Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

To what extent does MONEY=SPEECH?

245

Posts

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    For now the third time, it doesn't. Restrictions on speech are forbidden unless they can be justified by other, legitimate, compelling interests. What constitutes such an interest varies depending on the kind of speech. Restrictions on political speech face a much higher hurdle than restrictions on commercial speech, for what should be obvious reasons.

    So that brings us back to who gets to decide what commercial transactions qualify as "political speech".

    I'll bring up the example of media consolidation again. Should anti-trust laws be applied to media conglomerates to prevent them from purchasing all of the media outlets in a geographical region, or is the act of purchasing a media outlet a form of political speech, especially if it's being purchased to help spread a political agenda?

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Otherwise the wealthy will always drown out everyone else's speech (In one form or another) and there is little you can do about it.

    I find it hard to take this seriously. Sure, the wealthy have the ability to disseminate speech more profusely than those without wealth, but I don't feel as though the wealthy effectively drown out others' speech. Do you really feel this way? I would agree that, unfortunately, Fox News - and the American media machine in general - has a profound effect in shaping the views of modern society. A troubling one. But even so, I don't feel as if they "drown out" other speech. Other speech still has a shot. Perhaps it isn't disseminated as widely or as easily as that which Fox News spews forth, but I don't see Fox News blanketing other speech to the point where it could be considered censored, or diminished, to the degree you suggest.

    Drez on
    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    freedom of speech doesn't mean you have a right to have your speech published by private companies - it's that the govt shall not infringe on it

    I understand that - but, increasingly, governments and corporations are starting to become intermingled. I mean, no sane person denies that Fox News, for example, isn't affiliated with the Republican party.

    If I posit a future where Fox News becomes, effectively, the only publishing outlet, with the Republicans in power, you can still have your 1st Amendment just as is stands today, but it won't mean shit, will it?

    for that future to become a reality several basic rights and laws would have to already be overturned and our freedom of speech probably would've been lost long before.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    Drez wrote:
    Otherwise the wealthy will always drown out everyone else's speech (In one form or another) and there is little you can do about it.

    I find it hard to take this seriously. Sure, the wealthy have the ability to disseminate speech more profusely than those without wealth, but I don't feel as though the wealthy effectively drown out others' speech. Do you really feel this way? I would agree that, unfortunately, Fox News - and the American media machine in general - has a profound effect in shaping the views of modern society. A troubling one. But even so, I don't feel as if they "drown out" other speech. Other speech still has a shot. Perhaps it isn't disseminated as widely or as easily as that which Fox News spews forth, but I don't see Fox News blanketing other speech to the point where it is being considered censored, or diminished to the degree you suggest.

    The speech of the wealthy has a massively disproportional influence on both the electoral process and the legislation that results. For example, 1% of Americans are millionaires. 47% of the folks serving in Congress are.

  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited December 2011
    Lawndart wrote:
    For now the third time, it doesn't. Restrictions on speech are forbidden unless they can be justified by other, legitimate, compelling interests. What constitutes such an interest varies depending on the kind of speech. Restrictions on political speech face a much higher hurdle than restrictions on commercial speech, for what should be obvious reasons.

    So that brings us back to who gets to decide what commercial transactions qualify as "political speech".

    I'll bring up the example of media consolidation again. Should anti-trust laws be applied to media conglomerates to prevent them from purchasing all of the media outlets in a geographical region, or is the act of purchasing a media outlet a form of political speech, especially if it's being purchased to help spread a political agenda?

    Oh, that's a more interesting question. And the answer is that courts do.

    As to the specific example, yes, anti-trust laws still apply to media companies. Although less stringently now that there is so much competing media available. I'm not aware of any case where buying a company was considered political speech.

    Tiger Burning on
    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited December 2011
    <burp>

    Tiger Burning on
    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    I would consider speech to be extended to writing or making audio/visual works, art, blogs, podcasts, broadcasts, etcetera. Very broad.

    The freedom is in being able to actually engage in those pursuits, should one choose to use the time and effort and opportunity to do so.

    I'm not sure what "the ability to be effectively listened to by others" means. Could you elaborate?

    Well much of the specifics of my fairness doctrine debate is locked up in a re-imagining entirely of money and the economy's role in society. The ability for most people to pursue their hopes and dreams depends almost if not entirely on their ability to effectively accumulate large amounts of capital support. Capital provides access to both human and natural resources that are often necessary to obtain what you want.

    In my case I see these capital requirements as abhorrent and want to reduce or eliminate them whenever possible because they make your ability to pursue your desires dependent firstly and foremost on your ability to accumulate money. Which is fine if all people had about equal monies, but all people do not have equal monies and those who have accumulated money have spent vast amounts of monies to prevent said equality from occurring.

    Which creates a stacked deck where those with large economic advantages now have vastly unfair access to mediums and methodologies which act as force multipliers upon their words, enabling them to carry an unfair advantage at convincing people what they believe is true and in preventing those beliefs from ever being effectively challenged.

    In brief, imagine only the Rich or the people that the Rich like get access to broadcast their ideology (Capitalism) on TV/Radio because they make it impossible for anyone else to broadcast. They then use this advantage to spread vicious lies and tell everyone else to kill anyone who thinks otherwise then the people who appear on TV/Radio to tell those lies. Then you have lost your freedom to speak in this scenario I would think because while you may technically exercise the pursuit of it through vocalization, art, etc. you are not free from artificial consequences created by the Rich to prevent anyone from challenging their accumulation of capital through their message broadcast on TV/Radio.

    So the salient difference I guess is what level of interference in messaging and for what reasons do you consider interference with someone's ability to explain and advocate their speech to others a violation of their right to speak?

    I hope that all made sense. ^_^;;

    Removing money just means you've taken away one medium of exchange. Exchange of power, or favors, or opportunities, or good, or services, these are all alternatives, and they may be even harder to track, for the sake of transparency. Consider the Soviet Union or China under Mao (and I'm not saying you support either kind of regime). In either, accumulation of political power and influence via various forms of non-monetary exchange were the means of advancement, and the unequal distribution was the defining aspects of inequality.

    I think your concern with money is somewhat of a red herring.

    I think all interference with people's ability to explain and advocate their speech to others is a violation of their right to speak. Some of those violations may be necessary to prevent some other kinds of violations, but I'm not sure what kind of mix is most appropriate, or what exactly I would prefer.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    But there is really no danger of that happening. If it ever did happen then, yes, I would agree, but it doesn't now and I find it hard to believe that speech in this country will ever get to that point.

    Okay, but once you acknowledge that free speech seems to be dependent on limiting the scope & capabilities of publishing agencies, does it not seem to become a self-contradictory concept to you? That is, in order to keep 'freedom of speech' protected, it seems to me that you must necessarily prevent organizations from having too much of the 'speech' market share, for lack of a better term.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited December 2011
    The Ender wrote:
    But there is really no danger of that happening. If it ever did happen then, yes, I would agree, but it doesn't now and I find it hard to believe that speech in this country will ever get to that point.

    Okay, but once you acknowledge that free speech seems to be dependent on limiting the scope & capabilities of publishing agencies, does it not seem to become a self-contradictory concept to you? That is, in order to keep 'freedom of speech' protected, it seems to me that you must necessarily prevent organizations from having too much of the 'speech' market share, for lack of a better term.

    Speech is protected from the government by the first amendment, and it's protected from everything else by the market. The 'speech market' is less concentrated now than it has ever been in the past. Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.

    Tiger Burning on
    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    But there is really no danger of that happening. If it ever did happen then, yes, I would agree, but it doesn't now and I find it hard to believe that speech in this country will ever get to that point.

    Okay, but once you acknowledge that free speech seems to be dependent on limiting the scope & capabilities of publishing agencies, does it not seem to become a self-contradictory concept to you? That is, in order to keep 'freedom of speech' protected, it seems to me that you must necessarily prevent organizations from having too much of the 'speech' market share, for lack of a better term.

    Speech is protected from the government by the first amendment, and it's protected from everything else by the market. The 'speech market' is less concentrated now than it has ever been in the past. Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.
    Air America (formerly Air America Radio and Air America Media) was an American radio network specializing in progressive talk programming. It was on the air for a little less than six years, from March 2004 to January 2010.

    Apparently not.

  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    shryke wrote:
    The Ender wrote:
    But there is really no danger of that happening. If it ever did happen then, yes, I would agree, but it doesn't now and I find it hard to believe that speech in this country will ever get to that point.

    Okay, but once you acknowledge that free speech seems to be dependent on limiting the scope & capabilities of publishing agencies, does it not seem to become a self-contradictory concept to you? That is, in order to keep 'freedom of speech' protected, it seems to me that you must necessarily prevent organizations from having too much of the 'speech' market share, for lack of a better term.

    Speech is protected from the government by the first amendment, and it's protected from everything else by the market. The 'speech market' is less concentrated now than it has ever been in the past. Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.
    Air America (formerly Air America Radio and Air America Media) was an American radio network specializing in progressive talk programming. It was on the air for a little less than six years, from March 2004 to January 2010.

    Apparently not.

    Hehe, Air America. This is proof of what exactly?

    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    mcdermott wrote:
    While I'm not some silly libertarian that doesn't recognize economic duress, I still wouldn't compare this to "gun to the head." I buy the economic duress argument when talking about people at the bottom rungs of society. But for most working in media organizations? Less so. They have the qualifications that they should be able to find employment sufficient to survive elsewhere. The level of economic "force" here just isn't enough for me to find the argument compelling.

    The point isn't about a singular instance of economic duress actually. But rather that considering the full totality of how our society works you cannot say that money's existence hasn't created massive systemic distortions in what people need and want by artificially limiting access to resources both natural and human. In turn this has had a generational compounding effect resulting in more and more ownership as well as more and more scarcity. Yeah maybe the hypothetical journalist can go somewhere else, maybe they can't. But the problem is that at the end of the day? They have been acclimatized to entirely compromise their beliefs, their ideas, and therefore their right and capacity to effectively speak so that they can market themselves to others, so that they can compete for a job, so that they can eat.

    People are coerced at every step into certain levels of conformity as a requirement to merely exist let alone effectively pursuing their own happiness.

    The fact that some people are lucky enough to completely be themselves and manage to make a living doesn't change that the mere act of requiring money to eat/drink for generations has already assured more than a non-trivial segment of the population will value their ability to secure their food and water well above their ability to think, reason or consider differing viewpoints from the authorities which have secured their ability to live (and are in most cases able to simply fire them for no reason or a concocted formalized excuse which boiled down to: They can no longer do their job effectively because my ability to enforce order on their opinions has been compromised.), let alone their ability to pursue means of effective advocacy of said viewpoints. This creates a situation of manufactured consent via silence as most will fall quickly into line rather than consider the possibility of starving on the street.

    But your ability to not starve on the street? That depends entirely on people's willingness to pay you, and when everyone needs to eat to live, that coerces some level of conformity often without second thought. People just understand that in life you go to school, you get educated so you can get employed so you can do whatever it is you want in life. But to be employed? You have to be ready to compromise yourself in some way to market yourself to others. There is just no way around that because even if you're really good at what you do, an employer is under no obligation to hire you because you do better work. So if given the choice between someone who's pleasant to be around and tends to agree vs someone exceptionally skilled? Employers will generally go with the people who're pleasant to work around. There are rare exceptions but in general most employment has historically industrialized and moved away from positions which give the employee equal or greater negotiating power to the employer.

    Pleasant to work around? Code for people who do not rock the boat and upset anyone's sensibilities by being willing to challenge their ideas in debate (among other things.) Sure hypothetical journalist might have relatives or friends, but none of those are givens and their ability or will to support anyone financially are also not givens. So those can't be depended upon as guaranteed avenues of life support, and as there is no ability now to be a mountain man in a shack then that puts the ultimate choice a person makes in society primarily between coerced conformity or eventual starvation. With the level of conformity often associated to your ability to raise larger sums of money (all the highest paying jobs tend to be ones that deal with convincing people to make business deals, advertising, finance, etc.) to support your life that ties the ability to live in any level of comfort as well as pursue any dream you might have with the ability to comply with a work environment to get there.

    So in this case wealth has created systems of education and employment which give severe power imbalances to those with wealth as the wealthy may use their capital advantage to secure anything they need but more often then not the things they need from other people have been made so easily replaceable due to compartmentalization or automation of duties that the wealthy have little to no (with union power declining) incentives to give people (versus other wealth) concessions. Meanwhile the prospective employee has every incentive to comply to the desires of their employer and their ability to assert independence is directly proportional with their capacity to accept a reality of starving on the streets (or losing the ability to pursue whatever their hopes and dreams are) as possible consequence of asserting that independence. This is not a universal state of course but the systemic nature of the coercion today makes the question of the level of true coerced conformity impossible to determine because there is really no alternative way to exist independent of this system.

    When people have been raised from birth to believe automatically that these consequences will exist in some form by being taught that they can only live (or secure the resources necessary to enable their greater happiness) via employment at someone else's pleasure? Near instant coerced conformity. So when considering the level of systemic damage done by that I would think there becomes a very compelling interest to restructure society so that wealth may not continue this system. Which as the holders of wealth, they enable by only being willing to enable your ability to live or secure the resources to enable your own happiness in return for some form of conformity to their norms and you as a person are tasked then with deciding on what level or shape of coerced conformity you will accept as a consequence of your desire to survive or pursue life fulfillment.

    edit:
    Removing money just means you've taken away one medium of exchange. Exchange of power, or favors, or opportunities, or good, or services, these are all alternatives, and they may be even harder to track, for the sake of transparency. Consider the Soviet Union or China under Mao (and I'm not saying you support either kind of regime). In either, accumulation of political power and influence via various forms of non-monetary exchange were the means of advancement, and the unequal distribution was the defining aspects of inequality.

    I think your concern with money is somewhat of a red herring.

    I think all interference with people's ability to explain and advocate their speech to others is a violation of their right to speak. Some of those violations may be necessary to prevent some other kinds of violations, but I'm not sure what kind of mix is most appropriate, or what exactly I would prefer.

    Money is a liquid means of exchanging power though, which makes it very uniquely dangerous because it allows the ability to accumulate vastly unequal amounts of power, hoard it, and through that alone continue to maintain and grow even more vastly unequal amounts of power. Exchange of favors, goods or services rests on a level of reciprocation of interests which will enable both parties making a deal to bargain legitimately on the terms of an agreement as both have something the other wants that they are not able to generally otherwise get with great ease.

    The difficulty in pursuing alternatives is what enables equity in trade because people are required to be fair to get anything at all. In the case of Russia or China though? Yes there weren't monetary exchanges of power but in an authoritarian society there is already vast inequality created by the barrel of a gun coercing your compliance. Indoctrination in unquestioning belief of an authority figure supported by death and torture enables authoritarian societies to function. My point is that all of these are the institutions which enable the same thing in different shapes, mass coercion of involuntary action of people against their greater will. All of which serve to interfere with and stifle speech. Money is merely a more abstracted form of coercion because it can also be a positive incentive versus a negative incentive offered via violent physical force.

    But where does money get its power? Through legal tender laws. What do those equate to? You will go to jail and possibly lose your ability to survive or ever really get a job again if you refuse to honor what the government says is valuable. In the end money is inseparable from violent force for that reason. No one is presented with the true choice of compliance, there is always an inevitable "You or someone you love must do what we say in some form we prefer or you will eventually die in a painful way." If there is no ability for a person to eat, drink, and find shelter entirely absent from coerced conformity then speech can't ever be considered free from interference.

    This is before we even get into how a liquid exchange of power and an economic system that favors accumulation of all material wealth on the planet as "private property" enable the resources which multiply the efficacy of speech and enable quality of life to become severely unequally distributed and hoarded to great effect. (Force multiplication of economic pressure to secure ever greater levels of social compliance.) But even without money this can occur with the barrel of a gun, money just again abstracts the harm away which is what in my mind makes it again, dangerous.

    But it's the coercion required in each which destroys freedom of speech, the coercion enabled by any kind of a society that requires some level of automatic consent to being ruled by some authority (be it the authoritarian state or those who hoard wealth as "private property," which is only enabled by the state's willingness to enforce ownership via systems of organized violence, oppression, and indoctrination) to eat, drink, and find shelter to survive. There is no room for someone to make the decision that they want to be independent that is free from artificially enforced consequences designed to make the choice so unpalatable it will be unthinkable to most.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    No, money is not speech, unless you're saying rich people should/have more freedom of speech than poor people.

    Hint: (They already do.)

    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    The Ender wrote:
    But there is really no danger of that happening. If it ever did happen then, yes, I would agree, but it doesn't now and I find it hard to believe that speech in this country will ever get to that point.

    Okay, but once you acknowledge that free speech seems to be dependent on limiting the scope & capabilities of publishing agencies, does it not seem to become a self-contradictory concept to you? That is, in order to keep 'freedom of speech' protected, it seems to me that you must necessarily prevent organizations from having too much of the 'speech' market share, for lack of a better term.

    Speech is protected from the government by the first amendment, and it's protected from everything else by the market. The 'speech market' is less concentrated now than it has ever been in the past. Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.
    Air America (formerly Air America Radio and Air America Media) was an American radio network specializing in progressive talk programming. It was on the air for a little less than six years, from March 2004 to January 2010.

    Apparently not.

    Hehe, Air America. This is proof of what exactly?
    Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.

    No, it would appear there isn't money to be made in giving everyone a platform to yell from.

    Which kinda scuttles this idea that the glorious free market will provide the venue for all opinions to be heard.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    No, money is not speech, unless you're saying rich people should/have more freedom of speech than poor people.

    Hint: (They already do.)

    Yes, but they already do because they have more money. Because money is speech, in the sense that money leads directly to speech.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    But there is really no danger of that happening. If it ever did happen then, yes, I would agree, but it doesn't now and I find it hard to believe that speech in this country will ever get to that point.

    Okay, but once you acknowledge that free speech seems to be dependent on limiting the scope & capabilities of publishing agencies, does it not seem to become a self-contradictory concept to you? That is, in order to keep 'freedom of speech' protected, it seems to me that you must necessarily prevent organizations from having too much of the 'speech' market share, for lack of a better term.

    So you want me to acknowledge that true freedom is a myth and we have to strike a balance? Okay, sure. But in my opinion, we haven't reached a point in time where we need to worry about this. If and when we ever get to that point I will be singing a different tune.

    steam_sig.png
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    shryke wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    The Ender wrote:
    But there is really no danger of that happening. If it ever did happen then, yes, I would agree, but it doesn't now and I find it hard to believe that speech in this country will ever get to that point.

    Okay, but once you acknowledge that free speech seems to be dependent on limiting the scope & capabilities of publishing agencies, does it not seem to become a self-contradictory concept to you? That is, in order to keep 'freedom of speech' protected, it seems to me that you must necessarily prevent organizations from having too much of the 'speech' market share, for lack of a better term.

    Speech is protected from the government by the first amendment, and it's protected from everything else by the market. The 'speech market' is less concentrated now than it has ever been in the past. Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.
    Air America (formerly Air America Radio and Air America Media) was an American radio network specializing in progressive talk programming. It was on the air for a little less than six years, from March 2004 to January 2010.

    Apparently not.

    Hehe, Air America. This is proof of what exactly?
    Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.

    No, it would appear there isn't money to be made in giving everyone a platform to yell from.

    Which kinda scuttles this idea that the glorious free market will provide the venue for all opinions to be heard.

    Oh boy you got me. Allow me to amend. There are more avenues expression available now, and to more people, than have ever existed in the history of the human race. But, no, you are absolutely right that sometimes people just don't want to listen to you.

    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    shryke wrote:
    No, money is not speech, unless you're saying rich people should/have more freedom of speech than poor people.

    Hint: (They already do.)

    Yes, but they already do because they have more money. Because money is speech, in the sense that money leads directly to speech.

    But so what? I look at his from an artistic perspective too, not solely a political one. It's important to look at it from all perspectives because "speech" encompasses a lot.

    Is someone who is in a financial position to vanity publish and advertise his own work doing something wrong because there are people that can't do that?

    We're discussing scale, I think. Corporations wield a lot of power because they can throw a lot of money around. I still don't think they actively censor or diminish free speech. I do think they elevate their speech above those who cannot afford to disseminate and advertise as readily, but I'm not convinced that that is something Freedom of Speech should be concerned with. If the scale of such a thing gets to the point where speech IS being squashed, then I would agree but I don't think we are there.

    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    Drez on
    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    The Ender wrote:
    But there is really no danger of that happening. If it ever did happen then, yes, I would agree, but it doesn't now and I find it hard to believe that speech in this country will ever get to that point.

    Okay, but once you acknowledge that free speech seems to be dependent on limiting the scope & capabilities of publishing agencies, does it not seem to become a self-contradictory concept to you? That is, in order to keep 'freedom of speech' protected, it seems to me that you must necessarily prevent organizations from having too much of the 'speech' market share, for lack of a better term.

    Speech is protected from the government by the first amendment, and it's protected from everything else by the market. The 'speech market' is less concentrated now than it has ever been in the past. Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.
    Air America (formerly Air America Radio and Air America Media) was an American radio network specializing in progressive talk programming. It was on the air for a little less than six years, from March 2004 to January 2010.

    Apparently not.

    Hehe, Air America. This is proof of what exactly?
    Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.

    No, it would appear there isn't money to be made in giving everyone a platform to yell from.

    Which kinda scuttles this idea that the glorious free market will provide the venue for all opinions to be heard.

    Oh boy you got me. Allow me to amend. There are more avenues expression available now, and to more people, than have ever existed in the history of the human race. But, no, you are absolutely right that sometimes people just don't want to listen to you.

    But is it that people don't want to listen to you or that it's not profitable for people to listen to you?

    The market is what's given us our shitty news media. Real information is not profitable.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    The Ender wrote:
    But there is really no danger of that happening. If it ever did happen then, yes, I would agree, but it doesn't now and I find it hard to believe that speech in this country will ever get to that point.

    Okay, but once you acknowledge that free speech seems to be dependent on limiting the scope & capabilities of publishing agencies, does it not seem to become a self-contradictory concept to you? That is, in order to keep 'freedom of speech' protected, it seems to me that you must necessarily prevent organizations from having too much of the 'speech' market share, for lack of a better term.

    Speech is protected from the government by the first amendment, and it's protected from everything else by the market. The 'speech market' is less concentrated now than it has ever been in the past. Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.
    Air America (formerly Air America Radio and Air America Media) was an American radio network specializing in progressive talk programming. It was on the air for a little less than six years, from March 2004 to January 2010.

    Apparently not.

    Hehe, Air America. This is proof of what exactly?
    Everybody's got an opinion, and there's good money to be made in giving every damn fool a platform to shout it from.

    No, it would appear there isn't money to be made in giving everyone a platform to yell from.

    Which kinda scuttles this idea that the glorious free market will provide the venue for all opinions to be heard.

    The free market does provide a venue for all opinions to be heard. This kind of argument comes up often and I have never seen anyone adequately demonstrate that the wealthy suppress free speech to such a degree that others are unable to adequately disseminate their own speech.

    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    No, money is not speech, unless you're saying rich people should/have more freedom of speech than poor people.

    Hint: (They already do.)

    Yes, but they already do because they have more money. Because money is speech, in the sense that money leads directly to speech.

    But so what? I look at his from an artistic perspective too, not solely a political one. It's important to look at it from all perspectives because "speech" encompasses a lot.

    Is someone who is in a financial position to vanity publish and advertise his own work doing something wrong because there are people that can't do that?

    We're discussing scale, I think. Corporations wield a lot of power because they can throw a lot of money around. I still don't think they actively censor or diminish free speech. I do think they elevate their speech above those who cannot afford to disseminate and advertise as readily, but I'm not convinced that that is something Freedom of Speech should be concerned with. If the scale of such a thing gets to the point where speech IS being squashed, then I would agree but I don't think we are there.

    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    Why shouldn't it? What good is your ability to speak if no one can hear you cause the guy next to you has a megaphone?
    Drez wrote:
    The free market does provide a venue for all opinions to be heard. This kind of argument comes up often and I have never seen anyone adequately demonstrate that the wealthy suppress free speech to such a degree that others are unable to adequately disseminate their own speech.

    Why would they need to suppress it? They just need to overpower it.

    shryke on
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    shryke wrote:
    But is it that people don't want to listen to you or that it's not profitable for people to listen to you?

    The market is what's given us our shitty news media. Real information is not profitable.

    If people had wanted to listen to Air America, Air America would have been profitable.

    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    shryke wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    No, money is not speech, unless you're saying rich people should/have more freedom of speech than poor people.

    Hint: (They already do.)

    Yes, but they already do because they have more money. Because money is speech, in the sense that money leads directly to speech.

    But so what? I look at his from an artistic perspective too, not solely a political one. It's important to look at it from all perspectives because "speech" encompasses a lot.

    Is someone who is in a financial position to vanity publish and advertise his own work doing something wrong because there are people that can't do that?

    We're discussing scale, I think. Corporations wield a lot of power because they can throw a lot of money around. I still don't think they actively censor or diminish free speech. I do think they elevate their speech above those who cannot afford to disseminate and advertise as readily, but I'm not convinced that that is something Freedom of Speech should be concerned with. If the scale of such a thing gets to the point where speech IS being squashed, then I would agree but I don't think we are there.

    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    Why shouldn't it? What good is your ability to speak if no one can hear you cause the guy next to you has a megaphone?

    I would say that "guy standing next to you with a megaphone" is a false analogy to wide and varied system of speech we have today which protects and promotes the lone voice in the wilderness to a far greater degree than ever before.

    I'm also personally of the opinion that the bias of listening to the loudest person is as much a problem of the listener as the society that hands out the megaphones.

    Drez on
    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    No, money is not speech, unless you're saying rich people should/have more freedom of speech than poor people.

    Hint: (They already do.)

    Yes, but they already do because they have more money. Because money is speech, in the sense that money leads directly to speech.

    But so what? I look at his from an artistic perspective too, not solely a political one. It's important to look at it from all perspectives because "speech" encompasses a lot.

    Is someone who is in a financial position to vanity publish and advertise his own work doing something wrong because there are people that can't do that?

    We're discussing scale, I think. Corporations wield a lot of power because they can throw a lot of money around. I still don't think they actively censor or diminish free speech. I do think they elevate their speech above those who cannot afford to disseminate and advertise as readily, but I'm not convinced that that is something Freedom of Speech should be concerned with. If the scale of such a thing gets to the point where speech IS being squashed, then I would agree but I don't think we are there.

    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    Why shouldn't it? What good is your ability to speak if no one can hear you cause the guy next to you has a megaphone?

    I would say that "guy standing next to you with a megaphone" is a false analogy to wide and varied system of speech we have today which protects and promotes the lone voice in the wilderness to a far greater degree than ever before.

    I'm also personally of the opinion that the bias of listening to the loudest person is as much a problem of the listener as the society that hands out the megaphones.

    How many people watch the nightly news compared to, say, reading someone's personal blog.

    There's a huge variety of ways to get your speech out there. They are not all equal. And they are gated in large part by access to money.

    shryke on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    But is it that people don't want to listen to you or that it's not profitable for people to listen to you?

    The market is what's given us our shitty news media. Real information is not profitable.

    If people had wanted to listen to Air America, Air America would have been profitable.

    Right and look what that has gotten us.

    Or do you think the news is good right now?

  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    In aggregate? Better than it's ever been.

    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    No, money is not speech, unless you're saying rich people should/have more freedom of speech than poor people.

    Hint: (They already do.)

    Yes, but they already do because they have more money. Because money is speech, in the sense that money leads directly to speech.

    But so what? I look at his from an artistic perspective too, not solely a political one. It's important to look at it from all perspectives because "speech" encompasses a lot.

    Is someone who is in a financial position to vanity publish and advertise his own work doing something wrong because there are people that can't do that?

    We're discussing scale, I think. Corporations wield a lot of power because they can throw a lot of money around. I still don't think they actively censor or diminish free speech. I do think they elevate their speech above those who cannot afford to disseminate and advertise as readily, but I'm not convinced that that is something Freedom of Speech should be concerned with. If the scale of such a thing gets to the point where speech IS being squashed, then I would agree but I don't think we are there.

    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    Why shouldn't it? What good is your ability to speak if no one can hear you cause the guy next to you has a megaphone?

    I would say that "guy standing next to you with a megaphone" is a false analogy to wide and varied system of speech we have today which protects and promotes the lone voice in the wilderness to a far greater degree than ever before.

    I'm also personally of the opinion that the bias of listening to the loudest person is as much a problem of the listener as the society that hands out the megaphones.

    How many people watch the nightly news compared to, say, reading someone's personal blog.

    Probably a lot more watch the nightly news. I'm not disputing that. I just don't think that is a sufficient argument in favor of restricting the amount of speech a wealthy organization should be allowed to disseminate. In fact, I think the idea that all speech should be treated equally is a ruinous concept and not at all what Freedom of Speech means. Freedom of Speech means that people should not, ultimately, be restricted in disseminating their thoughts across any medium. Now, if a given corporation suddenly acquires a monopoly of control over a specific medium - which Fox News does not have - then I would agree with you here that there would be a problem. But we are not at that point.

    That more people watch the news than read blogs isn't exactly the fault of Fox News. And even if it was, I don't think that is very relevant. A blog is a voice. Fox News cannot stop anyone from speaking. If they suddenly owned every TV network, then yes, we'd have a problem. They don't. People still have feasible methods of getting their speech out there.

    Frankly, I don't think "free" necessarily needs to mean "equal," at least not insofar as this topic is concerned. (In other topics, yes, of course free and equal are inseparable. So let's not go off on a tangent there. I am talking about speech. People are free to communicate and as long as the speech isn't being restricted and other people are free to listen to the speech, then I think it satisfies the conditions of free speech.)

    steam_sig.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    If people had wanted to listen to Air America, Air America would have been profitable.

    No, that's not true. Lot's of people wanted to listen to Glenn Beck, for example, and lots of people enjoy listening to Alex Jones - but Beck was cancelled and Jones runs his own studio out of his own pocket. Why is that? Because advertisers & program licensing pays the bills, not the audience.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote:
    Well, to be clear, money isn't speech, but a restriction on spending money on speech is a restriction on speech. Which is what 'freedom of speech' and the 1st Amendment are about. No one is entitled to any particular amount of speech, but the government is generally prohibited from placing restrictions on it.

    Except that considering "spending money on speech" to be legally and Constitutionally equivalent to actual speech opens up some huge loopholes when it comes to the government regulating commercial activity in certain industries.

    For example, if money is speech, then should the government be able to prevent media consolidation in major media markets?

    Also, I'm unconvinced that limiting the amount of money that can be, say, donated to political campaigns, is an actual infringement of speech, since there's no restriction on who or what can be donated to, and the restrictions are applied equally to all citizens.

    If {buying the means to reach a wide audience} = {speech}, then buying telecom or broadcast bandwidth or technology is also speech, which basically means the government has little to no power to regulate telecommunications, communications, or broadcast companies. This is a patently ridiculous doctrine.

    Commece clearly enables speech. A tyrannical government could theoretically limit speech by limiting commerce. But it could also do this by regulating transportation (you can't occupy wall street if you can't get to wall street), real estate and zoning (sorry, this is a "no billboards no signs no megaphones residential district"), education and professional licensing, or any number of other intermediary activities. We expect the government to regulate these things fairly, without discrimination or efforts at censorship.

    When an activity (including commerce) enables speech, we need to respect that and be careful about how we regulate it, but it is a mistake to conflate it with speech itself.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Drez wrote:
    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    ...you have seen what's been happening in the UK with regards to NewsCorp (Fox's parent company), right?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    In aggregate? Better than it's ever been.

    But is it good?

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Drez wrote:
    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    ...you have seen what's been happening in the UK with regards to NewsCorp (Fox's parent company), right?

    I'm not defending Fox News or NewsCorp. If you're referring to the phone hacking incidents, then yes I have seen them, but I consider that a separate issue to what is being discussed here. NewsCorp being corrupt doesn't have much bearing on the topic of whether or not wealth causes unfair restriction of speech for those without wealth. NewsCorp shouldn't have done what they did anyway. If the phone hacking thing never happened, this particular discussion would be unchanged.

    If you are referring to something else, though, please enlighten me. To be honest, I avoid Fox News and anything they touch. Actually I try to avoid Fox too.

    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    No, money is not speech, unless you're saying rich people should/have more freedom of speech than poor people.

    Hint: (They already do.)

    Yes, but they already do because they have more money. Because money is speech, in the sense that money leads directly to speech.

    But so what? I look at his from an artistic perspective too, not solely a political one. It's important to look at it from all perspectives because "speech" encompasses a lot.

    Is someone who is in a financial position to vanity publish and advertise his own work doing something wrong because there are people that can't do that?

    We're discussing scale, I think. Corporations wield a lot of power because they can throw a lot of money around. I still don't think they actively censor or diminish free speech. I do think they elevate their speech above those who cannot afford to disseminate and advertise as readily, but I'm not convinced that that is something Freedom of Speech should be concerned with. If the scale of such a thing gets to the point where speech IS being squashed, then I would agree but I don't think we are there.

    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    Why shouldn't it? What good is your ability to speak if no one can hear you cause the guy next to you has a megaphone?

    I would say that "guy standing next to you with a megaphone" is a false analogy to wide and varied system of speech we have today which protects and promotes the lone voice in the wilderness to a far greater degree than ever before.

    I'm also personally of the opinion that the bias of listening to the loudest person is as much a problem of the listener as the society that hands out the megaphones.

    How many people watch the nightly news compared to, say, reading someone's personal blog.

    Probably a lot more watch the nightly news. I'm not disputing that. I just don't think that is a sufficient argument in favor of restricting the amount of speech a wealthy organization should be allowed to disseminate. In fact, I think the idea that all speech should be treated equally is a ruinous concept and not at all what Freedom of Speech means. Freedom of Speech means that people should not, ultimately, be restricted in disseminating their thoughts across any medium. Now, if a given corporation suddenly acquires a monopoly of control over a specific medium - which Fox News does not have - then I would agree with you here that there would be a problem. But we are not at that point.

    That more people watch the news than read blogs isn't exactly the fault of Fox News. And even if it was, I don't think that is very relevant. A blog is a voice. Fox News cannot stop anyone from speaking. If they suddenly owned every TV network, then yes, we'd have a problem. They don't. People still have feasible methods of getting their speech out there.

    Frankly, I don't think "free" necessarily needs to mean "equal," at least not insofar as this topic is concerned. (In other topics, yes, of course free and equal are inseparable. So let's not go off on a tangent there. I am talking about speech. People are free to communicate and as long as the speech isn't being restricted and other people are free to listen to the speech, then I think it satisfies the conditions of free speech.)

    Then of what use is free speech?

    Here, you are free to say whatever you want, you just can't do so in a way that anyone can hear you.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Commece clearly enables speech. A tyrannical government could theoretically limit speech by limiting commerce. But it could also do this by regulating transportation (you can't occupy wall street if you can't get to wall street), real estate and zoning (sorry, this is a "no billboards no signs no megaphones residential district"), education and professional licensing, or any number of other intermediary activities. We expect the government to regulate these things fairly, without discrimination or efforts at censorship.

    But even a non-tyrannical government must necessarily impose limits on speech & expression in order to:

    a) protect everyone's other rights

    b) allow the society to function

    For example, you might ideologically take the opinion that, if someone wants to, they can march outside and start screaming nonsense & obscenities at their neighbours. In reality, we don't allow this (and you don't even allow it in the states), and for good reason.

    The Ender on
    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Drez wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    ...you have seen what's been happening in the UK with regards to NewsCorp (Fox's parent company), right?

    I'm not defending Fox News or NewsCorp. If you're referring to the phone hacking incidents, then yes I have seen them, but I consider that a separate issue to what is being discussed here. NewsCorp being corrupt doesn't have much bearing on the topic of whether or not wealth causes unfair restriction of speech for those without wealth. NewsCorp shouldn't have done what they did anyway. If the phone hacking thing never happened, this particular discussion would be unchanged.

    If you are referring to something else, though, please enlighten me. To be honest, I avoid Fox News and anything they touch. Actually I try to avoid Fox too.

    You mean you didn't read about how people were afraid to speak against them in the UK because they didn't want to be subject to illegal investigations and such?

    The idea of the "Bully Pulpit" exists for a reason.

  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited December 2011
    shryke wrote:
    In aggregate? Better than it's ever been.

    But is it good?

    Yes. I am [X] Satisfied with the quality and quantity of information made available to me by the many news sources I have access to.
    You mean you didn't read about how people were afraid to speak against them in the UK because they didn't want to be subject to illegal investigations and such?

    The key word there is "illegal".

    Tiger Burning on
    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    In aggregate? Better than it's ever been.

    But is it good?

    Yes. I am [X] Satisfied with the quality and quantity of information made available to me by the many news sources I have access to.

    So you are either a silly goose or you have backed yourself into supporting a ridiculous position. Interesting.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Drez wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    ...you have seen what's been happening in the UK with regards to NewsCorp (Fox's parent company), right?

    I'm not defending Fox News or NewsCorp. If you're referring to the phone hacking incidents, then yes I have seen them, but I consider that a separate issue to what is being discussed here. NewsCorp being corrupt doesn't have much bearing on the topic of whether or not wealth causes unfair restriction of speech for those without wealth. NewsCorp shouldn't have done what they did anyway. If the phone hacking thing never happened, this particular discussion would be unchanged.

    If you are referring to something else, though, please enlighten me. To be honest, I avoid Fox News and anything they touch. Actually I try to avoid Fox too.

    You might want to read the phone hacking thread, because the matter's been discussed in detail there. But in short, up until NI's dirty laundry got hung out to dry, they had managed to, in a very real manner, suborn British society to their will.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    shryke wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    In aggregate? Better than it's ever been.

    But is it good?

    Yes. I am [X] Satisfied with the quality and quantity of information made available to me by the many news sources I have access to.

    So you are either a silly goose or you have backed yourself into supporting a ridiculous position. Interesting.

    Well then! So, because, presumably, you consider yourself well informed, tell us - what is the secret well from which you draw the untainted Truth? Share with us so that we might learn from your example where we ought get our news, since getting news from the news is so ridiculous. Don't be stingy.

    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    No, money is not speech, unless you're saying rich people should/have more freedom of speech than poor people.

    Hint: (They already do.)

    Yes, but they already do because they have more money. Because money is speech, in the sense that money leads directly to speech.

    But so what? I look at his from an artistic perspective too, not solely a political one. It's important to look at it from all perspectives because "speech" encompasses a lot.

    Is someone who is in a financial position to vanity publish and advertise his own work doing something wrong because there are people that can't do that?

    We're discussing scale, I think. Corporations wield a lot of power because they can throw a lot of money around. I still don't think they actively censor or diminish free speech. I do think they elevate their speech above those who cannot afford to disseminate and advertise as readily, but I'm not convinced that that is something Freedom of Speech should be concerned with. If the scale of such a thing gets to the point where speech IS being squashed, then I would agree but I don't think we are there.

    It's one thing to argue that Fox News has a lot of sway with people because of how entrenched they are in society and how much they can spend to disseminate their ideas and it's another to suggest that they are directly responsible for preventing other ideas of being disseminated and by extension assimilated. I don't agree that Fox News wields this kind of power yet, or that they ever will.

    Why shouldn't it? What good is your ability to speak if no one can hear you cause the guy next to you has a megaphone?

    I would say that "guy standing next to you with a megaphone" is a false analogy to wide and varied system of speech we have today which protects and promotes the lone voice in the wilderness to a far greater degree than ever before.

    I'm also personally of the opinion that the bias of listening to the loudest person is as much a problem of the listener as the society that hands out the megaphones.

    How many people watch the nightly news compared to, say, reading someone's personal blog.

    Probably a lot more watch the nightly news. I'm not disputing that. I just don't think that is a sufficient argument in favor of restricting the amount of speech a wealthy organization should be allowed to disseminate. In fact, I think the idea that all speech should be treated equally is a ruinous concept and not at all what Freedom of Speech means. Freedom of Speech means that people should not, ultimately, be restricted in disseminating their thoughts across any medium. Now, if a given corporation suddenly acquires a monopoly of control over a specific medium - which Fox News does not have - then I would agree with you here that there would be a problem. But we are not at that point.

    That more people watch the news than read blogs isn't exactly the fault of Fox News. And even if it was, I don't think that is very relevant. A blog is a voice. Fox News cannot stop anyone from speaking. If they suddenly owned every TV network, then yes, we'd have a problem. They don't. People still have feasible methods of getting their speech out there.

    Frankly, I don't think "free" necessarily needs to mean "equal," at least not insofar as this topic is concerned. (In other topics, yes, of course free and equal are inseparable. So let's not go off on a tangent there. I am talking about speech. People are free to communicate and as long as the speech isn't being restricted and other people are free to listen to the speech, then I think it satisfies the conditions of free speech.)

    Then of what use is free speech?

    Here, you are free to say whatever you want, you just can't do so in a way that anyone can hear you.

    People can hear you. The megaphone analogy is, as I said, not accurate. Fox News doesn't "drown out" the various blogs and newsletters and whatever else that exists. And if Fox News did not exist, none of the people writing blogs and newsletters would be in any better position to disseminate their ideas than they are now. So basically, all you want to do is limit how much Fox News is allowed to fill people's heads with their own ideas. I can understand why you would want this, but I am not at all comfortable with the idea. It is censorship in and of itself, to absolutely no purpose except to cut the speech of some organizations down to a quieter level. I don't see how that is much better than the situation we have now. Freedom of Speech is more than an amendment: It's a cultural concept and inherent in that is an element of successful speech. To suggest that we should somehow concern ourselves with equalizing dissemination is a frightening task, and I think ultimately an impossible one.

    Anyway, my point is that anyone can hear anyone and Fox News hasn't done a single thing to work against that. Their existence has no negative bearing on Freedom of Speech - for the ability of the less wealthy to disseminate speech, or to be heard. The law shouldn't be concerned with whether or not people want to hear you or choose to listen to you. The government shouldn't ensure that all speech has equal traction in society. That would be impossible. Political discourse as well as art and culture and all other forms of speech are fluid, and society should largely dictate within itself what it listens to. Fox News hasn't eaten up every media pipeline to the point where people have to go through them to speak. And it will never happen, either. So whether society listens to Fox News or they read Shryke's Soliloquies is up to society.

    You and others keep arguing the idea that Fox News is standing there with a megaphone blaring out and blanketing all other speech and I see no evidence of it and you have yet to provide any. "People aren't reading blogs" isn't even remotely evidence of this. It just means that Fox News is good at exploiting the basic human need for shiny things, which I don't entirely blame Fox News for, as shitty as they are.

    steam_sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.