Skip to main content

View Diary: The Left Will Go Down in Flames (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because Congress shall make no law... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JamesGG, Ahianne, DaNang65
    Canada banned them, why can't we?

    Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

    by Mike S on Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 12:38:21 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Congress don't have to make a law (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      prettymeadow

      that abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press in order to tackle the priblems in the media. I am stunned that Americans think any law would automatically do this. It boggles the mind. As long as Americans refuse to consider that there could be a solution, you're stuck with lies, distortions and disinformation scamming Americans who are susceptible to this.

      Please note that lamps in the Magic Lamp Emporium are on a genie time-share program so there may be a slight delay in wish fulfillment. (◕‿◕)

      by Mopshell on Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 08:39:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what do you propose? (0+ / 0-)
        Congress don't have to make a law that abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press in order to tackle the priblems in the media.
        Seriously, how do you propose that government go about "tackling the problems in the media" (which presumably includes Fox News's propensity for marketing paranoia, xenophobia, and out-and-out falsehoods) without abridging their freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 09:51:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your reply is exactly what I'm talking about (0+ / 0-)

          You simply cannot get passed "it must be impossible" so you won't even entertain the idea that there may be a solution.

          However, should the unlikely possibility ever eventuate that you ever do entertain that idea, I suggest you start with what the word abridge means.

          Please note that lamps in the Magic Lamp Emporium are on a genie time-share program so there may be a slight delay in wish fulfillment. (◕‿◕)

          by Mopshell on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 07:27:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm willing to entertain any solution. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mopshell

            Present yours and I'll let you know what I think of it.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:11:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

              First of all, my reference to the word abridge. Please correct me if I'm wrong or if my understanding of its meaning is inadequate because that will make a huge difference to my ideas on this.

              To me abridge means to shorten by omitting something and, when applied to speech, it incorporates censorship. So any idea to deal with lies, distortions or disinformation in the media must not include censorship.

              What I am proposing is a non-partisan agency with oversight of the media. It can either act on its or in response to complaints from the public or a combination of both. I would suggest that the first is highly undesirable on its own and wouldn't recommend it, and that the second is the best of the three so I am going to focus on that.

              The prime objective of such an agency is to protect the integrity of the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment. A set of standards is produced by which the agency works. It might be Congress who set these standards; it might be a joint state-federal effort; it may be left up to the agency and then ratified by Congress. The only importance here is that it be seen to be fair.

              Let's take as the likely standard: accuracy (which can be tested factually rather than "truth" which has subjective overtones) and adequacy (that an accurate report isn't misleading because a key piece of information is left out). The standards would apply to informational programs or items rather than entertainment pieces.

              How it might work if responding to complaints from the public: A complaint comes in, it is investigated and then the agency decides if it is accurate and or inaccurate/inadequate. If a media piece is found to breach the standard, then they have the power to:

              a) require a prominent correction
              b) downgrade the program from "news" or "current affairs" to "entertainment"
              c) fines

              None of these penalties ask or require the omission of any speech; on the contrary, they ask/require additional speech. The agency at no time can tell any media to retract speech or omit speech. The media can still say whatever they like - the penalties are there to inform the public, not to abridge media speech.

              Okay, this a very rough outline and written up very quickly. It's probably going to get pummeled and probably deserves it but at least it an attempt at solution-focused thinking - well, that's my excuse. (◕‿◕)

              Please note that lamps in the Magic Lamp Emporium are on a genie time-share program so there may be a slight delay in wish fulfillment. (◕‿◕)

              by Mopshell on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:37:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site