Re: Fairness Doctrine -- yes or no?

BTR1701 wrote:

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

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

--- Nobody is worrying about it now. At least not in Canada, nor in
the U.S. either, I'd imagine. And yet, there's still a whole bunch of
people that keep ending up in court over some form of speech or
another in both countries. So your real point is?

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.

--- If the U.S. imprisons people only for violating the law, how come
it has more than its fair share of innocent people in prison? How
many innocent people were sent to the death chamber, which has been
proven - sadly after the fact - too many times as having happened?
It's no secret that the U.S. criminal system is a very unforgiving
one, which is one reason why it has more people in prison on a per
capita basis than any other country in the world. With 5% of the
world's population, the U.S.'s prison population amounts to a quarter
of the world's prisoners. So much for freedom in America.

But what, then, is the real problem with the U.S.? The problem with
the U.S. is that it's over-regulated with way too many laws, and
you're complaining about Canada's laws? When you compare that there
are only 150,000 people in prison or supervision in Canada and 7
million in the U.S., something's gotta be wrong somewhere, and it sure
as hell doesn't look like it's in Canada. But hey, you've got a
Constitution that espouses an inherent right to freedom, but beats me
why 7 million are in prison or under supervision if you think you're
that free under it.

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?

--- What that was about was power playing. Oprah has power in her
words, she's able to move and convince a lot of people with what she
says. She has a huge viewing base. Personally, I think most of what
she says appeals to a viewing base comprised of too many vacant-minded
morons, but the Texas Beef Industry took her words as a threat to
their livelihood. They just couldn't afford to lose profits or
shareholders when they thought that somebody was out to assault their
empire. Now, exactly what she said is another matter. Did she
actually single out the Texas Beef Industry? If she did say something
reckless beyond just not liking eating meat and didn't support it with
any real proof and which could be viewed as injurious to the
reputation of the TBI, then there was probably a reason for them to
sue her. If she had only said she didn't like meat and that was it,
then the TBI went overboard in suing her because her statement
would've been much too general to imply anything negative or injurious
or damaging to TBI specifically. So you see, even in the U.S. people
go wacko over free speech. I'd rather have a system in place where
it's pretty well defined as to what real hate speech is, instead of
one where in making some broad or general statement without any
specifics to it, anyone can crawl out of the woodwork to sue you. The
U.S. is notorious for that kind of mentality these days, but it never
really was so prior to maybe the 80s. The Reagan Revolution of the
80s really changed the makeup of the U.S. in a lot of ways, mostly
negatively, so that now the country is virtually unrecognizable from
what it used to be before Reagan.

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.

--- It was a shrewd move on her part to get people on her side and
come on top. The beef people never stood a chance.

But to say that this is tantamount to genuine hate speech
of any kind is ludicrous.
No kidding. He finally sees the light.

--- The light was always there. You've just been too blind to
recognize it.

--- 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.

--- Tell that to serial killers who hate the very representation of
what it is they keep killing over and over. And as you may well know,
being the law man that you may be, serial killers can function as
perfectly sane, normal people in everyday life when they're not
killing. They simply compartmentalize their specific hate and act
upon it repetitively.

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

--- I already asked you to cite one case where it was luvy-duvy or
mutually neutral between both parties in a lawsuit. There is no such
case you can cite, and you know it.

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.

--- Yeah, well, I don't know where you're trying to go with this, but
it's nowhere I'm at.

--- 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.

--- Do I hear Howard Stern, anyone? Don Imus? Michael Richards? Who
knows how many others, I've never bothered to keep count. Seems
they've all been punished in one way or another for the "obvious
offense" of airing unpopular speech in the U.S.. Even dates back to
George Carlin in the 70s and Lenny Bruce in the late 50s/early 60s,
and likely even further back than that with others. They've all been
punished for it. Hell, even the Smothers Brothers were punished with
the cancellation of their show when they refused to cut out a protest
song by Pete Weaver at the height of the Vietnam War. Guess what?
Canada aired that song, being the gawdawful anti-hate speech country
that it is, and I saw that episode, and it was really much ado about
nothing. The same with CBS's refusal to air an episode of The
Prisoner because that episode's western theme was also deemed to be
anti-Vietnam War. Beats me how they saw that because it totally
escapes me even to this day. But I guess paranoia does funny things
to people in a representative republic.

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

--- Yeah, it's an amusing read. Note the following:

- "truths to be 'self-evident'" - what I or you deem as self-evident
truths can be far different from what others may deem them to be,
especially if those others wield power.
- "all men are created equal" - it's a nice thought, but far too
often it's not the case, the era of slavery being a perfect example of
that. And if men are truly created equal, it's not spelled out in
what way. And where are the women? Shouldn't it have read "all
people"?
- "certain unalienable Rights" - the only rights here that are
specified are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But even
then, they are mentioned in general terms. There's nothing to prevent
anyone, especially the government, from taking your life [i.e. death
penalty], your liberty [i.e. because you were being too anarchistic]
and pursuit of happiness [if raping women is your pursuit of
happiness, then I don't think you're supposed to get away with
that].
- "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" - but it
doesn't define to what extent the abuse can continue before the
government should be altered or abolished, explaining why Bush has
lasted as long as he has when, in saner countries, he would've been
ancient history by now.

Like I said before, the best that a constitution can be, any
constitution, is a guideline of what to do, not do, believe in, not
believe in, and that's it. After that, we're all at the mercy of
those in power and their interpretations. There's nothing inherent in
any constitution.

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.

--- I would've had just as much of a problem with any court voting
anyone into office. Going by popular vote alone, Gore won, and that's
how it should've been. The people clearly spoke, no court necessary.

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 see, this is exactly what's wrong with the U.S. and the way it
views democracy. It claims to the world to believe in it and that it
would defend it to its dying breath, yet, if you're a shining example
of American democratic thinking, you're proving how undemocratic the
U.S. really is with the kind of system it has. I really wish the U.S.
would stop using words such as democracy and democratic when it
doesn't even subscribe to them itself. The U.S. is a political beast
of a different color.

--- 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:

--- "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.

--- "Undesirables" can include *you* under "other condition". After
all, what would "other condition" ultimately include, anyway? It can
only be people. You use martial law on people, not bumble bees or
petunias or beasts from Traal - well, maybe beasts from Traal if they
had any intentions of overthrowing the government. You're not immune
from it. You just better hope that in the future you don't end up
with a president with a 666 on his head because he now would have the
tool necessary to restrain you.

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

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

--- It also has a cookie monster that gobbles them all 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".

--- Doesn't matter. If you can convince enough people, a majority of
them, to get things your way, then that's all you need. Everybody
else is a loser, bottom line. Guess that includes you.

--- 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.

--- You're just going around in circles. I've already explained it.

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.

--- Are you absorbing anything I say with any level of comprehension?
It's like I'm watching a dog chase its own tail and I'm wondering why
I'm even bothering to watch it.

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?

--- You're not starting to go off the deep end, I think you're already
in it. Read what I say with actual comprehension.

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.

--- Like politics never enters into anything the U.S. does when it
strongarms other countries, huh? Wake up.

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.

--- Then you think you'll even have a chance under your system of
prosecuting Bush for being a dictator with a war criminal record? For
as long as he can use Executive Privilege as an excuse and get away
with it and everything else he wants to do, which too many in Congress
are still willing to let him do, I doubt it. Time to get the
International Criminal Court in to do the job right. And hey, you
know, I bet you'd be able to get it started through them after you
find how much resistance you'd face with the U.S. system.

--- 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.

--- Yeah, the same message that people get that says you better do 65
on a 65 mph hour zone or we're going to get you if you push it to a
100. Same difference. Do you even understand your own argument?

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.

--- For someone who's a law man - and I increasingly doubt that more
and more - I'd think you'd know all about laws and the chilling effect
that each and every one of them has on people. How many laws are
there on the books in the U.S.? Thousands, tens of thousands,
hundreds of thousands? Probably more of them in the U.S. than
anywhere else in the world. And they all tell you, each and every one
of them with chilling effect, what to do and not do if you don't want
to be punished. Same difference. And you still don't get it even
when you claim to work in that environment.

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

The courts are part of the government, genius.

--- The courts are a part of the government, but they're not the
government itself. The government is a triad, each part with its own
functions and responsibilities to ensure a common application of law
and security. The government doesn't send you to prison for life,
neither do the cops, but the courts do because that's their domain in
the triad. Or at least, that's the way it should work. The U.S.,
however, can override the courts like they do when it comes to
sequestering terrorists at Guantanamo. Canada has no such unilateral
system. Even Britain can hold people under suspicion, including
terrorists, for only a month. Isn't there something in the
Constitution about a right to a fair and speedy trial? The more I
discuss this with you , the more the U.S. comes across as a Kafkaesque
nation that deludes its people with a "Constitution".

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.

--- He uses a bazooka gun to fire stink bombs into your bedroom every
night. I doubt if you can dismiss that and still have a restful night
of sleep.

--- 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.

--- Then why don't you guys stop using the word democracy on
everyone? You're only confusing everybody when you don't even believe
in it yourself!

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.

--- Canada is irrelevant. It could very well have been China, India,
Botswana, any other country, it doesn't matter who created the
cartoon. The issue is not Canada, the issue is the parents and the
absence of their own responsibility, and that's where the satirical
allegory lies in the song - equating parents with the U.S.

"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.

--- You yourself called the song a satire. Do you understand what
satire is? As Jonathan Swift said: "Satire is a sort of glass,
wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their
own." You fail to see your own face in the song.


.