This information super-highway, the internet,.....with discussion forums, private messaging, e-mails, chatrooms, blogs, youtube, comments, polls, twitter, facebook, etc.....gives one "the microphone" to speak objectively, dissent, vent, etc.
For years, twi scolded their followers to STAY OFF the internet....specifically, the ex-twi websites. In fact, twi leadership propounded that one could get possessed by devil spirits if this occurred. The "witch hunt" to find violaters is well noted by many GS-posters who were hunted down in early 2000. The mantra was preached: "The internet is evil."
A few splinter groups started websites with discussion forums......but, they too have been shut down.
And now, there seems to be a growing concern that political hierarchy are weighing in on the internet and its vastness. Some want to see more regulation on free speech. Under the umbrella of "fairness"....the FCC is mounting a charge towards regulations and fines imposed if "fairness" is violated. And, some want to give top government officials (the president?) the power to shut down the internet in the face of an emergency. Critics say that this could easily be a "veiled emergency" leading to censorship.
In a broad sense, Religion and Politics seem to be converging on a consensus that its becoming "unmanageable" or needs strict regulation and "fairness."
. . . the radical extremist, the 911 truther, the self-avowed communist,
you forgot member of al-qaeda, illegitimate offspring of Idi Amin, dope dealer and baby eater
n a broad sense, Religion and Politics seem to be converging on a consensus that its becoming "unmanageable" or needs strict regulation and "fairness."
mstar1......in context to this issue, I am the one who brought up this question.
It seems to me, there is a growing polarization in this country with regards to free speech and the internet. Obviously, most here at GS are aware of twi's mandates about the internet....specifically, the ex-twi websites. Outspoken and unapologetic, twi view the internet as evil.
Just google "The Way International"......and its obvious.
Just google "L. Craig Martndale".........and its obvious.
In this thread, I am asking the question....."In a broad sense, Religion and Politics seem to be converging on a consensus that its becoming "unmanageable" or needs strict regulation and "fairness." Could this really happen?"
In twi, there was censorship......could this movement for censorship be afoot on a national level?
Oh, no...it's definitely out there and there is talk in Congress about instituting a "Fairness Doctrine". It's all over talk radio and not by a bunch of right wing "nut fringe groups". It seems there are those who think the general public is too stupid to weigh the facts on their own.
Oh, no...it's definitely out there and there is talk in Congress about instituting a "Fairness Doctrine". It's all over talk radio and not by a bunch of right wing "nut fringe groups". It seems there are those who think the general public is too stupid to weigh the facts on their own.
erkjohn........Yeah, this "Fairness Doctrine" is gaining some support.
Although this thread is designated to target internet usage and giving "a voice" to the common people, the many topics for debate quickly come to the forefront. What is "fair?" Where is the fine line of censorship and/or suppression of free speech? Is there a governing voice of elitism in this attempt? Are the general public "too stupid to weigh in on the facts" and, rightfully, need to be overruled?
More and more, I'm so thankful for the internet.....specifically, waydale and greasespot. From the collective body of GS-posters, I've gleaned a truckload of information and resolve. I enjoy the diversity of opinions and stories that've been posted thru the years. Quite frankly, I can't imagine where I'd be today in terms of a healthy dose of reality, compassion and patience...if I hadn't found Waydale back in May of 1999.
The reality brew on these discussion forums was so refreshing. After two decades of twi groupthink and suppression of civil discourse, the "other side of wierwille road" had God's fresh air in abundance.
But I must say, there seems to be a growing concern over national censorship that is pointedly directed at national radio broadcasters.....with internet concerns waiting in the wings.
Now, that I'm spoiled...........I can't imagine a world with internet censorship.
So.....if this "Fairness Doctrine" were implemented in, say, five years.....would it be the end of sites like GreaseSpot overnight?
I mean, surely,.....TWI, with its deep pockets, would have their lawyers all over every poster and statement that wasn't aligned with this "fair speech" doctrine. Right? All posts would be sanitized and all grievances would disappear.......poof, just like that.
What a world......if the "speech police" came knocking on your door.
Political appointees deciding what is fair? Good luck on that. I am not a member of a political party. That doesn't mean that what I think is fair would be thought of as fair by someone else. What one person considers a moderate position, another considers as extremism. A person's own prejudices affect their decisions, even if they tell themselves otherwise.
As far as who decides who is on the FCC, I'm pretty sure it's the President with Congressional approval. As far as whether Greasespot would be ended, I'm not even sure the Internet is on the radar right now, it's more aimed at radio and television. That is not to say it couldn't be targeted. The Fairness Doctrine states that you have to present an alternative point of view and Greasespot provides that. No offense, and I don't think anyone will be offended, GSC is small potatoes for the U.S. Gov and so is TWI. It'll be awhile before we get their attention. Sometimes small is good. The U.S. Gov. wants people who are exposing their stuff
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.
As the chief executive officer of the Commission, the Chairman delegates management and administrative responsibility to the Managing Director. The Commissioners supervise all FCC activities, delegating responsibilities to staff units and Bureaus
The link that was provided gave a decent breakdown of how people get appointed to the FCC. Ultimately it will be political appointees deciding who is being fair and who isn't. It would open a potential nightmare of claims that a broadcaster didn't go as far as the claimant wanted in attempting to be fair. Eventually a broadcaster could decide that airing controversial subjects isn't worth the hassle. That may not actually happen, but someone wanting to shut up someone else would have wide open avenue for doing so.
They'll have no problem with that.
As far as who decides who is on the FCC, I'm pretty sure it's the President with Congressional approval. As far as whether Greasespot would be ended, I'm not even sure the Internet is on the radar right now, it's more aimed at radio and television. That is not to say it couldn't be targeted. The Fairness Doctrine states that you have to present an alternative point of view and Greasespot provides that. No offense, and I don't think anyone will be offended, GSC is small potatoes for the U.S. Gov and so is TWI. It'll be awhile before we get their attention. Sometimes small is good. The U.S. Gov. wants people who are exposing their stuff
The link that was provided gave a decent breakdown of how people get appointed to the FCC. Ultimately it will be political appointees deciding who is being fair and who isn't. It would open a potential nightmare of claims that a broadcaster didn't go as far as the claimant wanted in attempting to be fair. Eventually a broadcaster could decide that airing controversial subjects isn't worth the hassle. That may not actually happen, but someone wanting to shut up someone else would have wide open avenue for doing so.
You're right. The framework would certainly be in place. I just can't see how anyone, even Uncle Sam could "shut down" the Internet.
he Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.
Although the airwaves are technically "owned" by the public and not by the broadcasters
The Obama administration is on record as being against reinstating the fairness doctrine
Limbaugh, Beck and the people who push the envelope on the fringes bring it up from time to time as if it is immenent to scare their listeners but there are no movements by the government to reinstate it.
The Internet is still relatively new and powerful. I have been aware of a few attempted powergrabs (mostly by corporations wanting to gain greater control and charge more exhorbitantly for access) over the last 5 or 6 years but they have all been defeated so far---Its worth keeping an eye on...
The internet is a powerful medium of communication, for sure. It does seem to follow that power struggles in government would try and harness it and get control of it. There are many countries where internet content is censored - the Middle East, China, etc.
In the US, our government is a representative democracy, so those in political office certainly do think of the general public as uneducated on most issues. With the Fairness push, that is kind of a reaction to the different balance of power in the media. CNN and the bulk of the news media is liberal/left slanted. Fox and the whole talk radio is conservative/right slanted.
I don't think the Fairness push will gain any kind of traction necessary. Shucks, they can't even gain much traction to regulate porn over the Internet. It's too vast to control and there's too much commerce tied to it. And anything affecting US commerce is too volatile an area to touch from a regulatory perspective.
The internet is a powerful medium of communication, for sure. It does seem to follow that power struggles in government would try and harness it and get control of it. There are many countries where internet content is censored - the Middle East, China, etc.
In the US, our government is a representative democracy, so those in political office certainly do think of the general public as uneducated on most issues. With the Fairness push, that is kind of a reaction to the different balance of power in the media. CNN and the bulk of the news media is liberal/left slanted. Fox and the whole talk radio is conservative/right slanted.
I don't think the Fairness push will gain any kind of traction necessary. Shucks, they can't even gain much traction to regulate porn over the Internet. It's too vast to control and there's too much commerce tied to it. And anything affecting US commerce is too volatile an area to touch from a regulatory perspective.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
8
7
6
Popular Days
Sep 7
18
Sep 8
9
Sep 11
6
Sep 15
5
Top Posters In This Topic
skyrider 22 posts
markomalley 8 posts
waysider 7 posts
chockfull 6 posts
Popular Days
Sep 7 2009
18 posts
Sep 8 2009
9 posts
Sep 11 2009
6 posts
Sep 15 2009
5 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
The internet is a powerful medium of communication, for sure. It does seem to follow that power struggles in government would try and harness it and get control of it. There are many countries where
chockfull
Just did. Here's some of the text from the article: "The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national
chockfull
Mark, I read the language of the bill. The quote I pulled was from someone in office explaining the intent of the bill to the press. That's an example of representative democracy, as neither you no
skyrider
The Internet: The Voice of the People
This information super-highway, the internet,.....with discussion forums, private messaging, e-mails, chatrooms, blogs, youtube, comments, polls, twitter, facebook, etc.....gives one "the microphone" to speak objectively, dissent, vent, etc.
For years, twi scolded their followers to STAY OFF the internet....specifically, the ex-twi websites. In fact, twi leadership propounded that one could get possessed by devil spirits if this occurred. The "witch hunt" to find violaters is well noted by many GS-posters who were hunted down in early 2000. The mantra was preached: "The internet is evil."
A few splinter groups started websites with discussion forums......but, they too have been shut down.
And now, there seems to be a growing concern that political hierarchy are weighing in on the internet and its vastness. Some want to see more regulation on free speech. Under the umbrella of "fairness"....the FCC is mounting a charge towards regulations and fines imposed if "fairness" is violated. And, some want to give top government officials (the president?) the power to shut down the internet in the face of an emergency. Critics say that this could easily be a "veiled emergency" leading to censorship.
In a broad sense, Religion and Politics seem to be converging on a consensus that its becoming "unmanageable" or needs strict regulation and "fairness."
Could this really happen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Certainly a whole lot of food for thought here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
you forgot member of al-qaeda, illegitimate offspring of Idi Amin, dope dealer and baby eater
Naaaaa--why should things be "fair"?
Who brought up this question WorldNetDaily?
It'd figure
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
mstar1......in context to this issue, I am the one who brought up this question.
It seems to me, there is a growing polarization in this country with regards to free speech and the internet. Obviously, most here at GS are aware of twi's mandates about the internet....specifically, the ex-twi websites. Outspoken and unapologetic, twi view the internet as evil.
Just google "The Way International"......and its obvious.
Just google "L. Craig Martndale".........and its obvious.
In this thread, I am asking the question....."In a broad sense, Religion and Politics seem to be converging on a consensus that its becoming "unmanageable" or needs strict regulation and "fairness." Could this really happen?"
In twi, there was censorship......could this movement for censorship be afoot on a national level?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Naaaaa--why should things be "fair"?
Who brought up this question WorldNetDaily?
It'd figure
Oh, no...it's definitely out there and there is talk in Congress about instituting a "Fairness Doctrine". It's all over talk radio and not by a bunch of right wing "nut fringe groups". It seems there are those who think the general public is too stupid to weigh the facts on their own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
erkjohn........Yeah, this "Fairness Doctrine" is gaining some support.
Although this thread is designated to target internet usage and giving "a voice" to the common people, the many topics for debate quickly come to the forefront. What is "fair?" Where is the fine line of censorship and/or suppression of free speech? Is there a governing voice of elitism in this attempt? Are the general public "too stupid to weigh in on the facts" and, rightfully, need to be overruled?
More and more, I'm so thankful for the internet.....specifically, waydale and greasespot. From the collective body of GS-posters, I've gleaned a truckload of information and resolve. I enjoy the diversity of opinions and stories that've been posted thru the years. Quite frankly, I can't imagine where I'd be today in terms of a healthy dose of reality, compassion and patience...if I hadn't found Waydale back in May of 1999.
The reality brew on these discussion forums was so refreshing. After two decades of twi groupthink and suppression of civil discourse, the "other side of wierwille road" had God's fresh air in abundance.
But I must say, there seems to be a growing concern over national censorship that is pointedly directed at national radio broadcasters.....with internet concerns waiting in the wings.
Now, that I'm spoiled...........I can't imagine a world with internet censorship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smarter
Who determines what is "fair"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
The FCC I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smarter
And who decides who is on the FCC?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
So.....if this "Fairness Doctrine" were implemented in, say, five years.....would it be the end of sites like GreaseSpot overnight?
I mean, surely,.....TWI, with its deep pockets, would have their lawyers all over every poster and statement that wasn't aligned with this "fair speech" doctrine. Right? All posts would be sanitized and all grievances would disappear.......poof, just like that.
What a world......if the "speech police" came knocking on your door.
What next?........thought police?
:blink:
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
smarter
Political appointees deciding what is fair? Good luck on that. I am not a member of a political party. That doesn't mean that what I think is fair would be thought of as fair by someone else. What one person considers a moderate position, another considers as extremism. A person's own prejudices affect their decisions, even if they tell themselves otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Over my bloody dead corpse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
They'll have no problem with that.
As far as who decides who is on the FCC, I'm pretty sure it's the President with Congressional approval. As far as whether Greasespot would be ended, I'm not even sure the Internet is on the radar right now, it's more aimed at radio and television. That is not to say it couldn't be targeted. The Fairness Doctrine states that you have to present an alternative point of view and Greasespot provides that. No offense, and I don't think anyone will be offended, GSC is small potatoes for the U.S. Gov and so is TWI. It'll be awhile before we get their attention. Sometimes small is good. The U.S. Gov. wants people who are exposing their stuff
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Organization
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.
As the chief executive officer of the Commission, the Chairman delegates management and administrative responsibility to the Managing Director. The Commissioners supervise all FCC activities, delegating responsibilities to staff units and Bureaus
(see previous post for citation)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smarter
The link that was provided gave a decent breakdown of how people get appointed to the FCC. Ultimately it will be political appointees deciding who is being fair and who isn't. It would open a potential nightmare of claims that a broadcaster didn't go as far as the claimant wanted in attempting to be fair. Eventually a broadcaster could decide that airing controversial subjects isn't worth the hassle. That may not actually happen, but someone wanting to shut up someone else would have wide open avenue for doing so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
You're right. The framework would certainly be in place. I just can't see how anyone, even Uncle Sam could "shut down" the Internet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smarter
I think that the potential public outrage would make it extremely difficult. I don't like the idea of making it any easier for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
I know, I know......this is NOT the political forum.
BUT........just this morning, Venezuela has shut down radio broadcasting. The counter voice to Chevez's dictator policies is being silenced.
I may be mistaken....but I thought I just heard that Chevez shut down one tv station that opposed his growing tyranny.
Anyways.....gotta get to work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
As far as the "Fairness Doctrine" Wikipedia Page
Although the airwaves are technically "owned" by the public and not by the broadcasters
The Obama administration is on record as being against reinstating the fairness doctrine
LINK
Limbaugh, Beck and the people who push the envelope on the fringes bring it up from time to time as if it is immenent to scare their listeners but there are no movements by the government to reinstate it.
The Internet is still relatively new and powerful. I have been aware of a few attempted powergrabs (mostly by corporations wanting to gain greater control and charge more exhorbitantly for access) over the last 5 or 6 years but they have all been defeated so far---Its worth keeping an eye on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Thanks for digging up that info. That's helpful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Doesn't this thread need to be in Open? Or in Politics and Tacks?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The internet is a powerful medium of communication, for sure. It does seem to follow that power struggles in government would try and harness it and get control of it. There are many countries where internet content is censored - the Middle East, China, etc.
In the US, our government is a representative democracy, so those in political office certainly do think of the general public as uneducated on most issues. With the Fairness push, that is kind of a reaction to the different balance of power in the media. CNN and the bulk of the news media is liberal/left slanted. Fox and the whole talk radio is conservative/right slanted.
I don't think the Fairness push will gain any kind of traction necessary. Shucks, they can't even gain much traction to regulate porn over the Internet. It's too vast to control and there's too much commerce tied to it. And anything affecting US commerce is too volatile an area to touch from a regulatory perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You might want to check out this article from Declan McCullagh / CNET, before assuming anything. The text of S.773 (referenced in the article) is here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.