Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The 1st Amendment under fire again

The 1st Amendment under fire again
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2014, 01:32 PM
 
Cancer patient defends ObamaCare criticism after Dem goes after ad | Fox News

Excuse me?

Did i read that correctly?

Since when does a House congressman have the authority to dictate advertising content? Since when does he speak for the FCC?!? "Prove your ad or we'll yank your license."? Aw man, the situation in this country continues to deteriorate.

This is extremely disturbing and a blatant attack on freedom of speech. Alongside the now shot-down plan to put the G-man in every newsroom, how much more of these obvious attempts to suppress free speech are we as a people going to tolerate?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2014, 05:08 PM
 
"If you don't stop I'm going to call the cops and they'll arrest you."

Am I speaking for the cops?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2014, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"If you don't stop I'm going to call the cops and they'll arrest you."

Am I speaking for the cops?
No you're speaking as an idiot (not you personally, Subego, your hypothetical speaker). I'd like to think we hold our elected officials to a slightly higher standard. Was he speaking as a private individual or from the Office of his elected position? The latter constitutes at the least an abuse of the office and at worst a civil rights violation (one that this DOJ would gladly decline to prosecute.

Also, your example implies the possibility of criminal conduct - a better analogy would be "If you don't shut up or change your message I'm going to call the cops and have you arrested" where the speaker presumes to have that authority and the message irritates the speaker for whatever reason (it doesn't matter).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2014, 06:30 PM
 
This is in the context of him running for office, which you do as a private individual. Likewise, I imagine he's not employing federal attorneys for his campaign shenannigans.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2014, 10:24 AM
 
The Obama Admin is very thin skinned when it comes to the enormous issues/problems with ACA.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2014, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is in the context of him running for office, which you do as a private individual. Likewise, I imagine he's not employing federal attorneys for his campaign shenannigans.
All the more reason to be vigorously opposed to such rhetoric. Dude hasn't even won the election yet and he's threatening to use the FCC as his personal enforcer of campaign content?


Doesn't this disturb you in the least bit, Subego?

What if he backs up his threat? Would that get your attention?

What other agencies will he use to quash criticism of his policies? Whether or not he has the oomph to back it up is irrelevant, the threat alone is corruption in my book.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2014, 08:06 PM
 
Here's the situation as I understand it.

AFAICT the issue isn't he's being criticized, it's that the claims are factually inaccurate.

That's slander. In my book, being slandered justifies releasing the hounds. Since it's a political ad, it has FCC purview. That's just another hound in the kennel.

Do I have a problem with congressman wosshismame threatening to sic the FCC on media outlets which take money to broadcast slander? No. I have a problem with the slander, and those who promulgate it for money.


If it's not slander, then I'm mad at the guy.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2014, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here's the situation as I understand it.

AFAICT the issue isn't he's being criticized, it's that the claims are factually inaccurate.

That's slander. In my book, being slandered justifies releasing the hounds. Since it's a political ad, it has FCC purview. That's just another hound in the kennel.

Do I have a problem with congressman wosshismame threatening to sic the FCC on media outlets which take money to broadcast slander? No. I have a problem with the slander, and those who promulgate it for money.


If it's not slander, then I'm mad at the guy.
Does the congressman not have the onus of proving it incorrect?

It's presented as"there wasn't enough proof" not that they found evidence that calls into question the validity of the claims with factual records.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2014, 08:26 PM
 
I shall look into it deeper. RL intrudes at the moment.

Your scenario is definitely more problematic than mine.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2014, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I shall look into it deeper. RL intrudes at the moment.

Your scenario is definitely more problematic than mine.
Yes, from what I gathered they looked at what she should have been charged based on their knowledge of the law, but are making the threats without any specific evidence refuting the claims (just what they assume her costs to be based on their knowledge of the situation).

In my world that isn't enough. Perhaps a great reason for further research, but not enough in it of itself.


Otherwise, I'm with ya.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2014, 08:21 AM
 
I'm far less concerned what some PACs are doing with donor funds than I am an Administration and lapdogs in Washington who repeatedly use the taxpayer funded bully-pulpits for false advertising, extortion, and slander.

I'm now officially opposed to any new Government regulation upon or oversight of the free people of the United States until I can see demonstrable progress on the oversight of and regulations upon the actions of this Administration and of government as a whole. As long as there are none, AFAIC -- we need the balance afforded by the actions of a free people. By any means necessary.
ebuddy
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:53 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,