12/27/2008

Senator Schumer on the Fairness Doctrine


This pornography angle is a bizarre comparison to political free speech, but the claim that he makes about who supported restrictions on pornography is also wrong. The regulations on the internet pornography were primarily supported by Democrats, not Republicans.

Labels: ,

posted by John Lott at 12:28 PM

5 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

While I'd love to believe the "primarily supported by Democrats", I'd also like to see some supporting information which shows this.

12/27/2008 9:31 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Sorry, John, I don't have time to go back now, but if you did a search, I think that you will find out that most of the votes on that legislation came from Democrats.

12/27/2008 11:24 PM  
Blogger juandos said...

"but if you did a search, I think that you will find out that most of the votes on that legislation came from Democrats"...

Democrat Says Fairness Doctrine Should Extend to Cable, Satellite TV

House Republican leaders and conservative groups gathered in the afternoon heat Wednesday to call for Democrats to sign a discharge petition that would force a floor vote to ban the so-called Fairness Doctrine

“If anyone ever doubted that there is enmity between Democrats and American talk radio, they need look no further than the personal attacks leveled on Rush Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the sponsor of legislation shielding broadcasters from government interference. “I thought it astonishing that members of the U.S. Senate would engage in repeated and distorted personal attacks on a private citizen. It gives evidence of a level of frustration with conservative talk radio that is very troubling to anyone who cherishes the medium.”

There's tons more out there...

12/28/2008 3:54 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

The full comment I was referring to was this one:

The regulations on the internet pornography were primarily supported by Democrats, not Republicans.

I think there's a strong belief of exactly the reverse - that Republicans are trying to regulate internet pornography.

I did some searching, but finding a vote on COPA is proving difficult. It appears there was a verbal vote, then it got merged in with a giant appropriations bill, so it's hard to distinguish anymore. At least COPA, a.k.a. HR 3783 is what I'm guessing the original was in reference to.

House Subcommittee Passes Child Online Protection Act

is a link, but has no vote results.

12/28/2008 10:55 AM  
Blogger ICONIC FREEDOM said...

Actually, Schumer does make a point, if speech and expression are free, then they are free to everyone, however expressed. Our distaste for one thing over another is subjective and free markets should decide such.

An individual cannot relinquish his or her ownership of choice and responsibility in monitoring such exposure or education of such to self or offspring without setting a precedent for further controls/regulations devoid of boundaries as these boundaries become too subjective,.

If we truly uphold and endorse free markets, then we would have to endorse the free market to vet out the free speech of others and that which they decidedly choose to express through contributions, remunerations and such.

Either the market is to be free or it is not.

To apply an adjective of subjective nature upon any speech is to attempt to silence it; as a society there are things that, we, as individuals like and dislike; have taste for and distaste for; should we be legislating any one particular subjective point of view? By what criteria? Who gets to decide? What of prior restraint? No one is charged with the knowledge of knowing such and thus imposing it, it again, negates the concept of freedom at the most basic understanding and instead becomes “control” and manipulation.

No, leave these things to the individual to decide for the self that which will be viewed, heard, or expressed rather than others deciding. We don’t want someone deciding our healthcare; we don’t want someone deciding our right to bear arms; we don’t want someone deciding what food we can eat; we don’t want liberals controlling anything.

Pornography is an addiction by its nature; it is a negation of a holistic experience with another human being; one is not free to not engage when such addiction reveals itself. As such, a person can choose more accurately in life when educated about such things; the accuracy is in seeking health = freedom, the freedom to NOT engage in such or the need/drive.

That said, private business has the right to decide which billboards to post such “expression”.

If Clear Channel, for instance, wanted to advertise some porn movie or store, then the free market would speak to this choice of remuneration for advertising billboards and free market support. The porn industry wouldn’t be so lucrative if people weren’t buying it.

“It wouldn’t be so lucrative if it weren’t offered”, but then this flies in the face of free market ideology of letting an individual present a product for which either purchase or non-purchase would determine its value.

More education is needed in our society about such subjects, preferably neither liberal or conservative, but simply stated facts by which an individual can make decisions for self-governance and self-determinations.

And no, the "fairness doctrine" is anything but...

Let free markets decide

12/28/2008 1:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home