Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Quote:

In the first place the FCC regulates only broadcast media. It powers to do so are based on the notion that the airwaves are a public commodity, requiring (or more accurately, permitting, regulation of access to them by private individuals or companies by government in the public interest. The government has no analogous constitutional authority over the print, cable or internet media. Indeed the Constitution expressedly protects the so called freedom of the press, and prohibits government intervention based on opinions as to the merits of opinions expressed. The only limits permitted are related to urgent, immediate, and obvious dangers - falsely crying "Fire" in a crowded theatre was the judicial example.

Cable is under the FCC too, I believe, and there is some responsibility re satellite broadcast and ham radio. Competition issues also fall within their area of concern. And there's the Broadcast Decency Act of 2005 (thankyou Brownback and Bush) because of the Janet Jackson right tit 'fire in the crowded theatre'.

Quote:

I can see no benefit from altering these constitutional limits. Indeed history is replete with bad examples of what happens when government acts to limit or regulate political speech. I am surprised that you would be so willing to limit free expression in this way.

Please cease being disingenuous, george. Unless you are happy with gay porn on ABC prime time, then you are limiting free speech yourself.

But I'm not talking about specifying content and have the honesty and grace to acknowledge that, please. I am talking about regulations, such as limits on ownership of media in any geographical area or regulations regarding balance of content which have as their entire intention the forwarding of multiple or diverse content. I am impressed by your constitution only insofar as it ain't too bad as far as constitutions go. The last word from god it isn't.

Quote:

Additionally, I would like to hear something concrete about what you would have government do, how you would have it done, and what limits would apply. I note your expressed distaste for some media owners. Would you also welcome government scrutiny of the reporting content of the New York Times? Would you regulate the spending of George Soros in his attempts to influence public attitudes?

I have a distaste for some media owners in the same manner as do you. The Aspers, Murdoch, Clear channel, Conrad Black (his trial starts this week or next), the Terribly Reverend Moon top my list. You'd have your own. These guys all suppress viewpoints and areas of coverage in order to forward their personal/corporate interests.

Would I fight against, say, a Soros takeover of the six conglomerates which control the major US media? Sure. Admittedly with less vigor than if the Bush family reached for the same thing believing the first would be far more respectful of multiplicity of viewpoint and the value of that for a democracy, but I'd still fight against it.

Quote:

As Thomas noted, even the limited FCC regulation of the airwaves is getting a bit tired and silly. The FCC's role in issuing licenses is increasingly out of step with recent developments - a ham-handed relic of earlier times.

Fine with me. They are increasingly functioning as corporate facilitators (see Powell's new employer). But how about you. How about we allow the market to establish how much gay sodomizing and cocksucking arrives in our free-choice livingrooms?

0 Replies

Why stop at gay porn? I'm sure there are some who would like to be entertained by scenes of murder and dismemberment. There are socially (and legally) established limits on what one can say, present or do in public or through public media that limit such things.

However, I don't think that this is at all related to the control of information or public attitudes on social or political matters that is the subject of this thread of yours.

Our laws & courts have always had a hard time defining just what are the limits of decency that can be applied to human behavior and communication. However, that is a matter not much related to the question of political understanding, attitudes and debate. On the latter our laws are quite clear. Virtually no limits are permitted.

I'm not being disingenuous at all.

Cable media are NOT subject to FCC regulation - neither are newspapers, magazines or the blogs on moveon.org.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
Perhaps you would, justifying your opinion as principled, suggest that the FCC be dismantled and all regulations/legislation pertaining to media ownership caps be erased. If so, then I'll just let William Safire call you 'deeply stupid' and leave it at that.

I don't know about George, but I do happen to believe one could dismantle the FCC. In its place, Ebay could allocate channels through simple auctions, and the Justice department could regulate media ownership through plain, generic antitrust law. I also think I can survive Bill Safire's scathing verdict for holding this opinion.

I truly admire anti-trust laws. I sincerely wish they were properly enacted / enforced here in Canada and the US. I have consequently more diastase for the CRTC as compared to the FCC due to the CRTC's more radical projectionist-censorship position.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Why stop at gay porn? I'm sure there are some who would like to be entertained by scenes of murder and dismemberment. There are socially (and legally) established limits on what one can say, present or do in public or through public media that limit such things.

However, I don't think that this is at all related to the control of information or public attitudes on social or political matters that is the subject of this thread of yours.

Our laws & courts have always had a hard time defining just what are the limits of decency that can be applied to human behavior and communication. However, that is a matter not much related to the question of political understanding, attitudes and debate. On the latter our laws are quite clear. Virtually no limits are permitted.

I'm not being disingenuous at all. .

So, you'd have content regulated by the government as regards matters of "decency". So would I, though it's no simple matter to establish the how and the who of this, the regulatory rationale related to considerations of the overall social good...pretty subjective and arbitrary stuff.

But I suspect it almost certain that I would regulate such matters less aggressively than would you as I consider that government ought to be minimally involved in regulating matters of decency and 'virtue' or more generally of government attempting to set/police matters of values and personal behavior, these falling within the most fundamental sphere of individual liberty.

On the other hand, I am far more willing than you to have government regulate entities which are other than 'the individual' because these entities (say an engineering enterprise) have broad social consequences (bridge collapsing, fuel tanks exploding) often of critical community interest.

I'd imagine that you would support government regulations on monopoly and anti-trust. Do I have that right? If so, your rationale will likely be that free and open competition is most likely to lead to lower prices and better quality in goods and services.

Do you support anti-trust regulations related to media? Why exactly?

0 Replies

I do favor our anti trust legislaton - focused as it is on preventing the monopolist control of markets. However I get the impression that you are seeking something greater than that with respect to the media. True?

Cedrtainly by ordinary market standards Murdoch (or General Electric, or Disney, or the Publishers of the New York Times or the Washington Post & Newsweek) are not anywhere near achieving the level of monopolist control that would violate the standards in our anti trust laws. Despite this you appear to want greater control of political speech by companies involved in the business.

While you may wish to tolerate more with respect to core individual behaviors than, for example, core corporate behaviors, how do you practically make the distinction? What about the corporate purveyor of entertainments that some individuals find an acceptable part of their free personal experience, but which others find very offensive? Will you then provide more latitude to corporate purveyors of porn than for those of political and economnic analysis? That sounds a bit nuts to me.

To what degree are you willing to limit the freedom of the press in this country? I find your hiding behind the notion that 'we'll do it to corporations, but not to individuals' bit to be more than merely disingenuous. Most distributors of both porn and political commentary are corporations. Their consumers are individuals.

0 Replies

george

Why do you favor anti-monopolization regulations for media? Is this merely as consequence of your free-market preferences or is there a real political concern here as well?

0 Replies

Good question. My motivation is entirely for the presevation in free markets. I despair of the ability of government too effectively regulate anything so important as information and political speech, and I dread the prospect of giving government that kind of power.

I'm sure that Hugo Chavez is very persuasive in his rationalizations for shutting down his media critics. The Bolivarian revolution must be preserved at all costs so he and his lackeys can fulfill their self-appointed mission to improve the lives and behavior of their citizens. However, experience and history have taught me to be very skeptical of what will be the likely result.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Why stop at gay porn? I'm sure there are some who would like to be entertained by scenes of murder and dismemberment. There are socially (and legally) established limits on what one can say, present or do in public or through public media that limit such things.

I claim that often these "socially (and legally) established limits" are a cure that is worse than the disease. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre notwithstanding etc. Prove the pragmatic causation argument and you'll have a case, without such you simply have the precepts of good taste versus bad taste.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Why stop at gay porn? I'm sure there are some who would like to be entertained by scenes of murder and dismemberment. There are socially (and legally) established limits on what one can say, present or do in public or through public media that limit such things.
I claim that often these "socially (and legally) established limits" are a cure that is worse than the disease. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre notwithstanding etc. Prove the pragmatic causation argument and you’ll have a case, without such you simply have the precepts of good taste versus bad taste.

There may be some confusion between what we have a right to do and what is the right thing to do.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Chumly wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Why stop at gay porn? I'm sure there are some who would like to be entertained by scenes of murder and dismemberment. There are socially (and legally) established limits on what one can say, present or do in public or through public media that limit such things.
I claim that often these "socially (and legally) established limits" are a cure that is worse than the disease. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre notwithstanding etc. Prove the pragmatic causation argument and you’ll have a case, without such you simply have the precepts of good taste versus bad taste.

There may be some confusion between what we have a right to do and what is the right thing to do.

With whom do you infer that confusion lies? Do you intend to apply moral arguments as per "what is the right thing to do"?

How the hell y'all doing anyway? I've been to Texas on my motorcycle.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Why stop at gay porn? I'm sure there are some who would like to be entertained by scenes of murder and dismemberment. There are socially (and legally) established limits on what one can say, present or do in public or through public media that limit such things.
I claim that often these "socially (and legally) established limits" are a cure that is worse than the disease. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre notwithstanding etc. Prove the pragmatic causation argument and you'll have a case, without such you simply have the precepts of good taste versus bad taste.

You are indoubtably right in some instances. However, the fact is that virtually every nation in the world imposes some limitations of this kind, and removing them entirely could well have some bad consequences.

I don't think this is a matter that permits intelligent application of abstract, constant standards. Instead it is one of those issues best addressed by the community involved in a democratic process.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Chumly wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Why stop at gay porn? I'm sure there are some who would like to be entertained by scenes of murder and dismemberment. There are socially (and legally) established limits on what one can say, present or do in public or through public media that limit such things.
I claim that often these "socially (and legally) established limits" are a cure that is worse than the disease. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre notwithstanding etc. Prove the pragmatic causation argument and you'll have a case, without such you simply have the precepts of good taste versus bad taste.

You are indoubtably right in some instances. However, the fact is that virtually every nation in the world imposes some limitations of this kind, and removing them entirely could well have some bad consequences.

I don't think this is a matter that permits intelligent application of abstract, constant standards. Instead it is one of those issues best addressed by the community involved in a democratic process.

Would you then accept the community standards of the Aztecs if democratic? What if those community standards equated to taking all material possessions from those calling themselves georgeob1 on A2K and giving them to those calling themselves Chumly on A2K, if democratic? I could start a democratic thread on georgeob1 v. Chumly and see if who gets the most votes!

In any case, you have yet to identify these so-called "bad consequences" in any form let alone a qualitative and quantitative manner as opposed to loss of freedoms and rights and the inherent implications of such losses.

georgeob1, I challenge you explicitly (pun) to define the pragmatic real world definitive harm should human genitalia be shown in the process of heterosexual copulation on prime time TV as part of an educational forum on sexuality.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Would you then accept the community standards of the Aztecs if democratic?

Yes. I have no gripe with the now departed Aztecs.

Chumly wrote:

What if those community standards equated to taking all material possessions from those calling themselves georgeob1 on A2K and giving them to those calling themselves Chumly on A2K, if democratic? I could start a democratic thread on georgeob1 v. Chumly and see if who gets the most votes!

An uncharacteristic bit of sophistry. You are changing the subject in a weak attempt to refute an argument I did not make.

Chumly wrote:

In any case, you have yet to identify these "bad consequences" in any form let alone a qualitative and quantitative manner as opposed to loss of freedoms and rights and the inherent implications of such losses thereof.

I merely noted the near universal fact of the application of related standards by virtually every government in the world, and added a general reference to the bad consequences they are intended to avoid. They are obvious and don't require my recitation. Moreover I already acknowledged my unwillingness to take seriously any attempt to rationalize abstract, universal standards in this area.

0 Replies

Further you have fallen pray (pun) to the logical fallacy "argumentum ad populum" when you say

georgeob1 wrote:

However, the fact is that virtually every nation in the world imposes some limitations of this kind.......

Quote:

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

You're off the hook for now; I'll have to address the rest of your text later, I am being called by she-whom-must-be-obeyed!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

There may be some confusion between what we have a right to do and what is the right thing to do.

With whom do you infer that confusion lies? Do you intend to apply moral arguments as per "what is the right thing to do"?

How the hell y’all doing anyway? I've been to Texas on my motorcycle.

I infer that confusion is a general confusion among the American people. For example we have a constitutional right to free speech. That doesn't make it constitutionally right to slander, libel, or otherwise lie.

I do not intend to apply moral arguments as per "what is the right thing to do" to our discussion here unless someone asks me to or does that themselves.

I'm flying high in Texas. You too might consider earning an airplane pilot's license and renting an airplane next time you come to Texas from Canada. It will save you lots of time, and cost you lots of money. But then some motorcycles are costly, too.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Further you have fallen pray (pun) to the logical fallacy "argumentum ad populum" when you say
georgeob1 wrote:
However, the fact is that virtually every nation in the world imposes some limitations of this kind.......
Quote:
An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

You're off the hook for now; I'll have to address the rest of your text later, I am being called by she-whom-must-be-obeyed!

Well, I hope she is pleased with your response.

You are assuming that I have asserted a proposition that I believe to be true in the abstract. I have not. This is a practical matter over which I observe a widespread desire for limitation by societies everywhere. Though these limitations vary in degree and kind, they are a ubiquitous element in human society. They don't deprive me of anything which I want badly, and I can readily see that some possible excesses could be harmful to some -- children, for example. Beyond that I don't give a damn.

0 Replies

ican711nm,
Thanks for the clarification and the bit about planes.

georgeob1,
You would need to explain why you included the rationalization: " However, the fact is that virtually every nation in the world imposes some limitations of this kind......." if you did not mean to use it in context as per your claims. It's not as if you were talking about airplanes as per ican711nm.

OTOH I must admit that should we travel down the path of nitpicking-argumentation, we'll perhaps not have as much fun in a broader sense. The ball is in your court, and I'll respond in kind to the balance of your prior postings based on how you respond going forward. Fair dinkum mate!

0 Replies

blatham wrote

Quote:

george

Why do you favor anti-monopolization regulations for media? Is this merely as consequence of your free-market preferences or is there a real political concern here as well?

george wrote

Quote:

Good question. My motivation is entirely for the presevation in free markets. I despair of the ability of government too effectively regulate anything so important as information and political speech, and I dread the prospect of giving government that kind of power.

I'm sure that Hugo Chavez is very persuasive in his rationalizations for shutting down his media critics. The Bolivarian revolution must be preserved at all costs so he and his lackeys can fulfill their self-appointed mission to improve the lives and behavior of their citizens. However, experience and history have taught me to be very skeptical of what will be the likely result.

Perhaps you've answered this question in an odd manner. Your first two sentence seem to directly contradict all that follows. Everything past those first two sentences is an expression of political concerns. Is that not so? Your Chavez example, and your support for anti-trust regulations on media ownership, both suggest your aim is towards maximal speech. You don't wish, it seems, anyone to have the means wherebye speech, information and political ideas/discourse are suppressed and the reason, you've said, is because those 'commodities' are too important. Do I have you right?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Perhaps you've answered this question in an odd manner. Your first two sentence seem to directly contradict all that follows. Everything past those first two sentences is an expression of political concerns. Is that not so? Your Chavez example, and your support for anti-trust regulations on media ownership, both suggest your aim is towards maximal speech. You don't wish, it seems, anyone to have the means wherebye speech, information and political ideas/discourse are suppressed and the reason, you've said, is because those 'commodities' are too important. Do I have you right?

Well I did try to answer the question, but I believe there is nothing odd in the answer. Indeed it is one that western nations, to varying degrees, have learned - sometimes at great cost - over the modern era and beyond. Moreover I see no contradiction whatever in what I wrote.

My support for anti trust laws goes to them more or less as they are in this country. They are a device to limit the monopolist control of any commercial economic activity by anyone, individual or corporation, regardless of the nature of the economic activity in question. My interest in limiting monopolist control of media is qualatatively no different than my interest in limiting such control of (say) the manufacture of shoes.

I do believe that, for all the disorder, manipulation and distortion it often entails, a free media, particularly in areas relating to speech on political or economic issues is far better than any system involving direct oversight by government. The historical record on this matter is fairly clear, and I am surprised that you appear to ignore it. All of the well-known tyrannies that inflicted so much harm on humanity during the late, unlamented 20th century exercised strict control on all sources of public information and debate right from the start of their unhappy regimes and kept it in place until they fell - usually a result of their own internal contradictions.

My reference to the esteemed Mr. Chavez was partly based on some recent actions he has taken to shut down the few media and print outlets that have expressed views critical of his policies. I'm confident that his "Bolivarian" revolution will bring all the freedom of expression and economic fulfillment to the Venezuelan people that Castro's sad tyranny has brought to the unfortunate Cuban people.

0 Replies

To clarify...

Quote:

My interest in limiting monopolist control of media is qualatatively no different than my interest in limiting such control of (say) the manufacture of shoes.

But in the previous post, you've said

Quote:

anything so important as information and political speech

Could we then say "anything so important as shoes"?

0 Replies

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know