mvscal's Limey brother gets over

[smackaholic]

Couldn't see what sort of undergarments he was wearing, but, I'd say 'AP's Limey brother' is more like it.

[Carson]

News must be slow in Jolly Old England.

[mvscal]

Inky Dave was mocked, reviled and scorned here. In Britain, they give him a camera crew and an address.

Not that I would shit on somebody's memorial, but the behavior of PC fascists is far more disturbing than some trolling mouthbreather wishing a dead niqqer to rot in piss.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Not that I would shit on somebody's memorial, but the behavior of PC fascists is far more disturbing than some trolling mouthbreather wishing a dead niqqer to rot in piss.

Just out of morbid curiosity mvscal, how so?

[mvscal]

If you need to have it explained to you, you don't believe in free speech.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Oh I absolutely believe in free speach, and I'm not a big fan of political correctness. Hell, I'm here on this board with you, that's proof! However, it seems a little over-the-top to quantify a "PC facist" as being more disturbing than a "trolling mouthbreather wishing a dead niqqer to rot in piss." Free speach is all well and good, but racism and hate mongering up to the point of celebrating death is taking it to a disgusting extreme, and your trying to justify that expression is more than a bit twisted.

I'm not in favor of censorship, but promoting hate is a different argument altogether. At least to your credit, you called the troller a "mouthbreather". I'm just curious as to why you still sometimes emulate him?

[mvscal]

Oh I absolutely believe in free speach, and I'm not a big fan of political correctness. Hell, I'm here on this board with you, that's proof! However, it seems a little over-the-top to quantify a "PC facist" as being more disturbing than a "trolling mouthbreather wishing a dead niqqer to rot in piss." Free speach is all well and good, but racism and hate mongering up to the point of celebrating death is taking it to a disgusting extreme, and your trying to justify that expression is more than a bit twisted.

I'm not in favor of censorship, but promoting hate is a different argument altogether. At least to your credit, you called the troller a "mouthbreather". I'm just curious as to why you still sometimes emulate him?

You can't even spell free speech let alone support it, grasp the basic concept or the dangers of politically correct censorship.

[Jay in Phoenix]

You can't even spell free speech let alone support it, grasp the basic concept or the dangers of politically correct censorship.

Yeah yeah, I had a typo. Oops. So what.

Explain this then mvscal. You say I can't "grasp the basic concept or dangers of politcal correctness". You and I both know that is bullshit and a spin away from answering my question. So I'll ask it in a slightly diferent way. When taken to the extreme, censorship is not just wrong, it undermines the very nature of a free society. Yet, on the other side of the coin, doesn't giving someone free reign to espouse hatred and racisim and death toward any specific individual or people, allow for the proliferation and support of the ideologies of groups such as Nazis, Communists, the KKK etc? Is that acceptable and an example of what was intended with the 1st Ammendment? Surely you can't possibly believe that's what our country's forefathers had in mind?

Where do you draw the line?

[mvscal]

You don't draw any lines, idiot. Once you start doing that, those lines inevitably get erased and redrawn further back. It has already started and you're too stupid and too blind to see it.

The Founders absolutely intended the 1st Amendment to protect speech you might find vile or repugnant. They were quite explicit on that point. You would know this if were properly educated.

[Mace]

The Founders absolutely intended the 1st Amendment to protect speech you might find vile or repugnant. They were quite explicit on that point.

I agree. Free speech is just that. The Nazis and KKK have every right to preach their hatred. I don't have to agree with what they're preaching but I'll stand up for their right to say it....no matter how vile or politically incorrect it might be. That's how a free society has to work if it is truly free.

[smackaholic]

Rights, even constitutional ones, are not absolute.

The classic example: yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and see what happens. And when you see the Judge on arraignment day, tell him to fuck off and see what happens again.

The fire in a crowded theater analogy is moronic. Doing so will cause a dangerous situation as it will cause a group of people to stampede, so fukking save. Saying mean things on a message board does not cause this. The worst it can do is piss someone off who may read it.

Lets play make believe for a minute. Make believe you post a vid accusing that dude of this trolling. Suppose the object of the troll job sees it, then tracks that dude down and kills him.

What then dumbass?

[Jay in Phoenix]

You don't draw any lines, idiot. Once you start doing that, those lines inevitably get erased and redrawn further back. It has already started and you're too stupid and too blind to see it.

The Founders absolutely intended the 1st Amendment to protect speech you might find vile or repugnant. They were quite explicit on that point. You would know this if were properly educated.

Point taken mvscal. The venom used to say it sort of reflects where I'm coming from about trolling, but you already understand that. My question about the line in the sand was rhetorical, and only intended for the expression of your own specific point of view. There should be no lines, no erasure or redrawing of them. By no means am I blind to the cause and effect of taking political correctness too far. Free speech in a free society is our right, and nobody should infringe upon that right. And Nazis and Communists and the KKK have every right to espouse their hatred and vile agendas, disgusting as they may be. Just as you have the right to keep refering to black people as "niqqers" just because of their skin color or character. (Though when it comes to certain specifics of character, I find it hard to disagree.)

However...we fought a Civil War and World War II for several reasons. The support and promotion of racism, slavery, hatred and religious persecution wasn't exactly one of those reasons. Just the opposite. You want a completely free society with no restrictions on any level whatsoever, so be it. Just be careful of what you wish for, and how you wish for it. Stretching the concept to the absurd, even something as pure as freedom can morph into anarchy when extreme individualism or extreme expression get taken too far. How far is too far remains a legitimate question. One I don't have an answer for. As free as our society is, we still must be governed by certain laws.

Immanuel Kant summed up four kinds of government this way:

A. Law and freedom without force (anarchy).
B. Law and force without freedom (despotism).
C. Force without freedom and law (barbarism).
D. Force with freedom and law (republic).

If we are a republic, this means our freedom and law are governed with a controlled force. A system of censorship has been in place in movies and television, and to a much lesser extent, books and newsprint, for a long time now. It came to a head with McCarthyism. Since then, the system has gotten more and more "liberal", at least until the last few years. Now we seem to be marching backward. The point being, a certain "moderate" degree of censorship, or in the case of film, ratings, is in place so that people have knowledge beforehand that the content might be objectionable. It isn't intended to erase content, it's in place as a warning. Sort of the same thing as putting a health warning on smokes. You're free to smoke 'em, just know what's in 'em.

To sum this up, you can have all the freedom you want, but without some system of governing and overseeing that freedom, you devolve into anarchy. While I would never ever preach for censorship, especially as a representative of the media as I am, there still must be watchgroups.

[mvscal]

Rights, even constitutional ones, are not absolute.

First, there is no such thing as a "Constitutional right." There are only Constitutional restrictions on the government's exercise of power. Second, you need to brush up on the definition of 'unalienable' and check back in later. Not that it will do you any good, since you are one of the PC fascists to which I was refering. You have long ago accustomed yourself to the steady erosion of fundamental liberties and enthusiastically endorse such encroachments until the topic turns to abortion or gay marriage and then, all of a sudden, you rediscover "absolute" rights.

You are a pitiful hypocrite.

[Smackie Chan]

the dangers of politically correct censorship.

I watched the youtube clip a few days ago, and don't recall all the details, but from what I remember, the dude who unveiled the troll and pursued him for "justification" did it on his own, and was not hired by the British gov't to do so. Do you consider that to be a form of de facto censorship, in which no gov't entity is involved in trying to limit one's right of expression, but the end result is, by being outed, the troll is effectively silenced (which I doubt was the outcome)? I agree with your take on censorship, but it seems misplaced here. This doesn't appear to be a censorship issue. Was the troll threatened with legal repercussions for his actions, or ordered by the gov't to cease & desist? Or was your use of the term "politically correct censorship" meant to distinguish it from state-sanctioned censorship? Is it your position that the guy who publicly outed the troll should not have the right to investigate, track down, and question people who express views considered politically incorrect or otherwise contrary to his beliefs?

Lets play make believe for a minute. Make believe you post a vid accusing that dude of this trolling. Suppose the object of the troll job sees it, then tracks that dude down and kills him.

What then dumbass?

Then the killer should face justice, not the guy who posted the vid. Isn't the person who posted it simply exercising free expression, and wouldn't forbidding him from doing it be a form of censorship? Not sure what law "guarantees" absolute anonymity to message board or fb posters. We'd like to think we can remain anonymous, but as was shown, it's not terribly difficult to have one's identity revealed, and that's a risk we all should be aware of and be willing to accept.

[mvscal]

Was the troll threatened with legal repercussions for his actions

Yes, he was. Of course the 1st amendment doesn't exist in the UK.

Do you consider that to be a form of de facto censorship

In the UK, it is both de facto and de jure. In the United States, censorship is practiced de facto. Look at how people who do not believe in or support gay marriage are reviled as hate mongering bigots for exercising their rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. Look at how the NRA is openly accused of being insane, blood thirsty murderers for supporting the free exercise of their right to bear arms. This is very dangerous behavior and is certainly incompatible with the notion of a free society.

And that doesn't even begin to address the issue of government encroachment on civil libterties which is every bit as dangerous. We are well on the road to becoming a totalitarian police state and the first step on that road is to control the language used to shape public debate.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

You're posting gibberish, mvscal.

He's not.

Wait till you get a taste of Euro-type social democrat laws in America.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Where do you get that from? Obama would be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s. We're a long, long way from socialism.

I didn't say "socialism"...I said Euro-style social democrat.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...the left-wing media...

AHHHH-ha-ha...






~wipes tear~

[Mace]

Unlike the "factless drivel" of Fox News, I guess. :roll:

[mvscal]

Now, since you are not a knuckle-dragging mouth breathing autobot who simply spews out the factless drivel of the left-wing media,

You sure wouldn't know it by reading his posts.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...trying to imitate mvscal...

Look around you.

Everyone on this board imitates mv.

It ranges from echoing his bravado (Dins, poptart)

...to full-on wanting to wear his skin (a-la Silence Of The Lambs) and beat off (toddowen, Mad Russian).

[mvscal]

Nice. When provided an answer to your question that you don't like, you resort to trying to imitate mvscal with creative insults.

You cited the opinions of far left wingnuts not facts.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Yeah...the war-monger that forked over your tax dollars to Wall St, shielded it's banksters from prosecution and gobbles Netanyahu's crank is a Maoist...

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The Obama Administration would be considered left or right (and to what degree) of the Nixon Administration?

[Dr_Phibes]

I'll settle for simply being right.

How is anyone to know what your point is, if you don't make it. Posting links and saying 'read this' doesn't do anyone any good. You've implied a few things, then brought out this 'a-ha, got you'! that's the total opposite:?

[Truman]

Nice again, 88.

Here, let me quote the first thing I wrote that you conveniently ignored:

Who was it that first came up with the plan now known as Obamacare? Oh, Romney. Yeah, that guy.

The biggest thing that Obama has accomplished. The thing that Republicans have bitched about the most. What history will remember Obama for.

Obamacare. And it was a Republican concept, at least until Obama adopted it.

No it wasn't, Killer. It was Mitt Romney's concept. Many conservatives are Republican; but not all Republicans are conservative. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. Mitt Romney isn't. Stick with rationalizing the murder of unborn children.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I think Chip's greater point is that the entire political landscape has shifted to the right.

[Dr_Phibes]

I think Chip's greater point is that the entire political landscape has shifted to the right.

Bit of an adventure getting there. Thanks for the insight, JSC.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Obama and his water carriers (e.g., Ezra Klein) are trying to suggest that Obama and Reagan are one in the same.

It's called "rhetorical flourish", dipshit.

Any evidence of this so-called education of yours available, or do you just assume everyone is dumber than you?

[Dr_Phibes]

They're lawyers. They make cases, rather than understand them.

[Jay in Phoenix]

*Warning, this is long. Sorry, but it has to be said.*

88, you keep repeating the term, "Left-wing media". And yet, when someone like Mace brings up Fox News as a prime example of the antithesis of the Left, you choose to ignore it. You are in error trying to lump the entire scope of the media into one specific political camp, with one specific agenda. That's utter and complete nonsense. Certain networks, news magazines, radio networks newspapers, etc. tend to veer one way or the other, but they don't all lean to one side. Again, Fox Television News and Fox Radio is about as Republican and Conservatively biased as you can get. And there are plenty of other examples to the same effect. I have been a representative of the news media for over 30 years. I think I have some behind-the-scenes perspectives that you might not be privy too. If you want to use the Phoenix market as an example, (and I am familiar with every affiliate in town, including the independants) and keeping in mind that Arizona is a very Conservative state, I can assure you that political bias has, at least for the most part, never influenced the content of a newscast. If you believe I'm wrong, I ask you to prove it by citing examples. The two different stations that I have worked for, including a news radio station to boot, have prided themselves on keeping the content of stories honest, fair and without bias. Unlike Fox News, the local Fox station doesn't kowtow to a Conservative perspective. They simply report the news, as it happens. I've sat in on news meetings with producers and news directors. The only time I've ever seen politics weigh into the conversation regarding content, is when the facts might be questionable, or if something in the story might bring about legal action against station if reported in error, or if a reporter were skewing the facts. I've only seen the latter example happen once, and the story never made the light of day. Granted, I'm only using the news entities in my state to represent my viewpoint. Fox News and CNN are the yin and yang of conservative and liberal news reporting on a network level. But even they have to answer to questions of legalities. The times when you can perceive actual bias are mostly found on opinion-based programs like Rush, Hannity or Beck, which are spin wheels, not actual newscasts.

Okay, enough of that. Final thoughts on censorship.

Jsc810 used the yelling of fire in a theater as an example of something that could be criminally prosecuted as dangerous, and therefore, should be "censored". Or at least, I'm sort of paraphrasing what he said. At any rate, in 1919 the case of Schenck v. United States was about just that. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect dangerous speech. In the decision, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that no free speech safeguard would cover someone "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." The case in question did not involve fires, theaters or general panic. It instead concerned a man’s conviction for protesting the First World War’s military draft. The man, Charles Schenck, had printed 15,000 fliers that encouraged readers to resist conscription. The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 criminalized such an offense, said prosecutors.

Schenck argued that the Constitution allowed his expression, but the Court disagreed. According to their ruling, Schnenck’s fliers created a clear and present danger — a clear and present danger to the government’s recruiting efforts. He hadn’t endangered life, as falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater would have, but he may as well have. This "clear and present danger" standard stood for half a century. Further rulings even expanded it, criminalizing additional speech. But the Supreme Court then heard a case involving a new example of questionable speech, one that modern sensibilities might find more controversial than war protests.

Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had broken the law. A statute, which the state had enacted the same year as the Schenck decision, criminalized the advocacy of crime or violence. The victims of any possible crime this speech incited would face even clearer danger than patrons fleeing a crowded theater.

Yet Brandenburg claimed the First Amendment protected his speech. His appeal reached the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed with him, in contrast with the earlier Schenck decision. Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.

With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

And, of course, no court will fault you for warning of a fire that actually exists.

And yet, we still have laws governing dangerous words that might incite dangerous actions. Let's take the OneBoard as a sort of microcosim of an example. This is, overall, an uncensored board. You can pretty much say anything, be as offensive and as vulgar as you please. ('sup mvscal!) But of course, the board still has a few rules in place. For one, you are not permitted to divulge personal information about another poster. You can't post a photo or a phone number or address. To do so gets you banned. And I would say for damned good reason, as this place is supposed to be a bastion of anonymity. However, if you look at it from a detached perspective, simply listing a phone number or an actual name of a poster isn't a crime in the real world, just here. So in and of itself, this is a form of censorship, one we all adhere to. So if you are of the attitude that absolutely nothing should be censored, especially when it comes to the printed or spoken word and language, isn't this a form of hypocrisy? There is nothing inherently "dangerous" in giving out that info. It might be rude or unfair, it might even lead to harrasment, but it isn't illegal. Yet, the board censors it anyway, because it's the "right thing to do". And there are repercussions for doing so.

That brings me back to that mythical "line in the sand" that nobody wants drawn. And my emphasis on the importance of watchgroups, by example, the Motion Picture Association of America, and its ratings board. The intention of the board isn't to censor, even though it can call for editing of material it deems innapropriate. When a director or producer doesn't comply, the picture gets released anyway, but without a rating, or it gets an X.

In a society, even a free one, you have to have laws to prevent anarchy. If Mace wants to molest his favorite sheep in the privacy of his own barn, so be it. But if he were to take that lamb or a goat out into the middle of an intersection on a busy street and start humping away, he would be arrested. It wouldn't matter if he were to claim he was in the middle of "performance art", and therefore immune to having his act of besitality censored because in his opinion, it was art, or free expression. Same thing applies for somebody taking a leak in public. They can be arrested and charged from simple indecency to being a sexual predator. And all they were doing is taking a leak. The key factor is, that it's in public view, it's offensive and nobody should be exposed to it. Thereby, it is illegal, and censored.

In 1987, Andres Serrano, an artist released a series of photos of religious objects floating in jars of blood, milk and urine. The infamous "Immersion (Piss Christ) was the most notorious, with a crucified Jesus submgerged in a jar full of urine. Was it offensive? To most folks, hell yes. Others saw it as art, some, like art critic Lucy R. Lippard, called it "beautiful". Eye of the beholder and all that. But what it was, was legal, no matter how tastless or thoughtless some might find it. And it was never censored. And no matter how you reacted to it, that is a good thing, especially for those that espouse non-censorship.

But what if Serrano were displaying a snuff film? What if he were showing an actual rape, torture and murder on celluloid? What if he defended what he were displaying as "art"? Would you still argue that he had a right to do so? That he was just "expressing his individualism"? No, the guy would be guilty of several crimes and sent to prison, or even the death chamber. And his so-called "art" would be censored to hell and back. Serrano and his free speech would be a ghost. As it should be. Which once again harkens back to that damnable line in the sand.

Are you absolutely, positively, %100 sure that there still should be no censorship whatsoever?

Long winded diatribe over, do what you will with it.

[Mace]

That was spot on, Jay. Awesome.....except for the part about goats. The long whiskers are a turn off. Sorry.

Somewhat on the topic of political correctness and censorship, I have a new neighbor who lives less than a block from my house who displays two rebel flags hanging from the front of his house.....and I seriously doubt that he's an ol' Miss fan. The first time I saw the flags, I wondered how much of a stir it would cause if he did that in some other locale, but didn't think anyone would make a fuss about it here....and, so far, they haven't. Political correctness has been a little slow getting to southern Iowa, I guess. I don't know his intent for hanging the flags, and don't really care. To each his own. I'm far more offended by the assholes who hang St. Louis Cardinal flags from their homes. :)

[Mace]

I was originally drawn to the Rome boards because of the John Rocker fiasco. I argued and argued with index and others that no one has the right to tell a man he can't express his opinion. Whether we agree with that opinion or not, or find it absolutely repulsive ...that doesn't matter. No one is ever going to TELL me what I can think.


Note: This post is a bit shorter and less thought out and far more poorly written than Jay's.

Rack Sam! Who the fuck cares what John Rocker thinks about anything except pitching?

[Smackie Chan]

no one has the right to tell a man he can't express his opinion.

Sure they do. The 1st Amendment simply provides limited protection for citizens from being prosecuted for expressing their views. Private organizations can, and routinely do, legally take punitive action against employees for speaking out. If Al Campanis or Jimmy the Greek were still alive, you could ask them.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

In fairness, I think he was addressing smackaholic specifically.

[Smackie Chan]

Any company or organization has the right to fire an employee who expresses views that could taint the company, but Rocker had every right to say whatever he wanted to.

He had the legal right, but not all repercussions come from law enforcement. I wasn't referring to Rocker specifically, but rather to the statement that "no one has the right to tell a man he can't express his opinion." People and organizations do have that right, and have the means to enforce it.

The Braves coulda cut him loose or whatever, but he had the right to think and feel like he wanted to.

Thoughts and feelings can't be censored. But action can be taken to discourage their expression. Job termination is, to most folks, sufficient reason to keep their pieholes shut.

[Jay in Phoenix]

88, nice return volley. Much appreciated. Sorry for another long response.

I didn't say that all media has a left-wing bias. As you note, Fox News is a good example of a news organization that no one would accuse of having a left-wing bias (you could also include The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times as right-leaning news organizations). But you cannot deny that there are many news organizations that do exhibit left-wing bias, including Slate.com, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post (especially insofar as Ezra Klein is concerned), The NY Times etc., and thus collectively constitute the left-wing media. In my take, I asked Jsc to back up his amazing claim with some facts, and not rely on the factless drivel spun out of the left-wing media outlets that do not find themselves burdened to set forth facts to back up their takes.

You're absolutely right. :wink: When I read your question of Jsc again, in proper context, your intent crystallized for me. I suppose my reaction was spurred by the multiple times I've seen the term "liberal media" tossed about on this board. As I have seen the media, even on a network level, from the inside, I have seen this assessment or bias to be both true and laughably false. It just depends on which "media" you're speaking about. Factless drivel is and has been spun out of both sides of the media, especially if you regard the content and output of news magazines or papers which are easily labeled as "yellow journalism". But the fact is, these types of tabloids are in the minority, and most major and minor news outlets have to be held accountable to legalities, especially when it pertains to libel. The majority are not going to put their collective heads on a chopping block just to cater to their own political bias. If you wish to do that, you have to do it in a forum of "opinion based" broadcast, or so-called editorials. And of course, it goes both ways, right and left.

You are a self-proclaimed newsman. Is there any factual basis by which one could reasonably conclude that President Obama's policies, if introduced in the 1980's, would align him with "moderate Republicans" of the day? Who were these moderate Repulicans, and what were their Obama-like policies?

Let me clear something up here. I am not a "self-proclaimed newsman". I am not a reporter, nor a news anchor. I have been a writer and a videographer and an editor, but the majority of my experience is technical, as in, operations. But my resume is pretty widespread, and I've covered a lot of ground, and worked with a number of local and network level brass, including sitting in on news meetings for the daily rundown. With that said, it would be stepping over the bounds of "authority" for me to answer your question about Obama. I could give you my opinion, for what thatis worth, but it would take a little homework to break down the points of your inquiry. You might pose those questions to a more seasoned journalist, and technically speaking, a journalist is not what I am, by exact definition. I speak through years of on-the-job experience. To answer your questions honestly and correctly, look to a higher and more learned authority.

Jay Mongo only pawn in game of news.

And your bit about the 1st Amendment is good, but slightly askew or muddled.

How so? I presented the history of the "yelling fire in a theatre" legality. It wasn't muddled or skewed in any manner, I simply covered the events as they transpired, I didn't editorialize, at least not about the Supreme Court cases.

The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting laws that would interfere with the rights of citizens to speak their mind. The 1st Amendment does not confer any rights on the citizens. It tells Congress that it cannot interfere with the citizens' rights, which already exist.

But the right of a citizen to exercise free speech is not without limits. You cannot slander people without consequences. You cannot use language to incite violence etc. And you cannot tell a judge to Fuck Off in the courtroom. Such speech will lead to adverse civil and/or criminal consequences. The 1st Amendment prohibitions extend to the States and their political subdivisions through the 14th Amendment.

Correct on all counts, but I still don't see what you were referring to when you said what I wrote was skewed. What you just said reflects exactly what I said. I don't see the difference. The two cases I covered go directly to the content and intent of the 1st Amendment. Now if you're talking about the rest of my post, where I spoke of art, the OneBoard analogy, Mace and his oves amor or anything else, that was me giving my "opinion". If that was what you were referencing, well then skewing is fair game. It's my 1st Amendment right, and that is, after all, what this thread is all about. I gave the facts without opinion. I offered my opinion with the facts as I see them. Just as everybody else has, especially mvscal. That's what he specializes in, hyperbole as it fits his skewed view. Sure, he almost always uses fact and statistic and history to back up his points, but it's often twisted to justify his own weird and offensive pretzel logic. I am in full agreement on his passionate regard to preserving the 1st Amendment and the rights of free speech and free expression. However, I wonder about his own selfish motivations to do so, as it seems that his agenda has a rather unsettling shading.

But I digress.

But, as Smackie notes, the 1st Amendment has no application to private matters between citizens. If CBS does not wish to employ persons who make racial statements, it can fire them based solely on the content of their speech, even though the 1st Amendment would prohibit Congress from enacting a law to prohibit the expression of such content.

T1B has instituted limits on the content of the speech that may be exercised by its users. If a user discloses the personal information of another user here, that warrants a lifetime ban. Simple as that. Is it censorship? Abso-fucking-lutely. Is it government censorship. Not at all.

Again, correct on all points and very well said. It also confirms where I'm coming from on the need for certain regulations, laws, restrictions and yes, censorship. And I don't want the government to tell me what I can say or do, so long as I'm not breaking any laws, or violating someone's rights, privacy or personal information. But let's use the example of the TSA. Now then, the actions of the TSA seem to be, on the surface anyway, way the fuck over the top, especially when it comes to personal space and personal privacy. Who wants some hairy, ham-handed moron groping their crotch or blasting their body immodestly with scanners? On the other side of the coin, do we want no security whatsoever at the airport, in the same vein as no censorship? Of course not, as security, especially these days, is not only important, it's vital. Just as certain limited, intelligent and justifiably fair censorship is.

The answer of course, is in moderation and sensibility.

The line in the sand.

The question to that answer, is where do you draw it. And how far.

[mvscal]

The majority are not going to put their collective heads on a chopping block just to cater to their own political bias.

Tell it to Dan Rather. Or Chris Matthews. Or NBC.

Oh and there is nothing "moderate or sensible" about the TSA and its procedures. Once again you are enthusiastically endorsing unacceptable encroachments on fundamental civil liberties. You might as well admit that you are a PC fascist who believes that personal liberty is at the whim of the government just as long as it can be presented to dopes like you as "moderate and sensible."

No offense, but you're too fucking stupid to make any such determination on your own.

[Jay in Phoenix]

The majority are not going to put their collective heads on a chopping block just to cater to their own political bias.

Tell it to Dan Rather. Or Chris Matthews. Or NBC.

Oh and there is nothing "moderate or sensible" about the TSA and its procedures.

I didn't say there was. I countered to the exact opposite. I used them (the TSA) as an example of censorship or security control that is abused and goes to far. Does that make it a bad thing or a necessary evil? Or something in-between? The whole thing reeks of Orwellian overtones, just as your allusions to censorship in America is becoming.

As to Dan Rather and Matthews...you're right. But in their case, those were individual choices. And Rather was certifiably off the deep end when he asked Kenneth for his frequency. And I have to assume what you're referring to with NBC, since you didn't specify. If you're talking about their apparent "rah-rah" cheerleading for Obama as an example, you are right. Given enough time and another election, just watch that particular pendulum swing back to the right.

Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent at NBC News, broke ranks (sort of) with his fellow journalists. In an interview with Politico, Todd said, “To me, the ideological bias in the media really hasn’t been there in a long time. But what is there that people mistake for ideological bias is geographic bias. It’s seeing everything through the lens of New York and Washington.”

That isn't exactly the case, but it’s just swell that Chuck Todd at least seemed to be acknowledging that there was, once upon a time an ideological bias in the mainstream media. To say it “hasn’t been there in a long time,” acknowledges that it was there, once. This is something a lot of journalists would never admit. Essentially, just like sports journalists, it comes down to an East Coast - West Coast bias with politics sort of dragged along for the ride.

Look, political journalism is part of the big picture of news in general. Therefore, political bias and opinion are impossible to exclude from the reporting. But Dan Rather was at one time, a well respected news anchor, and Matthews and the NBC examples are the exceptions to the rule, rather than the norm. Liberal or conservative bias exist, there's no denying that. My contention is that to throw a blanket over the media as a collective and stamp it with either a liberal and conservative brand is not just unfair, it's wrong.

Balance the scales and get back to me.

And no offense, but you're too arrogantly ignorant to make any assessment of me. Not to mention foolish.

Nice post edit by the way.

[Smackie Chan]

But you cannot deny that there are many news organizations that do exhibit left-wing bias, including Slate.com, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post (especially insofar as Ezra Klein is concerned), The NY Times etc., and thus collectively constitute the left-wing media. In my take, I asked Jsc to back up his amazing claim with some facts, and not rely on the factless drivel spun out of the left-wing media outlets that do not find themselves burdened to set forth facts to back up their takes.

Let's say Jsc did respond with facts to back up his takes. Those facts would need to have some source. If the facts supported his takes, he'd be hammered for reliance on biased sources, and likely (or possibly) be countered with facts that come from some other source, which would be bashed by his side as being biased in the other direction. Back & forth it goes, each side accusing the other of dependence on unreliable sources based on respective political leanings, with nothing ever being resolved to everyone's (or anyone's) satisfaction.

Is it a necessary condition that any particular news outlet or other source of information be biased? Are there sources out there that both sides could agree are politically neutral, unbiased, and factually reliable? One would hope that all news outlets would fall into this category, but we know that isn't the case. What are some examples of what you (and anyone else engaged in this discussion) would consider to be unbiased and reliable sources for the "facts"?