I believe in free speech and all, BUT ... there really should be, somehow, a

[RKP5637]

cap on outrageous lies and speculation by the HATE media on major transmissions. I was listening to FM radio last night ... and the bashing of Obama, blaming him for the Boston tragedy was outrageous ... that the gov. had done this to come after teabaggers and whomever. No wonder people in this area are so fucked up when they hear non-stop crap like this, and then the 7x24 religious stuff that broadcasts here.

I have no idea how it would work, but to me free speech implies responsibly, especially when broadcasting over powerful radio stations, for example, to large numbers of individuals. It's pure propaganda, and often violent. And I would say this as a D, I or R. It has no place in a civilized society.

[avebury]

1. It seems that the hate mongers feel that free speech only

applies to themselves, not the rest of us.

[Atman]

13. There are MANY laws regarding "free speech."

SCOTUS has ruled its okay. It's only, apparently, guns which shall not be regulated.

EDIT: This was meant as an answer to the post below.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

64. Actually, in the Heller case, every one of the Justices acknowledged that firearms can be regulated.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Not one of those sitting Justices nor any of their predecessors has ever held or even indicated, as you say,

"guns ... shall not be regulated."

In fact, you can't find a single judge in the entire United States (including traffic judges) who have ever said that firearms cannot be regulated.

It's not true.

Here's a hint. If you're going to make a habit of bashing the private ownership of firearms, you need to say either "NRA" or "gun nuts" at least once. Of course, there will be some who think that those who make fact-free posts while misrepresenting what the courts have held and bashing the private ownership of firearms are, in turn, nuts.

[brooklynite]

2. "Congress shall make no Law....."

[RKP5637]

3. That might be, but that works both ways and can enable the destruction of the society we enjoy. n/t

[brooklynite]

44. Would you have accepted restrictions on criticism of GWB during the Iraq War?

And if your answer is "we never said anything that irresponsible" I'd suggest that's a subjective judgement, which would hard to codify into an acceptable law.

[RKP5637]

46. I do agree ... it would be hard if not really impossible to "codify into an acceptable law." It

could be twisted and bent to serve whomever TPTB might be at a particular time. This local crap they were broadcasting last night was so vile, distorted and full of lies it was hard to believe it was even being transmitted. ... but an another poster said, and I agree, and with you ... it would be a horribly slippery slope.

... Really having the effect of no free speech in the big picture.

[elleng]

4. There SHOULD be, and the only way, due to the Constitution,

is likely competition (until the point the mongers are inciting to riot etc.)

I listen to FM radio all the time, and no problem. Join me:

http://www.weta.org/fm/listenlive

[RKP5637]

11. Yes, that is an excellent link! We, can escape it, but for many it's not that easy ... so, they get

lies and distortions for profit pumped into their heads.

[Sunlei]

40. hey excellent radio station, thank you!!

you're so right, if at the exact same time these paid raido political shows had decent competition on air they would lose majority listeners. plus it would cost republicans more billions than they spend already on their propaganda.

no republican works 'for free' in their world. they don't have any real 'grassroots'.

[elleng]

43. You're welcome, Sunlei.

Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto 2 coming up, and Beethoven Violin Concerto @ 11. I have it on all day!

[markiv]

5. the problem with limiting speech is that

those you oppose, might be the ones who end up having that power

would you have wanted Bush or Reagan to have that power?

[RKP5637]

10. There should be some level of control when it crosses the line ... It's not opposing anyone ... it's

the use of the public air ways to fabricate lies and distortions.

[markiv]

15. if lies and distortions were removed from the tv and radio

you'd think your tv and radio were broken, because they would be silent

anytime someone says 'i believe in concept A' BUT,,,

they dont really believe in concept 'A'

simple as that

[RKP5637]

25. See #8. We used to have a cap (equal time, balance) that prevented this type of

outrageous non-stop propaganda.

[markiv]

29. so they just create a straw man arguement, and knock it down

and you think you got a ballanced arguement, which can be even worse, than openly knowing the source has a bias

[RKP5637]

33. Yep, I certainly agree, as more and more people realize the source has bias, as another poster was

saying, the pendulum will swing the other way! That, would be the best of all ways!

[markiv]

47. great jack web quote from 'Dragnet'

from the 50s version of the show, and the quote comes from Sgt Friday's partner

they're questioning a registered child molester (they had that in california back then), about 2 missing girls (it wasnt him that took them)

he says 'why do you guys hassle me, every time there's a problem?"

Joe's partner says 'you made your reputation, we didnt'

and so have limbau, hannity, fox news et al

anyone who quotes them gets rolled eyes from any reputable person, it's like quoting 'The Enquirer' once was

[RKP5637]

49. Great quote!!! I loved that show. I still watch it on TV here and also on NetFlix. n/t

[markiv]

48. hannity had a token liberal on his tv show

but i cant remember his name

nobody can remember the chump team the harlem globetrotters play either

they just exist to make the headliner look better than they/he really is

[RKP5637]

51. Colmes? I think it was ... n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. I don't think Rachel Maddow should have to give half her time to opposing views. n/t

[RKP5637]

57. Good point! n/t

[Javaman]

38. But who gets to decide what is and what isn't?

that's the rub.

once you institute one limit, it never ends.

[RKP5637]

41. Yep, I really do agree, it would be a horribly slippery slope. That limit would be twisted and

bent to serve whomever TPTB might be at anytime. Last night it was sooo vile it was unbelievable. ... but as you say, "once you institute one limit, it never ends."

[Zen Democrat]

6. Free speech is NOT fomenting hate and violence over the public airwaves. It's just not.

I think using the public airwaves to speak lies and hate to millions of people = yelling fire in a crowded theater. Both cause rampages of varying degrees.

[RKP5637]

12. Yes! That is exactly what I'm trying to say. It's the outright lies and distortions on mass media

public airwaves that I object too.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. We own the airwaves, and our government should ensure that they're used responsibly

Our government used to do just that.

We have the right to free speech, and a free press, but we don't have to give them our airwaves.

[MADem]

8. The answer to dumbass speech is more speech. It's our only recourse.

We used to have an "equal time" proviso but no more...

People don't feel a need to be responsible in this new gilded age. We're surrounded by a bunch of greedy bastards who have this silly belief that acquiring an obscene amount of wealth will somehow forestall death. Imagine their surprise when they learn this isn't the case! And they can't take it with them, either...

[RKP5637]

14. They have cornered the market with hatred. ... as you say, equal time would certainly balance the

scenario. And my objection is the incredible fabrication of lies and distortions going out to millions on the public airwaves. ... subjectively, IMO, probably inciting violence at various levels.

[MADem]

20. People are turning them off in droves, though. That's the good news.

Faux, Limbaugh....their ratings are plummeting.

MSNBC is expanding their weekend programming because more people are watching. Eyes on the screen are what enable them to charge more for advertising dollars, and provide more programming.

It's taken a long while for the pendulum to swing, but swing it finally has. All things are certainly not equal, yet, but it's way better than it was eight years ago.

[RKP5637]

30. Yep, very very true. It's way better. The local radio here was so vile last night with

lies and distortions it almost sounded like some weird Twilight Zone episode. I just could not believe this crap was going out to listeners, some who are probably marginally educated, limited info. folks, and susceptible to these distortions.

[texasmomof3]

53. what swing?

This is just one day of course but it was in the last 3 weeks and it looks like FNC wins huge in every single time slot. Look at the total day viewership right at the top. FNC brings in just about as many views as ALL of the rest combined. That is the same trend in all the time slots. Where is that swing again? Pretty slow pendulum if you ask me!

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Wednesday, March 27, 2013

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC 1,178 238 455
CNN 315 93 132
MSNBC 393 119 190
CNBC 140 31 68
FBN 45 10 23
HLN 364 141 226
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC 2,115 263 654
CNN 452 130 200
MSNBC 789 226 374
CNBC 126 50 69
FBN 61 15 30
HLN 565 178 324
Net Morning programs (6-9 AM) P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FOX & Friends 1,159 300 496
CNN Early Start/Starting Point 225 74 102
MSNBC Morning Joe 349 111 179
CNBC Squawk Box 116 16 51
HLN Morning Express w/ Meade 312 170 247
Net 5PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FIVE, THE 1,923 309 669
CNN Situation Room 432 136 181
MSNBC HARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS 602 128 223
CNBC FAST MONEY 211 50 117
HLN EVENING EXPRESS 348 99 216
Net 6PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC SPECIAL RPT W/BRET BAIER 1,712 300 624
CNN Situation Room 392 122 180
MSNBC POLITICS NATION 549 151 262
CNBC Mad Money 131 34 80
HLN EVENING EXPRESS 403 119 237
Net 7PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC The Fox Report W/S.SMITH 1,730 326 709
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT 372 89 177
MSNBC HARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS 620 203 329
CNBC Kudlow Report 125 23 66
HLN JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL 477 175 324
Net 8PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR 2,883 361 897
CNN Anderson Cooper 360 469 131 229
MSNBC NOW W/ ALEX WAGNER-PRIME 559 148 274
CNBC CAR CHASERS, THE 133 55 74
HLN Nancy Grace 618 204 360
Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC Hannity 1,841 204 569
CNN PIERS MORGAN LIVE 435 113 186
MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show 972 312 477
CNBC THE Apprentice 103 46 54
HLN Dr. Drew ON CALL 629 185 349
Net 10PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC ON THE RECORD W/GRETA 1,596 224 488
CNN Anderson Cooper 360 451 146 183
MSNBC Last Word W/ L. ODONNELL 831 216 371
CNBC THE Apprentice 141 49 78
HLN HLN AFTER DARK 447 144 263
Net 11PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR 1,139 283 484
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT 271 72 116
MSNBC NOW W/ ALEX WAGNER-PRIME 381 145 212
CNBC Mad Money 76 28 40
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT 307 94 187
-
For other days cable news ratings click here.

P2+ = viewers over the age of 2

(25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing

(35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing

Prime Time = 8-11pm

LIVE+SD: The number that watched a program either while it was broadcast OR watched via DVR on the same day [through 3AM the next day] the program was broadcast. For more information see Numbers 101.

Scratch = when a show's audience fails to meet minimum Nielsen reporting levels. For more information go here.

Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of July, 2012)

CNN/HLN: 99.727 million HHs

CNBC: 97.497 million HHs

FNC: 97.981 million HHs

MSNBC: 95.526 million HHs

Fox Business: 68.407 million HHs

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2013 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

[MADem]

58. Welcome to DU.

I urge you to acquaint yourself with the copyright guidance contained in the DU Terms of Service (TOS, link at bottom of page).

Here are some links for your edification--I think anyone can detect what the trend line is, here, and it's bad news for Faux:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/01/1175429/-Fox-News-Sean-Hannity-loses-half-of-audience-post-election

http://www.newshounds.us/_fox_news_ratings_sinking_along_with_gop_fortunes_02042013

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/feb/07/fox-news-tv-news

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/fox-news-ratings-lows-cable-news-january_n_2576689.html



http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=9416

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Comparing which of the niche, nearly unwatched cable outlets gets more viewers is silly

Take a look at your first and last figures, the 'total daily' for FoxNews is FNC 1,178,000. Under two million viewers in a day.
Last figure shows how many homes could be watching- 97.49 million. Not many who could tune in do tune in, not just to Fox but to cable commentary 'news' outlets in general.
Now. Go look at the numbers for the nightly newscasts on the broadcast networks. Each of the three majors gets millions of viewers each night, 8. 12. Millions. Each of the three gets 4 or 5 times more viewers than Fox or all cable combined. Add up the broadcast numbers, compare them to cable numbers and the conclusion is that almost no one watches cable commentary. Not even 1%o f the population.
People here are focused on it, and some even think 'the networks are dead and all the nation watches FoxNews'.
Cable commentary outlets are a failing business model, right left and center. Most Americans do not care for constant opinion from anyone. Which is why the FoxFolks have to shout 'number one in cable' which is about the same as me shouting that I'm the most brilliant man on my couch. I am. I'm also the only man on my couch, but who's counting?

[cali]

9. classic line that

and no free speech under the 1st amendment does NOT demand responsibility.

[RKP5637]

16. And that, IMO, is a root cause ... lack of responsibility when directed toward millions. n/t

[jberryhill]

17. Which is why th US has the best public political discourse on the planet

[RKP5637]

39. Yes, this is quite true ... it does result in "the best public political discourse on the planet."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

69. Except in the vicinity of Occupy-Wall-St protesters in NYC and elsewhere whenever Bloomberg and

others want to suppress their speech.

[Yo_Mama]

18. You can't do that

There is, of course, criminal speech, such as slander.

But any such measure such as you advocate would place some group of people in control of what is "reasonable", and history has proved that their decisions will, in the end, sometimes be unreasonable.

The cost of an open society is a lot of people speaking nonsense, but the benefit of an open society is that it changes, and it changes for the better, and it slowly converges to reason and mercy.

[RKP5637]

35. Yep, that is the real difficulty, WHO, is one the one that controls the

definition of what is reasonable ... and that is the pitfall of trying to control speech. As someone else was pointing out ... people are slowly coming to realize that hate media is full of lies and distortions ... biased! Which is the best of ways ...

[Yo_Mama]

70. Yes it is the best of ways

As the vast population in the center listens to this stuff, they reject it.

If you look around the world at all the "controlled" societies, they seem to breed extremism. In our society, our nutcases tend to expose themselves for precisely what they are. This breeds moderation and reason in the majority of the population.

This is no longer just a theory. Hundreds of years of history have shown that an open society slowly changes for the better, and it does so by placing the onus on each individual to decide for him/herself.

It is not perfect and it will always be somewhat unpleasant at times, but it does seem to work.

Also, any belief in humanism has to rest on the belief that the average person is capable of being morally just and reasonable. Those who claim that we need restrictions on free speech because it will corrupt the minds of the clueless masses are really on the side of totalitarianism, although they rarely realize it.

[RKP5637]

73. Well said!!!

[toddaa]

19. There ought to be a law...

Whipping out my ACLU card to defend myself and my fellow citizens, including the OP.

Free speech does come with enormous responsibility, but that includes us vigilantly fighting back against hate and lies.

[Recursion]

21. That would require a Ministry of Truth

No thanks.

[markiv]

22. I know for a fact what one of the 'Ministry of Truth's rules would be

'there are no jobs lost to trade deals or guest worker visas - those that say anything to the contrary are in violation, and shall become un-persons'

(those that aren't already, anyway)

[RKP5637]

42. And that would be quite scary! n/t

[octothorpe]

75. I wouldn't mind that if I was put in charge of it....

[Recursion]

77. I'm all for a benevolent Recursionogarchy

That's the problem, n'est-ce pas?

[Sunlei]

23. The republicans use the laws to their advantage. That kind of free speech would be libel and/or

slander, if it wasn't directed at a political figure like the president.
They choose their words carefully on radio, and use the internet to spam their listeners with a barrage of emails.

We should be charging a HUGE federal tax on every political and media,business,charity email.

Let paid media places like newsmax send one email a day free, let election campaigns, charities, businesses send one email a day. After that charge/tax the hell out of them for more than one daily email.

[markiv]

24. 'I have no idea how it would work' ---> BINGO

nobody else knows, either, for over 200 years

you're tryng to circle a square, and the problem is, you cant

[RKP5637]

36. Yep! Exactly! Well said! n/t

[MNBrewer]

26. oh dear gawd

ANOTHER "but there autta be a limit on freedom of speech" wave of posts on GD.

NO!!!!!

[RKP5637]

74. See #70. I think that sums it up rather well. n/t

[madokie]

27. I agree with you 100%

[sorefeet]

28. Thats why they stopped the fairness document

The Republicans don't want the truth. You can't keep teabaggers pissed without propaganda.

Tokyo Rose was hated in America for her propaganda, how could those japs be so cruel to the GI's, all the lies, something America would never do?? The Japanese did it and our own people are doing it and after 60 years of my life the people still fall for the bullshit. Humans are too stupid to lie to everyday because eventually half of them will believe the lies. I could plant a lie in this little hick town I'm in, it would take off like a wild fire and half would take it as fact. So with a venue like Hannity and Limbaugh have they can start a lot of shit and control a lot of idiots.

[RKP5637]

56. I have a defense lawyer friend that told me in law school he was taught one

needs several well thought out points to keep hammering on in court ... and the longer one hammers on them the more people will believe them, even if they are not the truth.

[egduj]

31. "I believe in free speech..."

No, you don't.

[RKP5637]

45. Yep, it would have the converse effect ... and in essence a lack of free speech. n/t

[spanone]

32. our media has given up any sense of responsibility whatsoever. it's broken beyond repair.

imho

[KharmaTrain]

34. We Need MORE Free Speech...Not Less...

...so do you propose we have some kind of censor in each talk station to determine if what is said is "factual" or "true" or not? If they deem it not true do they ring a buzzer or break into programming to "correct" those who offend you? And who would that censor be? Who would be the ultimate determinator of what is "truth"? Slippery slope stuff here...

The best way to answer the lies is by using our many forms of communications to counter the lies and beat them at their own game. Hate radio is a dying beast...it had no effect on last year's election and some would say that the lies and verbosity have taken a toll and driven away millions of listeners.

The concept of a "public" airwaves (which is a joke) is a two-way street...despite the efforts of some to make it one-way...

[RKP5637]

37. Yep, this way is best! As you say, " Hate radio is a dying beast..." Public opinion is swinging the

pendulum toward more balance as they see the haters for whom they really are ...

[slackmaster]

50. I saw a popular commentator on a major network making an obvious pitch for a nexus...

...between the bombing and the Sandy Hook shootings.

Meanwhile, another major news network was clinging to the idea of a suspect at Brigham and Womens' Hospital, and the Saudi national who has apparently turned out to be an innocent bystander.

[WinkyDink]

52. I guess it's that time AGAIN: "Let's discuss limitations on the First Amendment."

We have them. We don't need any more. End of discussion, except for totalitarians.

[RKP5637]

63. Yeah, you're certainly right, in the big picture it would lead toward more totalitarians. n/t

[RZM]

71. +1

Our speech laws are fine just the way they are.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. So after 9-11 should there have been a crack down on those who were critical of Bush?

Our Constitutional protections are made for those who have opinions outside the mainstream, that's sort of the point, no one needs legal protection to spout the common wisdom, such protections are needed to speak outside the accepted norms.

[RKP5637]

61. Yep! It's really not possible, since the basic premise would shift depending on who TPTB were ...

it would be maligned. I was just thinking back as I read your post ... a republican friend (I have one, lol) said after 9-11, there should be some reasonable restriction on free speech ... they didn't like the idea of Bush being hammered.

It would severely cripple "speaking outside the accepted norms" which would lead us down a really slippery path.

[JDPriestly]

60. Well, the first step toward ending speech that offends you is to stop

consuming it. Don't listen to radio stations that spew the stuff. Don't read the newspapers that tell lies. It is not necessary today.

Support the news media that tell you the truth. Thom Hartmann is pretty good. (Nobody is perfect.) Pacifica's evening radio programming is intelligent. Ian Masters has a good program on Los Angeles' KPFK in the late afternoon, Los Angles time. Then there is Amy Goodman with Democracy Now.

These people try to interview experts who have opinions different than the mainstream. Ian Masters talks to people who write books, teach, work for governments or news media around the world. His interviews are in depth and he does not dominate with just his opinions. He generally gives his well informed guests the opportunity to express their opinions without put-downs.

Try it. KPFK is a good outlet for Pacifica.

[RKP5637]

62. I saved this ... excellent sources. What does bother me are those that listen to this dribble

non-stop and then quote the dribble to others. Many times around here in RW-land I've heard people preface a remark they are making with "Fox says ..." or, "I heard on Fox ..." like they, for example, are the unequivocal source of news for the universe.

[JDPriestly]

65. I have a friend who keeps mentioning chemtrails.

I asked someone who knows about these things, a real scientist how to explain chemtrails and shared that information with my friend. But she still talks about chemtrails.

This is the modern form of superstition. In some countries, it is believed that if you leave towels hanging on a rack in your house on New Year's Eve, someone in your household will die.

The stuff you hear on a lot of extremist radio is about that quality. Just superstition. It's not stated as an idea to be considered, weighed, thrown out if found wanting. It's accepted on faith.

I sometimes post about things on DU that are just ideas, just possibilities, hunches if you will. Neither I nor people on DU accept these posts as "truth." They are just possibilities to be explored. We check the facts we can find and throw these ideas out or confirm them. Sometimes we do that informally as a group on DU. That's why I like to come here for discussion.

But the extremist radio personalities just throw their crazy ideas at you. There is no forum for questioning their ideas. They present them as "the truth." And they are very often either downright wrong or a bit off base.

Pretty irresponsible. But we have alternatives. Try Ian Masters. He's pretty intelligent.

I like Thom Hartmann. He lets you know what his ideological direction is, but he intentionally allows people with other views to discuss and challenge his ideas. It's interesting.

[RKP5637]

66. Thanks!!!

[Arugula Latte]

67. And the religion serves the purpose of promoting ignorance and magical thinking

which comes in handy to get people in the frame of mind to buy the idiocy of rightwing propaganda.

[RKP5637]

68. Yep, to me at least, it's often commingled. n/t

[octothorpe]

72. I wouldn't mind having a ministry of speech to decide what is acceptable speech and what isn't

[RKP5637]

76. lol ... DU would be banned!

[octothorpe]

78. Naaah, because I'd be in charge of it. I like DU. :P

[RKP5637]

79. That's good to hear! Thank you!