U.S. Supreme Court makes reasonable decision in protecting FCC powers to regulate
That this editorial begs for government intervention in what is produced for
consumption in the media is a remarkable contradiction.What is that
contradiction? The Deseret News (DN) does commerce in the media market. They
are quite smug in their calls for government regulation of ugly material
because, fortunately for the DN, many in Washington happen to agree with the
DN's point of view of what is ugly material.But what if that
weren't the case? What if Washington happened to be full of people who
didn't like Mormon stories? What if they didn't like politically
charged stories, or editorials, or comments on editorials such as this? I
expect that then the DN would be calling foul for the unjust regulation of free
speech.What we need is for government to protect principles that can
and will be protected independent of which way the wind is blowing in
Washington. That is the nature of a Republic and that is how a Republic differs
from a Democracy. Part of being free is having the courage to self-regulate.Dear Deseret News, where is your courage? Why don't you defend
your readers' right to choose?
"I did understand their point of view. They believe that conservatives
should remain 100 percent consistent and not cherry pick where they think
government should intervene therefore justifying calling them
hypocritical."Yes that's what they explained. But did you
take the time to try to understand why they would take this stance? Why they
would feel this way? Why they would feel a need to point out the hypocrisy? And you keep dismissing my call to try to understand who are the truly
incivil ones. It seems as though you think it unimportant. But with out an
understanding of that, without even trying to understand that, I dont think you
will, or can, understand why.
My initial comment was a reaction to many of the posts on this thread and the
aggressive nature of them against the so-called hypocritical conservatives. Yes,
generally conservatives push for limited government but many do recognize that
there are times government should step in. I did understand their
point of view. They believe that conservatives should remain 100 percent
consistent and not cherry pick where they think government should intervene
therefore justifying calling them hypocritical. I was pointing out that they
might instead be glad for a little flexibility, something they think
conservatives need and which conservatives were displaying. Again,
the truth is people's political beliefs are not all or nothing. Since we cannot control others it seems the real solution to increasing
civility is to start with ourselves. Otherwise we are like little kids defending
our actions because someone else does something worse. This doesn't work in
the playground or in the adult world. Thanks for wishing my dad
Jeanie, no it does not matter to my own personal behavior who is more uncivil.
Why would it? But it does matter, I think, because it is important to
identify the real sources of incivility in this country if we are to have
a discussion about it. Or even if we are going to have an understanding of it.
Your comment, your initial comment, struck me as a passive aggressive attack on
liberals, that they would rather call names then welcome flexibility in
conservatives opinions. You liked my comment that we should try
to understand others points of view. Tell me, did you take any time to try to
understand the point of view of the posters that saw hypocrisy in a position and
decided to point it out? Did you take any time to try to understand before
claiming they would rather just call names?
So what was my point in bringing up my dad? It was to illustrate that we all
arrive at our political leanings because of our life's experiences. Once
we get that it seems there can be room for some real dialogue - instead of
"gotcha". As far as who wins at being the main source of
incivility? Does it matter to our own personal behavior who is the worst? I
like the last line of your post. Let's focus there Mark.
Well, Jeanie, not sure what your father has to do with the discussion, but I
wish him the best. I do find it interesting that you would think
that only far right conservatives call names, "Yes, far right conservatives
call names too. . . "Only far right, huh? That made me laugh.
Yet you made a point to criticize "liberals" on this thread that
"called" names. "Instead they (liberals) would rather call people
names?" You seem like you are trying to truly be reasonable. But
in your call for kindness (which I agree with, by the way) perhaps it would
behoove you to look at the main source of incivility. Listen to the language of
conservative pundits, really listen to what they are saying. Look at the
comments on these boards, compare those that are conservative against liberals.
And do it honestly. I think you will find that while liberals can be incivil, it
pales in comparison to the attacks conservatives make on liberals. All the same, I think you are right we can use more civility and more of
trying to understand others view points.
Mark - I'm not outraged. I'm just tired of the
incivility. Yes, far right conservatives call names too and liberals are
hypocritical at times as well - we're all dirty.My father is a
"right-wing" conservative. There are certain topics you just don't
bring up. Let me tell you how he got to this place. As a newly married man,
having just recently received his doctor's license he left for the Vietnam
War. He became a captain and commander over a mash unit in Vietnam. He saw first
hand the consequences of the decisions of our government - in young lives lost.
After arriving home he started his medical practice and during his career he
experienced government regulations that limited his ability to help his patients
in the best way. My father is generous to a fault and would give
anyone (conservative/liberal) the shirt off his back.In sharing this
all I am saying is - let's all speak a little kinder with those we disagree
with. We don't know why people think as they do, but usually there is a
reason and like a previous poster said, it's rarely all or nothing.
"You really can't get over the wardrobe malfunction, can you? Nobody
died. Nobody got hurt. . . We had to look on the net after to see what all the
fuss was about."Hutterite, I was watching it at the time, and I
still have not seen it. I must have blinked. -"I am surprised
that liberals on this website don't welcome some flexibility in
conservatives pro-limited-government stance. Instead they would rather call
people names?"Jeanie, I think the thing is that this editorial
is a clear example of the conservative mindset: they seem to want to remove
government from all aspects of life, or so they claim. Yet the. They turn around
and want government to deal with issues such as these. Hypocrites
seems like an apt description. Though you are right about name calling. But I
wonder if you reserve some of your outrage for conservatives who seem to
constantly use derogatory terms when referring to liberals. There do
seem to be a couple of conservatives who are showing consistency, however. I
wonder, though, how fast they would change their tune when the free market began
providing full nudity on network television.
Funny how federal regulation and government intervention is bad when it comes to
money making business activities. - But when nude and prude is the issue the
government must get involved. I personally think that unfettered political
money is far more damaging to the social order than nudity or curse words on
I am surprised that liberals on this website don't welcome some flexibility
in conservatives pro-limited-government stance. Instead they would rather call
people names? How does this persuade others to consider their view?I
believe that fundamentally more of us would agree on many important issues if we
actually had some civil dialogue instead of some flip responses and
I for one have never quite understood the concept that morally questionable
material is speech and the debate about such things hinges on our rights to free
speech.In my view, the freedom of speech drives toward political
discourse (which these things are not). Further, limiting the availability of
such things does not change my ability to speak about them (which would limit
the political discourse). As a corollary, drugs may be regulated but my speech
about them (for or against) cannot.
You really can't get over the wardrobe malfunction, can you? Nobody died.
Nobody got hurt. You let yourself get offended, and that was pretty much it. As
for the rest of us, as I recall the halftime show was really bad. They usually
are. So, we were eating, We went to the loo. We were putting more beer in the
fridge. Whatever. We had to look on the net after to see what all the fuss was
about. Turns out it was nothing.
I still can’t figure ultra-Conservatives out…One minute
it’s – The LIBERAL Media wants to control everything, get the
Government Out, Freedom, Freedom, Freedom, Let the Markets
decide.Then, it’s – The LIBERAL media wants to
show smut, The Government needs to better regulate the airwaves, The
Free Markets can’t just go around airing whatever sells, Hypocrites!Personally – I’m all for regulating the
airwaves, I’m all for NOT allowing Free Markets to air smut, I’m all for Government intervening in some cases to protect society
regardless of Freedom of the Press, [Socialist LIBERAL Europe has already
banned porn on the InterNet – gasp! The tyranny!]But –
that makes me Liberal.
More government intrusion???Why not let the free market decide? If it's too raunchy or offensive then we can always just stop
listening, stop giving away money, and force those folks to change. Why does the government have to nanny everything?This is why
repubs are ridiculous. On one hand they talk about shrinking government then on
the other they are constantly wanting to increase it via subsidies, wars,
defense spending, corporate welfare and bailouts, and nanny care (treating
adults like children at BYU. We don't need government deciding what is
appropriate to listen to or watch).
I agree with the premise of this article.I believe that it is OK for
govt to set standards, or "regulation" if you will.But thats
just me. I also think that there are other regulations that govt imposes that
also benefit society. (and yes, there are some that are total bunk).The point is that it does not have to be all or nothing. It does not have to
be a choice between govt intervening in every aspect of our lives, or none at
all. The EPA has done lots of good. Same with the FDA.But there are still those (MANY) who dont want to address the problems in
these agencies. They want to shut them down completely.As if THAT
makes a lot of sense. How childish.
But I thought government wasn't supposed to pick winners and losers? I
thought the free market dictate what networks air? I thought overbearing
government regulation was bad for business?Hypocrites.
So the constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free
speach, unless kids are offended. NO it does not. The constitution says that you
have the right to free speech, period, end of discussion. The FCC should go back
to doing their real job, making sure that radio and TV stations are all
broadcasting on separate frequencies and stop being a censorship board. Let the
market decide what they want to broadcast.