Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ] |
| Subject: Re: P.S. | |
|
Author: Kylopod |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:23:07 09/29/07 Sat Author Host/IP: pool-71-246-76-93.bltmmd.east.verizon.net/71.246.76.93 In reply to: Jimmy 's message, "Re: P.S." on 08:27:35 09/26/07 Wed What do you mean? Liberals have been at the forefront in getting controversial figures kicked off the air. Remember what happened to Dr. Laura? The fact is, free speech has never been a good defense against losing one's job on the air, unless you think that the networks have a legal obligation to include all points of view. If so, how far must they go? Are they required to have Holocaust deniers and flat-earth theorists? I'm not saying that firing people for their opinions isn't a form of censorship. It is. But it's soft censorship, the kind that everyone practices to some degree. It's not the kind of censorship that the First Amendment seeks to banish. I personally don't think Dr. Laura should have been shafted. I was no fan of her program, and I didn't agree with her stance against gay adoption. But I don't think it was so far beyond the pale that it deserved only to be silenced. (As for her characterization of homosexuality as a "biological error," I'm not convinced she was wrong.) Of course, people have different ideas of what's beyond the pale. It also changes with the times. Anti-miscegenation laws seem beyond the pale today, but they weren't forty or fifty years ago. And if I'd lived back then, I would have welcomed debate on the subject. In the present day, such a debate would not be beneficial, because it would just be giving voice to a fringe element that currently has no influence on our system. Anti-gay laws will probably one day seem just as antiquated, but for now it's a worthy topic of debate. When people scream "free speech," most of the time they aren't really defending free speech. All they're saying is, "I can tolerate this viewpoint, even though other people can't." The real test of commitment to free speech is the defense of views that are beyond the pale. It doesn't mean going out of your way to give such views a platform; it means simply that they should be free of legal penalties (which firing isn't). Most people realize this. Almost no one would fault a newspaper for failing to include the viewpoints of fascists or communists. People scream "censorship!" only when newspapers (or networks) suppress views that are considered to be reasonably within the mainstream. The free speech argument is a red herring in these circumstances, because very few people would argue that every view must be given a platform on the networks. The only real argument is, "Where do we draw the line between views that are beyond the pale, and those that aren't?" Just because people disagree on the answer to that question doesn't mean broadcasters must greenlight everything. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Re: P.S. | Mr. Bungle | 14:25:56 09/29/07 Sat |
|
||
| Re: P.S. | Jimmy | 05:35:32 10/01/07 Mon |
|
||
|
Forum timezone: GMT-14 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |