Slashdot Mirror
Nancy Pelosi vs. the Internet
selil writes "A story popped up on the ChicagoBoyz Blog. It says 'Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who would like very much to reimpose the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting, is scheming to impose rules barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress. No blogs, twitter, online forums — nothing.'"
Somewhere I heard that Bush and his cronnies were the ones making the flow of information more regulated and examined.
Why is Slashdot posting links to crazy right wing/libertartian conspiracy theories?
Because then they can have their share of "sensationalist" news?!?\
Seriously, though, how anyone could read that letter and interpret it as a method of suppressing speech, I don't know. Then again, Republicans have always known how to spin things for the masses.
Either to fight off the long-developing impression, that they are crazy left wing/communist propaganda den (that impression started to wear off slowly ever since John Katz disappeared), or to make that same propaganda a bit more subtle, by picking only the worst from among the right wing/libertarian sources...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why is Slashdot posting links to crazy right wing/libertartian conspiracy theories? This is stupid.
Maybe they figured "why give ALL our time to the crazy left wing conspiracy theories"?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Pelosi's support for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, aka "Hush Rush" bill, has been widely reported. Google is your friend.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185
Yahoo News search on "fairness doctrine"
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Don't forget how Zionism plays into politics in D.C. Saying this makes anyone extremely unpopular but it explains a lot.
Wow a democrat seeking to not only restrict the first amendment rights of individuals but congress itself. Wow that sounds democratic to me.
What this really comes down to is the Pelosi is a terrible leader and can't get party unity voluntarily the way the Republican leadership does, so she is going the way of the totalitarian dictators. Pretty sad especially with all the morons out there that think its Bush and the Republicans that are the treat to freedom. Both parties are evil but the democratic party is much much more dangerous.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It's pretty simple, when you think about it. Democratic power centers tend to be around government, public institutions and universities, and, quite frankly, churches [fundy protestants aside]! Democrats are all about a sort of civic system that really believes in the role of government, the university and all of the leaders in filtering information and then making decisions, well democratically. In their world, you can't have everyone saying something because, a lot of people don't know what they are doing. There is some validity to that argument except the potential for abuse is so ripe that that we don't do that in America any more. Every President abused the federal power over the media. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon...all are on record as having, at some point, threatened to yank broadcast licenses for airing speech that they didn't like. Cronkite's condemnation of VietNam wasn't just a reporter giving his opinion - it was very well respected reporter putting his rear and his company, CBS, on the line, in the face of government that could have very well shut him down, but ultimately, the government backed down and a decade later Reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine altogether. Of course, the government STILL manipulates the press - "oh, you want to talk to a general...."
Republican power centers tend to be around businesses. Guess who generally has more money and wants more independent control? why business does! So yeah, Republicans want to be able to say whatever they want, and pretty much want anyone in the media to be able to say whatever they want, even if it means that Bush or even their own party gets torpedoed by everyone on the planet, as ultimately, such a system makes a better system for our ends.
So.. quite ironically, Democrats are ideologically opposed to unbridled free speech, and Republicans tend more towards it, and, to make matters even crazier, it is the Republican religious belief in free markets that has honestly given way to the commercialization of many of the very alternative lifestyle companies the Democrats socially oppose.
This is my sig.
Here it is the government attempting to censor and limit free speech on political matters.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSTITUTION FORBADE
(not Blockbuster censoring what videos they'd rent)
Mainstream print and electronic "journalists" overwhelmingly support Democrats.
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=P4J&q=journalists+support+democrats&btnG=Search
These "journalists" don't slant their coverage to reflect their personal preferences?
The Fairness Doctrine, in practice, required that anytime a conservative/Republican was given air time, a Liberal/Democrat had to be given equal air time.
The Liberal/Democrat "journalists" air time didn't count. No equal time was required.
AM radio was dead while the Fairness Doctrine was in force. It's alive and well now because conservatives listen to it and provide listeners for advertisers.
Liberal talk radio can't make it, not due to some conspiracy, but because the typical Democrat voter would rather watch Oprah.
To Liberals, anything is unfair that doesn't put them in charge.
PS - When Obama loses, how will you say the election was stolen this time? Or will you just say that his loss just proves Americans are racists?
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
This isn't Pelosi versus the internet, it's Pelosi versus the constitution. The first amendment is more important than her partisan agenda.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This is the TOP COMMENT in the discussion, a discussion that's already evolved to discover that the summary is largely wrong and misleading. And the comment itself is essentially partisan flamebait with no real information.
I recognize that it's good fun to take every opportunity you can to regale the entire internet with kneejerk responses, and if that's your thing, more power to you. But any mod who marked this "insightful" is unquestionably and irreversibly lobotomized.
Tweet, tweet.
anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly correct that it defies belief that anybody who can't see that has the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog
There, fixed that for you.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
And yet you don't understand sarcasm...I'm glad to see we have non-partisan mods around as well...