Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 2:50 PM
Daedalus left this comment at December 16, 2005 7:30 AM
Communism didn't happen over night. Small liberties were taken at first, followed by more, then bigger... We certainly are on a path similar to it, but no one seems to be outraged, because at least their kids aren't seeing boobies. (Of course, they can see all of the mindless violence they want to on television.)
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 16, 2005 10:03 AM
Daedalus,
For the record, I’m completely OK with both sex and violence in entertainment—unlike your garden-variety Blue or Red American, who can accept one but not the other. If the media have magical powers to shape human behavior just by showing sex and violence, then free speech is a dangerous luxury.
Daedalus left this comment at December 16, 2005 10:49 AM
I agree with you. In pointing out the violence I am simply saying that these people are pretty nonsensical since they think that their kids are going to have sex after seeing sex but not commit violence after seeing violence. I say it is time to get rid of the FCC. If someone doesn't like something, they don't have to watch it.
Jetting Through Life left this comment at December 18, 2005 3:39 PM
Just stopping by to say hello!! Hope all is well!!
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 18, 2005 5:08 PM
JTL,
Thanks so much for caring. I’m doing reasonably well.
Will left this comment at December 19, 2005 9:13 PM
NAZIism is different from Communism. The comment that "Communism didn't happen over night" isn't really true. The erosion of rights in Nazi Germany was a slow process toward a centralized fascist state (fascism being defined as the combonation of political and corporate power). When Lenin revolutionalized Russia and created the Soviet Union the changes were immediate. When Stalin succeeded Lenin, the changes were immediate once again. The Soviets were quick to act, and they were blatant about their actions. Of course, Mao Zedong was just as brash and quick with his actions.
The arguments here are twofold. 1) Government has no right to regulate what I consume. 2) Government that controls media is totalitarian.
I disagree with the first clause because unregulated media leads to pockets of hate speech that can explode such as in Rwanda that lead to the genocide. Additionally, government should be able to regulate consumption if it damages the "common good". If I alone am doing something that is severely damaging the environment, the government should step in to stop me.
The second clause is something that I do agree with. Freedom of information and dissemination of ideas is important for a democracy to work.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 20, 2005 2:06 PM
Will,
I don’t know how your contrast between Nazism and communism pertains to this discussion. I mentioned communism as a bit of invective to demonstrate the hypocrisy of conservatives who support government crackdowns on “indecency.”
“Personally, I am a virulent 1st Amendment proponent and anti-anything that would hinder it.” These are your words from a comment you published on November 14. I question your self-assessment if you believe in censoring hate speech. You’re using regulation as a euphemism for censorship. Don’t kid yourself. “Government that controls media is totalitarian,” you say. So what’s the difference between regulating media and controlling them? Please be specific.
If the bigots in Rwanda had been censored by a government bureaucracy, would they have seen the error of their ways and learned to love their neighbors? I don’t think so. If anything, I believe it would have aggravated the situation by feeding their defensiveness and paranoia. Hate speech by white supremacists on the Internet has not led to genocide in the United States. By honoring their right to free speech, we let them expose their own folly. We give them enough rope to hang themselves.
Besides, we’re talking about dirty words and nudity, not hate speech. Lots of people have armchair social-science theories about the threat posed by whatever words or images they happen to dislike. But their theories are always full of holes.
Will left this comment at December 20, 2005 8:24 PM
OK, we'll start with the basics:
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As this has been interpreted over the years, an individual is able to say whatever he/she wants as long as it doesn't harm others. Your contention that propaganda doesn't work and had no effect in Rwanda is something that I couldn't buy without some evidence.
Now, to address your points:
"I don’t know how your contrast between Nazism and communism pertains to this discussion."
daedalus mentioned Communism in his thread and I was responding to the historical accuracy of his comments.
"I question your self-assessment if you believe in censoring hate speech."
Hate speech isn't protected by the First Amendment. The Courts have settled that. Do you believe that media has the right to slander innocent people? Or is that also protected speech?
"Hate speech by white supremacists on the Internet has not led to genocide in the United States. By honoring their right to free speech, we let them expose their own folly."
The internet is a bit different than national radio. In any event, white supremacist speech is protected until they advocate doing harm to non-white races.
"Besides, we’re talking about dirty words and nudity, not hate speech."
It is easy to pick and choose, but issues of free speech need to be approached with more examples to determine whether a wholesale lack of regulation is necessary.
You want to know what I feel warrants regulations:
1) Hate speech that encourages violence or damaging other's human rights.
2) Slander.
3) Accuracy in news reporting (when the news blatantly lies or hides important information about what is really going on).
4) Monopolies and extreme concentration of power. When the media starts to look like the railroad companies of the late 1800s, the government should step in and do some trustbusting.
5) Any public broadcasting - public programming, particularly for the military overseas, needs to be balanced and not over-represent one viewpoint (such as now with the excessive playing of Rush Limbaugh with no balance of anyone with even a mildly liberal standpoint).
As long as what the media shows is true, then it is safe.
Additionally, I am not opposed to a system of labels that identifies the content of shows such as "contains nudity" "contains violence" etc. But that should only be used to help consumers make choices, and nothing more.
Government regulation means that the government protects us from lies and civil rights violations. Government control means that the government use the media as a tool for a specific agenda for the party in power.
To get back to "dirty words and nudity" - I don't feel that these should be censored in any way. And, you can see, these aren't included in my list of things that warrant regulation.
Mobile Yuppie left this comment at December 22, 2005 2:33 PM
I like your analysis of the FCC. I wouldn't go as far as to call them communicst, but I would challenge their outmoded rules and their questionable excercise of censorship.
The FCC finally got an email inbox. The year before, the FCC got fewer than 300 complaints per year. After they got an inbox, they received thousands of emails per day.
Rather than take a moment to analyze their outmoded rules, the FCC is choosing to be more restrictive, citing the volume of complaints. I think those complaining need to learn to use the "Off" button on their remotes, tv, and radio sets.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 22, 2005 3:46 PM
Mobile Yuppie,
Thank you. I’m not literally calling them communist, either. I’m exaggerating to make a point.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 27, 2005 8:57 PM
Will:
Your contention that propaganda doesn't work and had no effect in Rwanda is something that I couldn't buy without some evidence.
As I’ve told you before, you need to consider the implications of what you say. “Yes, Your Honor, I raped all these women. But I don’t deserve to be punished, because it wasn’t my fault. Pornography made me do it. Porn is hate speech against women. Through some mysterious power unknown to science, it takes over men’s minds and wills. I deserve to be out on the streets. Let the pornographers take all the blame—or even just some of it, Your Honor. Then you would at least be justified in reducing my sentence.”
I have problems with some of your grounds for justifiable censorship:
Accuracy in news reporting (when the news blatantly lies or hides important information about what is really going on).
This sounds good in the abstract, but we can never all agree on what’s a lie and what’s important information. Conservatives see liberal bias in the news media; liberals see conservative bias. In my opinion, both sides are complaining out of an irrational fear of the opposite side’s power to brainwash the general public. Let’s not give either side the power to legislate out of this fear. If your government can “regulate” the news, then your point of view is only as safe as your side’s last election returns.
Monopolies and extreme concentration of power. When the media starts to look like the railroad companies of the late 1800s, the government should step in and do some trustbusting.
Read this article and you’ll never worry about that phony crisis again.
To get back to "dirty words and nudity" - I don't feel that these should be censored in any way. And, you can see, these aren't included in my list of things that warrant regulation.
It’s a very small consolation. Your belief in government censorship of the news scares me.
Will left this comment at December 27, 2005 9:37 PM
This sounds good in the abstract, but we can never all agree on what’s a lie and what’s important information. Conservatives see liberal bias in the news media; liberals see conservative bias. In my opinion, both sides are complaining out of an irrational fear of the opposite side’s power to brainwash the general public. Let’s not give either side the power to legislate out of this fear. If your government can “regulate” the news, then your point of view is only as safe as your side’s last election returns.
A lie is a lie - something that is not true. Example: the news reports that 10,000 soldiers are coming home for Christmas, but only 2,000 come home. If it can be proven that they know that, then that's a violation.
Hiding information includes things such as not reporting things that the public should know. Example: Iraq's elections are heavily contested by the citizens of Iraq, violence ensues, but the media calls it a success because people voted. Or the media knows that the government is spying on Americans, and doesn't comment on it at all when the President says that he doesn't do it.
Bias is covered only on public broadcasting, as mentioned before. Don't change my words to suit your argument.
It’s a very small consolation. Your belief in government censorship of the news scares me.
I find this comment totally ludicrous. I've said nothing that encourages censorship. I've only stated that the news needs to be held accountable for its facts. In your world, the media should be allowed to be a sounding board for whoever is in power without any checks or balances. That is much more frightening than a media that has some measures of consumer protection.
As I’ve told you before, you need to consider the implications of what you say. “Yes, Your Honor, I raped all these women. But I don’t deserve to be punished, because it wasn’t my fault. Pornography made me do it. Porn is hate speech against women. Through some mysterious power unknown to science, it takes over men’s minds and wills. I deserve to be out on the streets. Let the pornographers take all the blame—or even just some of it, Your Honor. Then you would at least be justified in reducing my sentence.”
Murderers still have to be held responsible for their actions... and people that encourage terrible actions, particularly through the media, should be held responsible also. It is not either/or. People are impressionable - that does not mean that they have no free will. It is another factor that can be a tipping point. In the case of Rwanda, it was certainly a tipping point. Without the hate radio, it was almost certain that the ferver that lead to the genocide wouldn't have gained the momentum to take off as it did. Media unites people, for better or for worse... this power should not be taken lightly.
Read this article and you’ll never worry about that phony crisis again.
I don't see how this addresses the issue of what occurs if a real monopoly unfolds. I also agree that there isn't a monopoly yet.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 28, 2005 5:54 PM
Will:
A lie is a lie - something that is not true. Example: the news reports that 10,000 soldiers are coming home for Christmas, but only 2,000 come home. If it can be proven that they know that, then that's a violation.
Hiding information includes things such as not reporting things that the public should know. Example: Iraq's elections are heavily contested by the citizens of Iraq, violence ensues, but the media calls it a success because people voted. Or the media knows that the government is spying on Americans, and doesn't comment on it at all when the President says that he doesn't do it.
You managed to find out about these things with no help from the government. The current laissez-faire system of news reporting works. Or do you think your fellow citizens need special help to become as media-savvy as you?
Let me get this straight: You want the government to force the news media to tell the people about government spying. There’s an obvious conflict of interest there, and your cognitive dissonance blinds you to it. You display the progressive’s love-hate relationship with government. You’re painfully aware of all the dishonesty and corruption in government, and yet you would trust this same government with ensuring that the newspapers never lie to us. I’m not asking you to give up hope for a better world, but only to consider other institutions besides government as the primary agents of positive change.
The professional and amateur journalists of today’s high-tech media are in fierce competition to scoop each other. This has created a buyer’s market for the truth. Secrets and lies don’t last very long.
Bias is covered only on public broadcasting, as mentioned before. Don't change my words to suit your argument.
Unless you can hire a choir of angels to staff the government agency that “regulates” the news, human frailty will blur the distinction between bias and lies. I’m certain of this.
In your world, the media should be allowed to be a sounding board for whoever is in power without any checks or balances. That is much more frightening than a media that has some measures of consumer protection.
In my world—and also in the real world—the free marketplace provides abundant checks and balances for the media. Fox News and Air America Radio compete for your ratings. The one that you judge to be more truthful wins. It’s a system of rewards and punishments much more efficient and humane than anything the government could do to keep the news honest. Best of all, it avoids the tremendous conflict-of-interest problem I mentioned above.
It is not either/or. People are impressionable - that does not mean that they have no free will.
If, as they say in car insurance claims, the actual perpetrators of violence in Rwanda aren’t 100% at fault for their actions, they should get lighter sentences. I don’t like that idea.
Do you consider yourself as impressionable as you consider your fellow citizens? Come on now, be honest. I apologize in advance if I misjudge you, but your arguments seem to imply a condescending disbelief in other people’s ability to think as independently as you.
Will left this comment at December 28, 2005 10:52 PM
None of your recent responses say anything arguing against the legislation of regulations to protect consumers.
You managed to find out about these things with no help from the government. The current laissez-faire system of news reporting works. Or do you think your fellow citizens need special help to become as media-savvy as you?
I'm not worried about the system now as much as what it could become without protections created by regulations.
Let me get this straight: You want the government to force the news media to tell the people about government spying. There’s an obvious conflict of interest there, and your cognitive dissonance blinds you to it. You display the progressive’s love-hate relationship with government. You’re painfully aware of all the dishonesty and corruption in government, and yet you would trust this same government with ensuring that the newspapers never lie to us. I’m not asking you to give up hope for a better world, but only to consider other institutions besides government as the primary agents of positive change.
No, I want a clear division between the media and the government. I expect that newspapers will be full of op-ed articles that I disagree with, that's part of life... but the news that is reported as fact should be factual. If we reach a point (which we do seem to be headed toward somewhere in the future if certain people have their way) where there is no outlet for opposing views and watchdog groups to report on the media, then we aren't safe regardless of who's side the media is taking.
Additionally, we don't have a "laissez-faire" system. We have a system full of pro-business regulations that make it easier for corporations with money to have access to the media. I can quickly recall the Swift Boat ads played on television, but an anti-Bush ad wasn't aired even when the money to play the ad was supplied by the group. And what about Clear Channel's censorship of playing the names of the dead soldiers? I think your argument assumes that people know what they're missing.
In a laissez-faire system, all things are equal. People make choices and that's it... but I think of people such as my grandma that can't afford internet on her Social Security checks, and only gets a few channels that her antennae picks up. She only has access to her local newspaper which doesn't cover alternative points of view or criticisms of government or media coverage at large. Do you think that I think she's somehow unable mentally to access what I can? Obviously no, that's not the issue.
And now, there's a movement to regulate the internet and put blogs under campaign finance rules that would effectively put anyone that says anything about the president under scrutiny and possibly be forced to pay money in fines or have jail time. Will you worry about government interference then? Checks and balances? When will you worry? What do you think of campaign finance rules? Do you think that spending money is equavalent to expressing free speech?
In my world—and also in the real world—the free marketplace provides abundant checks and balances for the media. Fox News and Air America Radio compete for your ratings. The one that you judge to be more truthful wins.
So you're telling me that the truth is irrelevent and that all that matters is that the story that is liked the most provides us with the "winner"?
Unless you can hire a choir of angels to staff the government agency that “regulates” the news, human frailty will blur the distinction between bias and lies. I’m certain of this.
Actually, we currently have a system that works fairly well for certain media issues that is based on complaints and is then followed with investigations by what are supposed to be non-partisan or bi-partisan groups. It doesn't always get it right, but I find it works better than having no oversight at all. The goal is to force some transparency in the media. Transparency doesn't occur naturally in any large company. We both know how hard it is to prove that the media is lying, that's why regulations are more about the process of forcing the media to prove to consumers that they are forthright than agencies punishing companies that lie. The regulations can only really be enforced by watchdog groups that find a way to report their findings to the public.
The professional and amateur journalists of today’s high-tech media are in fierce competition to scoop each other. This has created a buyer’s market for the truth. Secrets and lies don’t last very long.
I have to disagree with this because access to public figures is a power that gives public figures power over the media. The President chooses who he talks to, and so a lot of people spend their time kissing his ass for that access. Its hard to be openly critical of someone if your career depends on having communications with them and they can cut you off.
If, as they say in car insurance claims, the actual perpetrators of violence in Rwanda aren’t 100% at fault for their actions, they should get lighter sentences. I don’t like that idea.
You can be 100% guilty and you can be guilty partially because someone helped you to commit a crime in some way. In Rwanda, the media was definitely an accomplice. You seem to hate the idea that it can be both instead of either/or... or you aren't understanding me.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 29, 2005 3:46 AM
Will:
And now, there's a movement to regulate the internet and put blogs under campaign finance rules that would effectively put anyone that says anything about the president under scrutiny and possibly be forced to pay money in fines or have jail time. Will you worry about government interference then? Checks and balances? When will you worry? What do you think of campaign finance rules? Do you think that spending money is equavalent to expressing free speech?
Whoa! Aren’t you paying attention? I’ve been telling you all along how worried I am about government interference. I’ve already mentioned to you the threat to free speech posed by campaign finance laws. Now you’re making my point for me. You’re like the football player who gets confused and scores a touchdown for the other team.
Will left this comment at December 29, 2005 7:36 AM
You’re like the football player who gets confused and scores a touchdown for the other team.
The point is that we aren't in a laissez-faire system, and we never will be. The only way to achieve some balance is pro-consumer regulations.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 29, 2005 12:51 PM
Will:
The point is that we aren't in a laissez-faire system, and we never will be. The only way to achieve some balance is pro-consumer regulations.
We don’t have to choose between “pro-consumer” and “anti-consumer” regulations. There is a third option: no regulations on media access at all except to enforce contracts and protect private property. “The government is best which governs least.”—Thomas Jefferson
Will left this comment at December 30, 2005 9:56 AM
We don’t have to choose between “pro-consumer” and “anti-consumer” regulations. There is a third option: no regulations on media access at all except to enforce contracts and protect private property. “The government is best which governs least.”—Thomas Jefferson
I understand the theory, I just don't think it works in practice... particularly as the size of our nation has grown from a few million to 300 million. As we have given corporations the same rights as individuals, yet with less accountability.
In any event, I don't think it is fair to use Thomas Jefferson's quote as an indication of libertarian ideology. The founding fathers were primarily concerned with individual rights related to religion, and were against the legislation thereof.
I find it doubtful that Thomas Jefferson could imagine an economy as large as complicated as ours with such massive means of industrialization, comglomeration of workers and businesses, globalization, etc. There is evidence that he would not like it.
Jefferson was against the founding of the establishment of a national bank claiming fears that it could cause the accumulation of power and corruption found in Europes courts and monarchies. If he was afraid of that, don't you think he'd have some reservations about power corporations are allowed today?
I wonder just how libertarian Jefferson would be. He owned slaves yet proclaimed, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Economically, his legacy of cutting the budget (primarily of the military) and reducing the debt seems to fit more within a libertarian mindset, however, he also imposed an embargo on American shipping during the Napoleonic Wars - not very popular, and definitely not very libertarian.
He was a champion of states rights as opposed to Federal rights, which is somewhat libertarian... but also something that both Democrats and Republicans tend to be fans of, particularly when the other party is in control in Congress.
All in all, I think we can look to Jefferson's wish for his legacy for a clue of how he'd like to be remembered. He asked for his tombstone to read: "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom and Father of the University of Virginia." Religious freedom was probably his greatest cause (he even wrote books about religion) and was most concerned with the government interfering with people's personal ability to worship freely.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 30, 2005 2:33 PM
Will:
As we have given corporations the same rights as individuals, yet with less accountability.
Once again, Reason magazine comes to my aid. If I rely heavily on this source, it’s because it stands head and shoulders above most other political journals in its intellectual integrity. Jesse Walker writes that complaints about legal definitions of corporations as persons are usually complaints about fundamental rights such as free speech that corporations enjoy: “One need not believe that a corporation ‘is’ a person to recognize that it is made up of persons, and that those people should not give up their rights when they associate to form a corporation. If the groups known as ‘unions,’ ‘churches,’ and ‘political parties’ are protected by the Bill of Rights, then so are the groups known as ‘corporations.’”
The comment thread at this Reason blog post probably anticipates your objections to Walker’s article. Pay special attention to “Brian” (not me but a different Brian).
I appreciate all your comments, Will, and I want you to keep feeling welcome here. But this thread has digressed too far from the original topic of free speech. Your last comment didn’t mention it specifically at all. In future comments on this particular post, please focus on free speech. If you have more to say about side issues like Jefferson’s legacy, you can email me through the link on my Blogger profile page.
You are a very worthy opponent for sharpening my debate skills. I wouldn’t mind if you searched my archives for other posts with which you haven’t yet expressed disagreement. For example, do you have a problem with my use of Amadeus as an allegory for some women’s resentment of beautiful women?
« Home
Daedalus left this comment at December 16, 2005 7:30 AM