" or "wrong." That is National Socialism. The left admits that it is truly evil. It is the truly wrong that admits no situational ethics. It was wrong no matter what situation.
So when the left wants to say that something if fundamentally wrong regardless of the situation, the way to do it is to shout "NAZI" about it. Strangely enough when the right wants to communicate to the left that something is truly wrong regardless of situation they use the language of the left and also shout "NAZI" Examples of the left: Bush Hitler comparasons at anti war demonstrations. Example of the right comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler.
So what we see is that Godwin is fighting an up hill battle. As soon as the cultural elites can agree that there is right and wrong and not "right" and "wrong" that only are due to the situation; as soon as they can come up with a rational yardstick for right and wrong and stop saying everything is equal; THEN and ONLY THEN will all the National Socialism comparisons go away. Because then we could have a yardstick and not a single point for comparisons of badness.
Don't believe me about all of this? Then why was President Bush critisized so much for Calling North Korea, Iraq, and Iran an Axis of Evil?