How many grammar errors are required before a blog on an otherwise respectable webiste looks like a middle school example of what not to do if you an opportunity to actually write blog on such a site one day. Ugh!!!
@Fritz43 & the Devils coachman: I had heard about Rand's work for years, but as I grew into adulthood, found fewer and fewer opportunities to carve out the time required to fully digest the 1,200+ page book. Finally, about 3 years ago, I read it and have been kicking myself for not doing so sooner. As I enter my 40's with full knowledge of the world around me and childhood naivete long gone, her words resonate and ring true. Am I some corporate elitist? No, but I do believe in the Rand's philosophy. Anyone who takes the time to read her work and somehow fails to see the similarities between her fictional account of the problems associated with the idea that everyone should benefit equally regardless of the value they provide back to the world and the world we're living in today. The more government attempts to equalize benefits, the greater the divide the government creates. Why? Because over time, those with means will be the most well positioned to take advantage of any opportunity, regardless of whether they were the intended beneficiary. The book is spot-on and should be required reading for every high school senior along with Civics.
This is a tempest in a teapot. Nobody is banning books. The court is enforcing one party's right NOT to have it's intellectual property unfairly utilized by another party - period.
Look at it this way...
What would happen if I suddenly decided to write a book called "To Kill a Hummingbird" and the characters, setting, plot and historic elements bared a strong resemblance to "To Kill a Mockingbird"? If the court enforced an injunction (order to cease attempts to capitalize on someone else's IP) would that too be book banning? Of course not.
There are plenty of legitmate cases of unfair government involvement. Please take a moment to understand the situation for what it ISN'T before you begin protesting what you think it might be.
" This gives incredible power to established media outlets, but Joe Commoner is not allowed to speak ill of candidate just before the election."
While this may be true, it is not the message that's being censored or restricted, but the timing of the message. The fact that the timing is the same across the board and does not single out a particular candidate or party makes it much more difficult categorize as a abridgment of free speech.
And to the distinction between "joe commoner" and the "established media", I'm not sure but it appears that you are distinguishing one from the other in terms of being able to put out a message either endorsing or detracting from a particular candidate. The owners of, say, the Atlanta Journal Constitution have the right to endorse any candidate they wish to regardless of the timing. Why not...they own the paper and can endorse and/or editorialize all they wish. Again, how this is percieved by the paper purchasing public will either help or hurt the paper itself in the long run despite the impact that making such a pronouncement has on a particular election outcome. Then again, I do see your point that "joe commoner" doesn't have the same ability to reach and influence as many people as the AJC, but that's a problem for Joe and his candidate. Nobody said life was fair.
Actually, campaign finance reform has more to do with where the money comes from to pay for the message than the message itself. Political speach is relatively wide open if only for the fact that these are public figures who have put themselves out there on full display for all to see. CFR was instituted to attempt to make it easier for those with fewer dollars to remain competitive in a political environment that has essentially become formulatic in determining who will win the next election based on the size of their warchest. Limiting the number of dollars that a candidate can accept from corporate and private donors alike, including those to his/her 501(c)(3) campaign groups (People for the American Way, Swift Boat Vets, MoveOn.org, etc) makes it necessary for all politicians to have to convince larger numbers of small donors to contribute. From there, let them way whatever they want so long as it isn't knowingly false and damaging to character and reputation.
One other thing that should get people in an uproar is the idea that a Democrat-controlled house and senate will attempt to pass what's known as the Fairness Doctrine in a backhanded effort to Kill talk radio (since Air America failed miserably at trying to beat conservatives at their own game). Essentially, the Fairness Doctrine would set forth standards that would call for equal time for opposing viewpoints. Of course, this would wreck havock on the programming schedules of talk radio stations around the country who would be forced to block out equal time for the liberal viewpoint on whatever subject the conservative radio host had discussed (or planned to discuss).
Now, personally, I could care less if you love guys like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Boortz or whoever. The fact of the matter is that there is obviously a lot of people out there who have voted with their time and their wallets and made them #1 nationwide. It seems to me that forcing a commercial to carry any material or free up any airtime, of which there is a finite amount each day, would be a far greater suppression of speach rights than anything.
Im interested in hearing what people think about this idea. Ok, I can understand how some might say, "Yeah, that's great. Lets give everyone a chance to view their ideas and let us, the public, make up our own mind." I think that's fine so long as that opposing viewpoint ponies up the dough for the new broadcast station, licenses, airtime, talent costs and whatever else goes into making these stations a viable business. Is forcing an opposing viewpoint under the guise of being fair really "Fair"? What about the advertisers? If people really wanted to hear the opposing viewpoint, Air America would still be alive and kicking (are they even on the air in NY and SF, or are they off completely?) Just wondering what everyone thought about the idea.
Despite the fact that so many people claim to have quit listening to Talk radio, the fact of the matter is that TR is the number one format in the nation in nearly every major market. Now, I'm willing to admit that there is a good percentage of the listening population that listens solely because they whole-heartedly disagree with the largely consertavie viewpoints that they know is coming, and an equal number listen because they take what they hear as gosphel. Somewhere in there is a pretty good sized group that's somewhere in the middle and that group appears to at least be interested in provocative discussions-whether they agree or not. Regardless, its still entertainment. The fact that some choose to take that entertainment and regurgitate it as their own political dogma is just happenstance.
Libertarian Radio host Neil Boortz is a good example. He's both loved and hated by many for his views. I personally think he's a riot and love to hear him make fools out of the ignorant. What's interesting is that he came out on the air and said what I believe to be the most honest thing about talk radio that has ever been aired. Boortz stated something to the effect that 'contrary to what you listeners might wish to believe, the simple truth is that we (the radio hosts) view you (the callers) as records, as cd's, in short, as the entertainment. We let you on the air until we feel you have little entertainment value and then dump you for someone else that does. The more entertaining we can make the show through provocative commentary and whatever else is neccesary, the more we can charge advertisers for the time they spend trying to sell you stuff.'
How's that for honesty? For this reason, I continue to listen to talk radio a majority of the time, but do so knowing that whatever is being said contains some accuracy, some distortion and enough information for me to go out and invstigate the facts for myself should I hear anything that gets my shorts in a knot.
As for free speech, say what you want so long as the words and ideas are yours or yours to use with permission. Do so on your property or that which you control. Lie if you wish for its your creadibility that will ultimately be damaged. Be prepared to accept the consequences.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by StopWhiningAlready.
Who edits this stuff
How many grammar errors are required before a blog on an otherwise respectable webiste looks like a middle school example of what not to do if you an opportunity to actually write blog on such a site one day. Ugh!!!
Anti-Rand lefties tremble with fear
@Fritz43 & the Devils coachman: I had heard about Rand's work for years, but as I grew into adulthood, found fewer and fewer opportunities to carve out the time required to fully digest the 1,200+ page book. Finally, about 3 years ago, I read it and have been kicking myself for not doing so sooner. As I enter my 40's with full knowledge of the world around me and childhood naivete long gone, her words resonate and ring true. Am I some corporate elitist? No, but I do believe in the Rand's philosophy. Anyone who takes the time to read her work and somehow fails to see the similarities between her fictional account of the problems associated with the idea that everyone should benefit equally regardless of the value they provide back to the world and the world we're living in today. The more government attempts to equalize benefits, the greater the divide the government creates. Why? Because over time, those with means will be the most well positioned to take advantage of any opportunity, regardless of whether they were the intended beneficiary. The book is spot-on and should be required reading for every high school senior along with Civics.
C'mon, really??
This is a tempest in a teapot. Nobody is banning books. The court is enforcing one party's right NOT to have it's intellectual property unfairly utilized by another party - period.
Look at it this way...
What would happen if I suddenly decided to write a book called "To Kill a Hummingbird" and the characters, setting, plot and historic elements bared a strong resemblance to "To Kill a Mockingbird"? If the court enforced an injunction (order to cease attempts to capitalize on someone else's IP) would that too be book banning? Of course not.
There are plenty of legitmate cases of unfair government involvement. Please take a moment to understand the situation for what it ISN'T before you begin protesting what you think it might be.
Re: Re: Re: Congress can't abridge freedom of spee
" This gives incredible power to established media outlets, but Joe Commoner is not allowed to speak ill of candidate just before the election."
While this may be true, it is not the message that's being censored or restricted, but the timing of the message. The fact that the timing is the same across the board and does not single out a particular candidate or party makes it much more difficult categorize as a abridgment of free speech.
And to the distinction between "joe commoner" and the "established media", I'm not sure but it appears that you are distinguishing one from the other in terms of being able to put out a message either endorsing or detracting from a particular candidate. The owners of, say, the Atlanta Journal Constitution have the right to endorse any candidate they wish to regardless of the timing. Why not...they own the paper and can endorse and/or editorialize all they wish. Again, how this is percieved by the paper purchasing public will either help or hurt the paper itself in the long run despite the impact that making such a pronouncement has on a particular election outcome. Then again, I do see your point that "joe commoner" doesn't have the same ability to reach and influence as many people as the AJC, but that's a problem for Joe and his candidate. Nobody said life was fair.
Oops, Sorry, formulatic isn't a word. I believe its formulaic.
Re: Congress can't abridge freedom of speech?
Actually, campaign finance reform has more to do with where the money comes from to pay for the message than the message itself. Political speach is relatively wide open if only for the fact that these are public figures who have put themselves out there on full display for all to see. CFR was instituted to attempt to make it easier for those with fewer dollars to remain competitive in a political environment that has essentially become formulatic in determining who will win the next election based on the size of their warchest. Limiting the number of dollars that a candidate can accept from corporate and private donors alike, including those to his/her 501(c)(3) campaign groups (People for the American Way, Swift Boat Vets, MoveOn.org, etc) makes it necessary for all politicians to have to convince larger numbers of small donors to contribute. From there, let them way whatever they want so long as it isn't knowingly false and damaging to character and reputation.
The Fairness Doctrine
One other thing that should get people in an uproar is the idea that a Democrat-controlled house and senate will attempt to pass what's known as the Fairness Doctrine in a backhanded effort to Kill talk radio (since Air America failed miserably at trying to beat conservatives at their own game). Essentially, the Fairness Doctrine would set forth standards that would call for equal time for opposing viewpoints. Of course, this would wreck havock on the programming schedules of talk radio stations around the country who would be forced to block out equal time for the liberal viewpoint on whatever subject the conservative radio host had discussed (or planned to discuss).
Now, personally, I could care less if you love guys like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Boortz or whoever. The fact of the matter is that there is obviously a lot of people out there who have voted with their time and their wallets and made them #1 nationwide. It seems to me that forcing a commercial to carry any material or free up any airtime, of which there is a finite amount each day, would be a far greater suppression of speach rights than anything.
Im interested in hearing what people think about this idea. Ok, I can understand how some might say, "Yeah, that's great. Lets give everyone a chance to view their ideas and let us, the public, make up our own mind." I think that's fine so long as that opposing viewpoint ponies up the dough for the new broadcast station, licenses, airtime, talent costs and whatever else goes into making these stations a viable business. Is forcing an opposing viewpoint under the guise of being fair really "Fair"? What about the advertisers? If people really wanted to hear the opposing viewpoint, Air America would still be alive and kicking (are they even on the air in NY and SF, or are they off completely?) Just wondering what everyone thought about the idea.
Talk Radio
Despite the fact that so many people claim to have quit listening to Talk radio, the fact of the matter is that TR is the number one format in the nation in nearly every major market. Now, I'm willing to admit that there is a good percentage of the listening population that listens solely because they whole-heartedly disagree with the largely consertavie viewpoints that they know is coming, and an equal number listen because they take what they hear as gosphel. Somewhere in there is a pretty good sized group that's somewhere in the middle and that group appears to at least be interested in provocative discussions-whether they agree or not. Regardless, its still entertainment. The fact that some choose to take that entertainment and regurgitate it as their own political dogma is just happenstance.
Libertarian Radio host Neil Boortz is a good example. He's both loved and hated by many for his views. I personally think he's a riot and love to hear him make fools out of the ignorant. What's interesting is that he came out on the air and said what I believe to be the most honest thing about talk radio that has ever been aired. Boortz stated something to the effect that 'contrary to what you listeners might wish to believe, the simple truth is that we (the radio hosts) view you (the callers) as records, as cd's, in short, as the entertainment. We let you on the air until we feel you have little entertainment value and then dump you for someone else that does. The more entertaining we can make the show through provocative commentary and whatever else is neccesary, the more we can charge advertisers for the time they spend trying to sell you stuff.'
How's that for honesty? For this reason, I continue to listen to talk radio a majority of the time, but do so knowing that whatever is being said contains some accuracy, some distortion and enough information for me to go out and invstigate the facts for myself should I hear anything that gets my shorts in a knot.
As for free speech, say what you want so long as the words and ideas are yours or yours to use with permission. Do so on your property or that which you control. Lie if you wish for its your creadibility that will ultimately be damaged. Be prepared to accept the consequences.