Re: Fairness Doctrine -- yes or no?

In article <1185306315.639998.73380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WQ <wq@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

BTR1701 wrote:

--- To be prosecuted or sued is the
same thing

No, it's not. One results in a criminal
indictment for you, an arrest record, and
jail time (even if eventually acquitted).
The other does not.

in that they both make
you end up in court,

If that's your only criteria, then you could
equate prosecution to divorce and probate also
since they all "make you end up in court". Yet
being prosecuted for a crime isn't even in the
same universe as probating a will.

--- That is my criteria and, yes, you could equate
everything else as making you end up in court

Then your distinction is pointless because it has
no meaning.

--- The meaning is simple: regardless of what law is
broken, hate speech or d.u.i. or whatever, if you're caught,
you end up in court, where it'll be determined if you're
innocent or guilty.

And a citizen shouldn't have to worry about ending up in court, facing
prison time, for merely saying something.

So you can have a hate speech law, but it only means
something if the courts decide that you broke the spirit
of it.

Another difference between Canada and America: we only imprison people
for violating the law, not some nebulous and ill-defined "spirit" of the
law. In fact, the Constitution requires laws to be clear and concise so
that the citizenry knows BEFORE they end up in court what will and will
not be permitted. Any law that doesn't meet that criteria is void for
being unconstitutionally vague.

--- Economic advantages can be gained without libeling.

Sure they can. But if libel does occur between businesses,
that doesn't automatically make it hate.

--- Businesses aren't people.

But the folks who run them are.

They don't have minds and feelings of their own.

Neither do they have mouths and hands and fingers so those libelous
statements have to come from a human at some point, don't they? And yet,
even so, that doesn't mean hate is involved.

Unless, that is, you really want to discredit someone
in a way that destroys their name, reputation or
credibility, which goes beyond merely gaining economic
advantage.

I'm not talking about "someone". I'm talking about corporations
and industries. Like when Oprah got sued for defamation several
years ago by the Texas Beef Industry. All she did was say she
doesn't like to eat meat. Does that mean Oprah hated the guys
who raise cattle in Texas? Or that she hates dead cows? (And
if she does hate dead cows, so what? Are we even enforcing hate
speech against corpses now?) Are you beginning to see the ridiculous
results that occur when you define "hate" so broadly?

--- Obviously, whatever the situation was in that case, people were
involved.

No ***. Really?

People with intentions and designs and motivations and biases and,
yes, even some form of hatred.

Wrong.

I'm sure the Texas cattle people weren't exactly loving her for
what she did

The fact that someone doesn't "love" your actions hardly means those
actions are hateful.

and Oprah probably felt she could've done something more
constructive with her time and money than end up in court.

She actually loved it. She moved her show down to Texas for the duration
of the trial and her ratings went through the roof.

But to say that this is tantamount to genuine hate speech
of any kind is ludicrous.

No kidding. He finally sees the light.

There really is something sick about someone who
is intent on making life miserable for someone else,
and it's one borne out of a degree of hatred

No, it's not and it's going to take more than you
just saying so to make it true.

--- Someone who is deliberately out to make your life
a living hell while not having anything against you is sane?

Sanity is not in question here. Hatred is. In fact, if the person is
insane, that makes it even more likely there's no actual hatred
involved. Crazy people aren't motivated by rational thought, hence no
hatred.

Jealously is jealousy. Not hate.
Envy is envy. Not hate. When I sit in traffic
every day on the way to work, I'm envious of
Donald Trump's helicopter. But in no way do I
hate Donald Trump.

--- No, you don't hate him, if you don't plan to
sue him or libel him. But if you did plan to do that,
then yes, you would hate him because you'd be expressing
a desire to do damage to him and be showing a willingness
to go to great extent to achieve that damage.

Ah, so even people who file lawsuits are engaging in hatred now? Wow.

--- Who the hell sues out of the goodness of their own heart? Wow.

No one. But I didn't realize that the definition of "hatred" is "anything
not done out of the goodness of one's heart".

People who have been wronged by another sue. Doesn't mean they hate the
person they're suing. If I walked into Trump Tower and the janitor left a
wet spot on the floor and I slipped and cracked my head on the pretty
marble stairs and incurred medical expenses, then I would sue Trump,
Inc. for reimbursement if they refused to pay, based on the negligence
of their employee. That doesn't mean I hate Donald Trump, his company or
the janitor. It just means I need my money back.

To claim that anyone who files a lawsuit against anyone else is being
hateful is spectacularly ridiculous.

You can hate who you want, I don't care. It's only
when you take action to create damage

And with your "If you don't like him, then you
must hate him" approach, you can quantify any negative
comment as "hate", cite hurt feelings as "damage"
and lock the person up. Wonderful!

--- I think you're starting to go off the deep end.

I'm not the one claiming lawsuits are essentially hate crimes.

No, it most certainly is not. Merely "having
something against someone" is in no sense hatred.
Again, this ridiculously liberal definition of
"hate"-- where even the merest antipathy is
elevated to the level of "hate"-- is one of the
reasons the whole concept is dangerous to freedom
and liberty.

--- Exactly. That's precisely what my definition
of hate is: very liberal.

Well, at least you admit your goal is the curtailment
of freedom and liberty. I give you points for honesty
at least.

--- No, my goal is the application of properly defined
laws for obvious offences

That was Stalin's goal as well.

--- And the American legal system's too.

True, but we don't consider unpopular speech to be an "obvious offense"
the way you and Stalin do.

The concept behind our Constitution and form of
government is that rights are inherent.

--- Where do you *read* "inherent" anywhere in the
Constitution?

I don't. My study of the foundation of our government
isn't limited to just one document.

--- But you seem to keep relying on the Constitution as
the only document that implies that rights are inherent.

No, I quite clearly said, "The CONCEPT BEHIND our Constitution
and form of government is that rights are inherent."

--- Who said there was that concept? The founding fathers?

Yep.

When and where did they say that?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness."

--The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
1776

And that's the just the start of it. Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin,
the Federalist Papers-- it's been said in and by all of them.

After all, they did vote in Bush into office in 2000.

But I somehow suspect that if the outcome of that decision
had favored Gore, you wouldn't have had a problem with it.

--- I would if I saw he ended up spending more time on Earth Live
concerts than running the country.

Ah, so you have no problem with the Supreme Court "voting" a candidate
into office so long as the person's performance is to your liking.

And what was that point of law they decided on anyway?

Without going back and researching it, if I recall correctly,
the issue was the amount of time alloted under Florida law
for a recount to be performed.

--- Oh, yeah, I think I kind of remember something about that
now. But if the U.S. were truly democractic, if not a democracy,
it would've taken all the time necessary to get the right count.

Oh, so your approach would have been to say, "Well, we need to be truly
democratic, so even though there's a validly passed and enacted law on
the books, we're free to ignore it at our leisure in support of the
higher ideal of "true democracy".

You'd make a helluva jurist. Seriously. You're exactly the type of guy
the Left would love to see on the Supreme Court. Doesn't matter what the
law actually says. So long as the goals are noble (said nobility defined
by them, of course), the ends justify the means.

--- This is the exact wording:

Sec. 1076(a)(1) Sec. 333(a)(A):
restore public order and enforce the laws of the
United States when, as a result of a natural disaster,
epidemic, or other serious public health emergency,
terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any
State or possession of the United States, the President
determines that-- [the rest follows at:

And notice there's no mention in the actual law of either
"undesireables" or Haliburton detention camps along the
southern border.

--- "Other condition" can include "undesireables" for whatever
"other condition" can refer to

Well, if you want to get fanciful about it, "other conditions" can refer
to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast from the Planet Traal, also. Bottom
line: that "alternative press" article threw in the term "undesireables"
all on its own as a bit of scare-mongering yellow journalism.

Someone in the "alternative" press (no bias there,
right?) just claims Haliburton is building the
detention facilities with no evidence to back it
up and you take it as the gospel truth.

--- Don't want to believe the alternative press,
fine. The link to the Times article is right up there too

Yeah, and it requires me to sign up and log in, something
I have neither the time nor the desire to do. Why don't
you quote for me the part about the Halliburton-constructed
concentration camps along the southern border?

--- Funny, I got the article, no problem.

Perhaps your computer already has a cookie? Just a thought...

--- It's called H.R.5122, or the John Warner Defense
Authorization Act of 2007. Bush has already signed it.

My point is that in order to pass Congress and reach
the president's desk for signature, it has to be voted
on by Congress and that means it wasn't something the
president "pulled off over everyone". A majority of both
houses of Congress knew about it, supported it, and voted
for it.

--- Either it was a fast one pulled over Congress or
your entire government is conspiring against you.

There is a third alternative: you're a loon.

--- Ha-ha, I like that. When faced with a reluctant choice to
make between two distasteful possibilities

It was an artificial construct. I actually wasn't faced with those two
choices. It was just something you made up.

Remember, Bush pulled a fast one to make almost everyone
believe an Iraq War was necessary

No, he didn't. Everyone didn't believe that. I sure didn't.

--- The vote in Congress was pretty hefty in favor [77-23 Senate;
296-133 House] and the polls showed the majority of people
[58%] believed the U.S. should run over Iraq if it looked
like Iraq might attack the U.S.

A majority of people isn't "everyone".

So why aren't so cranked up over the billboards
advertising food and lodging and other stuff? They
spoil your view as well.

--- I don't know how the Beautification Act works
in the U.S., but billboards advertising food, lodging,
gas, road directions and speed limits are all necessary
ones to have if you're traveling.

Nothing in U.S. law considers a big honkin' Taco Bell
billboard to be "necessary". And the practical reality
is that one can drive down the highway just fine without
them. There are governmental signs (speed limits, road
exits, etc.) and non-governmental/commercial signage. The
commercial signage is just that: advertising. It's not
"necessary" under any sense of the word. I would imagine
the same is true in Canada. Even though they're not a real
country, anyway, I don't think Canadians are nutty enough
to consider the "2-4-1 Wings Special @ Hooters!!" billboard
to be a necessity for driving on the highway.

--- I don't know what you're talking about here. Necessary
signs are the obvious ones, like those preceding Service
Centers or town or city exits. Gigantic Hooters billboards
are unnecessary, obviously.

And yet you're not nearly as wound up over them as you are over this
bible billboard, despite the fact that they both create the same amount
of "visual pollution". Leads one to believe that "visual pollution"
isn't really the issue at all and you're just using it as a convenient
cover to justify censorship.

So the question remains, why are you not just as
cheesed-off at the Burger King and Holiday Inn billboards
as you apparently are with a sign that says nothing but
Leviticus 12:8? How is the latter "visual pollution" but
the former is not?

--- Burger King and Holiday Inn signs on service boards alert
you to where you could be fed, a necessity

You just said above that billboards like that are unneccary. I swear to
god, this is like talking to two different people. You change positions
more often than John Kerry.

Leviticus 12:8 serves no useful necessary informational
function, so on the highway it's just little more than visual
pollution.

How about a billboard advertising Blockbuster Video? Or advertising an
upcoming movie release? Visual pollution (and hence banned) or not? Or is
going to the movies a necessity now, too?

This is what the WC decides:

"The Court's role is to settle, in accordance with
international law, legal disputes submitted to it by
States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions
referred to it by authorized United Nations organs
and specialized agencies."

That's the civil side. I'm talking about the World Criminal
Court.

--- Well, Bush once again has done a masterful job of discrediting
yet another valid organization.

Valid is a matter of opinion.

The International Criminal Court was designed to be the world's
first permanent criminal court for the prosecution of dictators
and war criminals. And, in the words of former UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan:

"The court will prosecute in situations where the country
concerned is either unable or unwilling to prosecute. Countries
with good judicial systems, who apply the rule of law, and prosecute
criminals and do it promptly and fairly, need not fear.

All subject to the UN's determination of "good", "prompt" and "fair",
right? And politics will never enter into such determinations. Nope, not
at the UN they won't.

It is where they fail that the court steps in."

Good for them. Have at it. Just don't try and impose it on me or my
country.

Is Bush, who made sure that the treaty would never be sent to
the Senate for ratification and that Congress pass a law forbidding
Americans at all levels of government from cooperating with it,
basically saying that the American legal system stinks?

Nope.

Otherwise, what does he have to hide from the International Criminal
Court?

Oh, I don't know... let's see who is running it? Oh, that's right, the
UN, one of the most corrupt and useless and stagnant bodies in human
history. A group that votes Syria and Libya onto the Commission for
Human Rights. If Hitler was still around, they'd probably put him in
charge of Committee for the Preservation of Jewish Culture. If you think
Bush is bad, that Annan fellow and his family made him look like a
piker. Our judicial system is just fine, thanks. We don't need to
subject ourselves to one run by the freakin' UN, of all things.

It's a body that abides by international law, not any
country's national laws or constitutions, in settling
disputes between States.

There's actually no such thing as international law.
There are no codes or statutes passed by the equivalent
of a legislature that represents the people. It's merely
a hodge-podge conglomeration of treaties and compacts.
And since treaties can be breached at will and the only
legal consequence is that the treaty is nullified,
they really aren't laws in the traditional sense.

--- Well, then go tell them that it's all a sham, to just
pack their stuff and go home.

Believe me, I'd love to. Maybe they could move the whole thing to
Toronto or Montreal. Free up some prime New York real estate.

--- Once again, the definition doesn't shut anybody
up, it merely defines what not to do.

And if what you want to say is on that government-proscribed
list, you're shut down. Your Orwellian Double-Speak games
don't work with me.

--- You may be "shut down," but the court can open you back up
for business if it finds the law was wrong to have shut you down.

But that sends a message to all the other citizens: be careful what you
say or you could end up in court having to defend yourself. And even if
you're found not guilty, you've still had to deal with the time and the
hassle and threat of dealing with the government over it. It makes other
people less willing to take the chance. They err on the side of caution
and don't say things they otherwise might have. It's called a "chilling
effect" and it's the real purpose behind these hate speech laws.

So if I hold a gun to your head and demand your
money and you give it to me, I haven't forced you
to do anything because you could always just say no.
Interesting theory.

--- Yes, it would be an interesting theory if I said
no, you didn't pull the trigger, took my money and it
ended up in the courts. But I'm assuming that by your
example if I said no, you'd blow my brains out. It then
doesn't become the same analogy.

Sure it does. You say "the government isn't doing it. All
it's done was pass a law." But if you break that law,
the government does the equivalent of blowing your brains
out: they come after you with cops and guns and throw you
in the can.

--- It's the courts and only the courts that throw you in the can

The courts are part of the government, genius.

But in his world, he's putting you and your wife through
a living hell.

Nah, the words alone don't even come close to "living
hell"-- we're grown-ups. We can take a little name calling
and vulgarity. We don't need the government to protect us
from the bad, bad, world. And if this guy does anything
else besides spout off, then he'll become intimately
acquainted with the concept of hell.

--- I'm not talking bubble gum activity when I talk about
torment, something which you think you can easily dismiss
and still have full nights of perfectly sound sleep because
it's only mere words and that you're "grown-ups".

Well, give me an example of something that you're sure I couldn't dismiss
and would keep from sleeping at night.

I'm really beginning to doubt your claim that you're some
kind of a law man because if that were the case, you would've
been exposed to a lot of people in intense situations by now

It's precisely because I deal with this crap every day that I know that
there's not much someone can say to me that will cause me sleepless
nights. But hey, if you think there is, give me an example.

How's he talking to me, then?

--- Cell phone, from a distance, where you can't
easily reach him or maybe even see him to have a
SWAT sniper take him out.

Then how the hell am I gonna punish him for his words
if I can't reach him, see him or snipe him?

--- That's your problem.

Apparently not because you're the one saying he needs to be nipped in the
bud for saying what he says. If you've constructed a hypothetical where
doing the very thing you're advocating is impossible, that's hardly *my*
problem.

This is just getting silly at this point. You come up with
these hypotheticals that shift and change like a kaleidoscope.
What's next? The guy is really an alien with some super-
advanced holographic technology that makes a facsimile of
himself appear in front of me that I can see and hear but
can't touch?

--- Well, you can take it to a sci-fi level, I'm still trying to
keep it grounded on earth.

Too late. You passed that exit a few miles back.

You think if he's got such a grandiose plan he's going
to make it that easy for you? Think more in terms of near
impossibilities of trying to get him anytime quick and
before the ka-boom hits.

And if I can't get to him before he detonates, what the
hell good would it do me to try and punish him for what
he says?

--- Who said anything about punishing him for what he says?

?!?!?!??!?!

Dear weeping Jesus...

You must be a troll. No one serious could possibly have written what you
wrote above.

The USA isn't a democracy to begin with. It's a
constitutional representative republic.

--- I wonder what it represents if it's not a
democracy.

That doesn't even make sense.

--- A representative republic - what is that if not a
democracy?

Democracy is where people all vote on everything and the majority rules.
That's not the American system of government.

There's a reason words are different. They mean different things.
"Democracy" and "representative republic" are two different things.

Blame Canada
Shame on Canada
For...
The smut we must stop
The trash we must bash
The laughter and fun
Must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks
of blaming us!

--- I'm assuming you got the real joke
in that. Somehow I suspect you didn't.

You assume I got the joke but at the same
time suspect I didn't? How many personalities
have you got in that head of yours? Should I
call you Sybil from now on?

--- Okay, I was *hoping* you got the real joke,
but suspect you didn't.

Oh, I got it. The entire song is a satire on those
who refuse to accept personal responsibility both
for their own actions and in raising their children.
It mocks those who want to "blame someone, anyone"
whenever anything goes wrong in their lives and who
look to the government to lead them by the hand and
take care of them rather than taking care of themselves.
In short, it mocks you. The fact that the McGuffin
chosen in this case happens to be Canada is just icing
on the cake.

--- I suspected right, you didn't get it. The real
joke is in the last two lines of the song.

Did you even see the movie? Doesn't sound like you did
because you don't seem to understand what was going on.
The parents were protesting the fact that a cartoon on TV
had corrupted their kids and they were whining and crying
about why someone (like the government) hadn't done anything
to protect them and stop it from happening. They were
basically blaming everyone and everything but themselves
and their poor parenting skills. Which was exactly what I
said above: it's a satire on those who refuse to accept
personal responsibility and expect big government to lead
them through life.

--- What you just described isn't what the song says at all.

Yes, it does. It's obvious to everyone but you, apparently.

Canada is the innocent bystander being accused for something
it has nothing to do with.

Actually, in the movie, the cartoon was made and produced in Canada.
That's why the parents are blaming Canada and expect the government to
do something to protect their kids instead of taking responsibility for
themselves and their children. Like I said.

"We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming us!" - 'us' = U.S.

No, in this case, "us" is the parents themselves. Sometimes a cigar is
just a cigar.
.

Loading