Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Latent racism in the republican party?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 16 of 45 (520764)
08-23-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
08-22-2009 11:14 AM


Straggler responds to me:
quote:
Pardon my ignorance but can I ask a couple of questions:
No worries. We're talking about a media corporation from a country foreign to you.
quote:
1) How is PBS funded?
The US Public Broadcasting Service is funded primarily by private donations, both from individual members of the public as well as from corporations and other non-profit organizations (about 60% of funding). For the longest time, it was non-commercial and even today, one could say that it isn't really that commercial. At the ends of shows, there would be a funding statement: "Funding for this program was provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and viewers like you." More recently, businesses have become involved in the funding and the ends of the programs have a slightly more commercial tinge: "Funding for this program is brought to you by , who reminds you that ."
Various PBS stations produce their own content and then distribute it throughout the network. Each station is independently run and will purchase whatever programming they think will do well in their broadcast area. Many programs are extremely popular and thus will probably be run throughout the network such as Sesame Street and Nova. Others may require some convincing. The programming costs money not only to produce (thus the funding statements at the end of the programming) but also for the individual station to purchase for broadcast. Thus, WGBH (Boston) is the station that produces the program Nova. In order for KPBS (San Diego) to broadcast it, they need to pay for it. Throughout the year, PBS stations will have a "pledge drive" where they will display special-event style programming, interrupting it frequently to request donations.
Then there is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This was a private, non-profit organization founded by the US Government in 1967 in the Johnson administration. It provides about 20% of the budget of public broadcasting stations (the remaining 20% comes from state and local taxes.) It provides funding to PBS and NPR (National Public Radio) to assist in the production and purchasing of content for broadcast.
In 2009, the CPB budget from Congress was about $400 million. By mandate, no more than 5% of the CPB budget can go to overhead with another 6% reserved for the infrastructure of the network (rather than to an individual station).
quote:
2) The fear with any "state" broadcaster is that it will effectively be a mouthpiece for the government. What measures are in place to avoid this?
Well, much of it is statutory. While the largest source of funding is from private donation, the CPB is a significant source of income and it has requirements for those stations that will receive money. When the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was founded, it had a dictate to maintain "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature."
Too, in order to receive funds, the station must abide by certain methods of conduct such as holding open meetings, having a community advisory board, open records regarding donors and political activities, etc.
Since the primary source of funding for PBS stations is private donation and since PBS stations can purchase content from anywhere (you will find a lot of British-sourced programming on PBS: The US knows of Monty Python because it was broadcast on PBS. We also only know of Are You Being Served, Waiting for God, and a host of made-for-TV dramas because they were made by British television, bought by PBS, and broadcast here), the federal government doesn't have a huge amount of control. Instead, it is local authority that provides more issues of concern.
For example, in 1991 the PBS-produced series P.O.V. included a documentary by Marlon Riggs regarding homophobia, racism, and AIDS, Tongues Untied. While it included no actual sexual content, it discussed sexuality in a very frank nature. Many PBS stations decided not to air that episode which they have the ability to do as they are independent. And since P.O.V. was produced with CPB money, there was an outcry that government funds were being used to propagate "pornographic art" (Pat Buchanan).
That said, please note that this was from 1991 when George Bush was president.
The rest comes from the general mission of PBS and from local advisory boards regarding content. This is what I was saying before regarding those who look to work in public service: The attitude and incentives are different since you're not working for profit. This doesn't mean that there is no influence. During the last Bush administration, there were quite a few scandals regarding the CPB and PBS regarding ethics violations as the Bushies tried to turn PBS into a version of Fox.
Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the CPB in 2005, told PBS officials that, "They should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate." He secretly hired a consultant to monitor NOW with Bill Moyers in an attempt to have it be shown as "liberally biased" (since Moyers was routinely critical of the Bush administration). Moyers resigned in protest after more than 30 years on PBS and then came back after Tomlinson was forced to resign.
However, PBS was then made to bring on Tucker Carlson, a right-wing commentator, to have his own commentary show but it was received so poorly that it was dropped by PBS (and picked up by Fox News Channel).
quote:
3) Is PBS commercial in any sense? Is it, like the BBC, advert free? Does it take the same sort of lengths as the BBC to remain brand impartial (e.g. covering brand logos on TV programmes)
Not as such. As mentioned before, PBS is essentially commercial-free. Unlike network TV, PBS programming does not contain commercials during the show. However, before and after the program, there will be mention of where funding for the programming came. In the past, this was mostly of the plaque-listing-donors type: A brief statement listing the really big contributors and a plug to remind you to donate ("Viewers like you.") More recently, businesses have been donating in order to make sure that their company name (rather than a non-profit arm of the company set up to do public service funding) is listed. For programs like Hometime, This Old House, and The New Yankee Workshop where the show is about do-it-yourself home improvement, having the show funded by companies that make tools makes a bit of sense and seeing those bits at the end isn't quite as slimy feeling.
Contrast this to other instances such as children's programming funded by food companies.
But during the program itself, there is no attempt to hide corporate identities, though they don't make endorsements, either. For example, The New Yankee Workshop is funded by Minwax which makes stains, waxes, and varnishes for woodworking and Delta which makes power tools. The show is all about making furniture using powertools and thus, you see Norm Abram working on table saws, using routers, and staining and varnishing the pieces, but he never mentions brands, the camera does not seek out the logo to display it, or anything along those lines.
quote:
4) Is it international in any sense or US based and available only.
Well, since some might say that half of the shows on PBS were originally produced by the BBC, why wouldn't it go the other way? Anybody can produce a program for PBS...it's just a question of getting the stations to purchase it for broadcast. PBS doesn't have any central progamming studio (though NPR does) and thus the vast majority of programming you see on your local PBS station was produced somewhere else. Certain stations have large production studios (WGBH in Boston, KQET in San Francisco, WNET in New York), but it's still produced locally to be sold to other stations.
WGBH in Boston, since it is so successful, has gone international. They've been so successful that they are now known as "PBS International."
quote:
5) To bring back vaguely on topic - What is the PBS take on Obama? Does it have opinion based reporting? Or is it purely dry factual content only?
That would depend upon the program. There is no centralized authority and commentary made during The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer will be different from commentary made during Charlie Rose.
NPR, which does have a centralized programming source (though again, most of the content is produced by stations and then distributed), tends to be more neutral though it has fallen prey to complaints about "bias" and is drifting toward journalism-as-stenography. However, NPR has long-format policy discussion shows so rather than have a program that flits across as many topics as can possibly be fit into half an hour, they will discuss only one or two.
quote:
I hadn't really heard of PBS until you mentioned it here. That is why I am asking. I guess ultimately my point of comparison is the BBC so in what ways is it similar or different are the most obvious questions for me to ask.
No worries. The workings of another country's television network aren't exactly public knowledge. In fact, I very much doubt most people here in the US understand how PBS works.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2009 11:14 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2009 12:28 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 17 of 45 (520769)
08-23-2009 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Artemis Entreri
08-21-2009 3:29 PM


Junior
Artemis Enteri writes:
somehow calling one man Dubya is cool and calling the next one Hussein is not.
you guys and your double standards.
Should call him junior. For one thing he really hates it and for another, he really earned it.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-21-2009 3:29 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 18 of 45 (520841)
08-24-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rrhain
08-23-2009 10:00 PM


Impressively Thorough
That was about the most impressively thorough response to my questions as could have been hoped for!
I am going to look up PBS and it's programming for myself (maybe find some clips from some of the news shows you mention). Then maybe I'll come back with some more comments or questions if the topic of TV bias/propaganda and more specifically treating news programmes as entertainment/distractions rather than sources of genuine information, develops in this thread.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 08-23-2009 10:00 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 19 of 45 (520842)
08-24-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
08-08-2009 12:42 AM


The intolerance of tolerance
So, the question again. Why is the country tolerating this crap?
Because it's a free country. In a free society you should be allowed to be a latent or blatant racist if you want. Let them suffer the adverse consequences for their actions and/or beliefs. So long as it doesn't infringe upon another persons freedom, let them be miserable racists.
That's the funny thing about the tolerance and intolerance. We're quick to point out others intolerances, but never seem to remember that their idea of "tolerance" ends up being, by the very nature of it, intolerant of countering views.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 08-08-2009 12:42 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Perdition, posted 08-24-2009 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 08-24-2009 4:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 20 of 45 (520848)
08-24-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Hyroglyphx
08-24-2009 12:35 PM


Re: The intolerance of tolerance
So long as it doesn't infringe upon another persons freedom, let them be miserable racists.
But this is the crux, right here. If someone's being a racist, they're often (though not always) at the very least, advocating infringing another's freedoms. For instance, the attitude that a "Muslim" shouldn't be able to be President is an implied (and effective) call to infringe on an American Muslim's ability to realistically run for a public office, of which the only limiting factors are clearly laid out in the Constitution...religion not being one of them.
So, even you allow that infringing on another's freedoms is a reason to stop certain racist actions. We would just disagree on what constitutes infringement of freedoms and the best way to counter those cases where we do agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 12:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 2:33 PM Perdition has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 45 (520858)
08-24-2009 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Perdition
08-24-2009 1:16 PM


Re: The intolerance of tolerance
But this is the crux, right here. If someone's being a racist, they're often (though not always) at the very least, advocating infringing another's freedoms.
And there is another crux. Infringing on someone's rights for talking about suggesting to infringe someone else's rights inherently infringes rights. Whew!!! You get all that, cuz I'm kind of turned around right now? That was complicated.
What I mean is, if someone "talks" about infringing someone else's rights, they haven't done it and may not even have the ability to. They may just be trying to drum up support. But it's still speech. Where speech is no longer protected is through the litmus test of "clear and present danger."
For instance, the attitude that a "Muslim" shouldn't be able to be President is an implied (and effective) call to infringe on an American Muslim's ability to realistically run for a public office, of which the only limiting factors are clearly laid out in the Constitution...religion not being one of them.
The guying mentioning that the President's middle name is "Hussein" doesn't qualify him to be effectively trying to infringe upon the rights of all Muslims or that it's somehow a call to arms. Lets be realistic here.
So, even you allow that infringing on another's freedoms is a reason to stop certain racist actions. We would just disagree on what constitutes infringement of freedoms and the best way to counter those cases where we do agree.
Clear and present danger, acting in defense of the First Amendment is all that is needed.

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Perdition, posted 08-24-2009 1:16 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Rahvin, posted 08-24-2009 4:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 26 by Perdition, posted 08-24-2009 5:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 22 of 45 (520865)
08-24-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Straggler
08-21-2009 3:43 PM


BBC = Propaganda weapon
Hey Straggler,
OK, is your aluminum cap secure? Mine's on reeeal tight . . .
Straggler writes:
BBC TV (within Britain at least) is entirely advert free.
Read (link below) how in absence of corporate control the BBC uses other filters in their propaganda model:
1. Government appointments: The director general and the board of governors
2. Economic constraints and the licence fee as control mechanism
3. Sourcing
4. Flak
5. The War on Terror- the dominant discourse
If Monbiot is correct and the BBC is "freer" than the rest of the media we would expect that its performance during the [Iraq] war would be substantially, (or at the very least detectably) superior to other broadcasters. What little research there has been indicates otherwise.
Yet how can this be since the BBC unlike its commercial rivals is "free"? The answer, (as in the case of the North Korean media) is of course is that the BBC is not free at all, but is merely subject to different forms of control.
"One might think that an urgent task for the British left would be to educate the public about an institution that should properly be regarded as the most dangerous propaganda weapon in the country."
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/6920
Manufacturing Consent - Wikipedia
Edited by dronester, : Added Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky website plug.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Straggler, posted 08-21-2009 3:43 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2009 5:43 PM dronestar has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 23 of 45 (520868)
08-24-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
08-24-2009 2:33 PM


Re: The intolerance of tolerance
Racism is not illegal. Never has been, at least in this country. Only when someone acts on their beliefs in a way that would otherwise break the law anyway (say, assault, murder, libel, discriminatory hiring practices, etc) is racism confronted by the force of law.
The KKK still exists, and they're allowed to say whatever they want and believe whatever they want so long as they don't actually incite violence. When they do so, those responsible are prosecuted. Thanksfully we no longer live in the days when the entire legal establishment in a locality is dominated by the Klan and its sympathizers, and so they are no longer above the law.
But just as hate speech is not illegal in the US, neither is nonviolent confrontation of bigots and hatemongers. The court of public opinion is not the same as a court of law; identifying someone as a racist carries no legal ramifications, but can carry significant social consequences.
"Tolerance" and "intolerance" are words that get very easily tied up in semantics; is intolerance of those who are intolerant itself intolerance? Does respecting different points of view mean we need to tolerate those who perpetrate such atrocities as female genital mutilation?
In many cases, people are labeled as bigots for identifying bigots.
The fact is, freedom of speech flows in all directions. Untrue statements are even legal, so long as actual slander and libel are avoided - and those are ridiculously difficult to prove in the US from the start. Most importantly, freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the government. You will never face criminal penalties for dropping the n-bomb, but there is absolutely no guarantee that your ability to speak without fearing imprisonment protects you from being socially ostracised, losing your job, and generally being ridiculed as a worthless bigot who's wasting oxygen.
Public opinion is a fickle thing. Not all that many years ago, dropping the n-word or speaking hatefully about homosexuality wouldn't have had any consequences - and in fact could have been met with social acceptance and approval. Some of the same things that will get you fired today would have been met with a laugh and a pat on the back 80, 50, even 40 years ago.
In the US, we typically hold the freedom of speech to be sacrosanct. That reverence carries consequences, which many people seem to forget from time to time. Whenever a person says "he shouldn't be allowed to say that," that person should think twice about how we should decide how ideas are propagated, and which ones are allowed to be communicated. We should and can, however, make social judgements. When Fred Phelps visits a funeral to spew hate speech, you cannot call the police on him any more than he can have me arrested for calling him a lunatic racist hatemongering douchebag who would do the world a service if he were to renounce everything he's ever said and then immolate himself as penance.
Being tolerant means we have to legally allow even that which we consider barbaric and repugnant. That which is met with public derision is exactly that which needs protection the most.
But that necessity does not mean that we must remain silent. Tolerance does not mean acceptance or agreement; it does not even mean respect. It means that no matter how much we may find something to be despicable, we can speak against it as much as we want but we cannot legislate against an idea, or a word.
It's important to remember that many of the ideas we take for granted today would have been met with public ridicule and outrage yesterday. Abortion, homosexuality, atheism, and a slew of other ideas and words would be (and in some cases still are) met with the exact same sort of revulsion that today the majority feels towards racism.
You cannot legislate the dictates of a man's conscience; you can only legislate his actions. But you can ridicule, deride, and insult ideas in peruit of your own conscience.
When bigots complain about "reverse-discrimiantion," or whine when they get fired for making comments about "nappy-headed ho's," they're really just upset that public opinion doesn't agree with their views. Claims of "intolerance" in such cases are outright false - nobody was arrested for making racial comments on the radio. Imus' opinions and words were tolerated. But since his employer (and perhaps more importantly their advertisers and audience at large) did not share those opinions, they were well within their rights to follow the dictates of their own conscience and terminate his employment. After all, you don't have the right to hold a specific job. In a different era, Imus' comment wouldn't even have been a blip on the radar. He had ever right to say what he said, but the rest of us had the right to decide whether we liket it or not, and his employer had the right to decide whether they wanted to give him a microphone. Unfortunately for him, racism today is met with scorn and anger. Fortunately for him, even revolting speech is protected, and he wasn't sent to jail.
In the case of Barack Obama and the idiotic "stealth Muslim" conspiracy, you cannot legislate against an idea. If a group of people honestly believes that a Muslim cannot be President, you cannot force them through legal means to vote for one, or a person they perceive to be Muslim. You cannot legally force them to be silent, and neither should you, any more than they should be able to silence your ability to identify them as racist douchebags who have no idea what they're talking about at best, and are outright lying at worst. Identifying them as bigots does not, by itself, make you a bigot.
In a battle of words and opinions, everyone loses when handcuffs end the dispute. Nobody convinces anyone to change their views through violence or imprisonment. Oulawing racist ideas only serves the purpose of convincing racists that there is some (insert racial slur here) conspiracy against them. Every single time where human beings have tried to use governmental authority to force the dictates of conscience, disaster and oppression have resulted. Only by allowing free expression even for the most hateful of ideas can we ensure that we do not combat one evil with an even greater one.
When someone (say, Buzsaw) says that Barack Obama is an evil Muslimwho wasn't born in the US and is technically not President and he's a stealth agent for terrorists and he's going to take over the country and take away Bibles and force Korans into schools and take away guns and destroy [strike]Sparta[/strike] [strike]freedom![/strike] America, he has every right to do so, and should be allowed to speak his mind. Period. Until he actually suggests taking an action that would break the law and enters into conspiracy to commit a criminal act, his speech and opinions are protected.
The rest of us then have the right to express ourselves and proceed to mock, ridicule, insult, and deride that person to our hearts' content.
To paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall:
quote:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. And then brutally mock you for it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 24 of 45 (520870)
08-24-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Hyroglyphx
08-24-2009 12:35 PM


Re: The intolerance of tolerance
Hyroglyphx writes:
Because it's a free country. In a free society you should be allowed to be a latent or blatant racist if you want. Let them suffer the adverse consequences for their actions and/or beliefs. So long as it doesn't infringe upon another persons freedom, let them be miserable racists.
That's the funny thing about the tolerance and intolerance. We're quick to point out others intolerances, but never seem to remember that their idea of "tolerance" ends up being, by the very nature of it, intolerant of countering views.
You misunderstood my point.
I can confidently say that I am one of the biggest advocates of free speech that I know of. I fully support people's right to say "nigger" anytime they want. I fully support people's right to say "chink" anytime they want.
But it's no longer fashionable to admit one as a racist or bigot. I remember attending a lecture by the KKK. Even the KKK swear up and down they're not racist or bigot. All they wanted to do, or so they claimed, was to keep the races separate just like the way god intended.
Do you understand me? These are obvious racists. And yet, they were voted into office. At their rallies, racists freely spouted racist speeches.
If the KKK are running a campaign to distant themselves from the racist image and the people at McCain and Palin rallies yelled out hate speeches, what does that tell you about the attitude of the country as a whole for ignoring something like that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 12:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 4:47 PM Taz has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 25 of 45 (520875)
08-24-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taz
08-24-2009 4:17 PM


Re: The intolerance of tolerance
If the KKK are running a campaign to distant themselves from the racist image and the people at McCain and Palin rallies yelled out hate speeches, what does that tell you about the attitude of the country as a whole for ignoring something like that?
Who's ignoring it? Or if anyone is ignoring it, it's because it's old and worn out news. Everyone knows that the KKK is a racist organization, so it's no mystery what they talk about in their rallies. The masses no longer pay attention to the KKK because they are a dying organization who simply don't have the power they once had.
I'm not really following what this has to do with Republicans? I mean, John McCain adopts Indian kids while Vice Presdient Biden makes fun of them. Should that mean that ALL Democrats are "latent" racists and that ALL Republicans are tolerant? Get some perspective.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 08-24-2009 4:17 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 08-24-2009 5:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 26 of 45 (520877)
08-24-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
08-24-2009 2:33 PM


Re: The intolerance of tolerance
And there is another crux. Infringing on someone's rights for talking about suggesting to infringe someone else's rights inherently infringes rights. Whew!!! You get all that, cuz I'm kind of turned around right now? That was complicated.
You're right, but that's one of the issues we had to look at when I was in my philosophy of ethics class in college. One person exercising their rights almost always infringes on another person's rights. For a perhaps reductivist and silly instance, on a public walkway, you and I each have the same right to stand on a particular spot and gaze at the buildings around us. If you get there first, you're now infringing on my right to stand on that spot. How do we solve this dilemma without then infringing on your rights? It's a thorny question, especially when the instance isn't as inconsequential as this example.
What I mean is, if someone "talks" about infringing someone else's rights, they haven't done it and may not even have the ability to. They may just be trying to drum up support. But it's still speech. Where speech is no longer protected is through the litmus test of "clear and present danger."
Well, this depends on the rights in question. In my silly example above, if I start telling people around me that you should be forcibly removed from "my" standing spot, and then act on my convictions, regardless of whether I'm physically strong enough to make you move, where does "clear and present danger" appear? When I actually touch you? When I get another person or two to agree with me? When they touch you? How about when I pull out my gun and point it at your head? I'd say, the intent to try and cause harm was there from the moment I started complaining that you should be moved from your freely chosen spot.
The guying mentioning that the President's middle name is "Hussein" doesn't qualify him to be effectively trying to infringe upon the rights of all Muslims or that it's somehow a call to arms. Lets be realistic here.
Again, it depends on the intent. I watched Patten Oswalt's stand-up special on Comedy Central last night. He emphasized Obama's middle name as a lead up to the punch-line of a joke. I see nothing threatening in this, in fact, I found it wuite funny. A redneck at a rally yelling it out in obvious anger while holding signs implying that Muslims can't be trusted or shouldn't be elected, might or might not be threatening behavior. It would depend on the specific circumstances. If that person advocates violence, then it is threatening and therefore, in my opinion, should be stopped or at least watched very closely.
Clear and present danger, acting in defense of the First Amendment is all that is needed.
Again, define clear and present danger. Is it when they actually say "Let's kill him!" Is it when he gets 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 people to agree with him? Is it when the gun appears? Is it only after the gun is fired? I agree it is a fine line to walk between protecting someone's rights and protecting the peace. I'm a strong liberal libertarian (as I define it), but I find advocating violence in a racist or bigoted way to be an abrogation of your right, it has as its intended effect, and outcome that leads to violence and infringement of someone's rights.
So, I guess that's where I draw the line: when the intent is to infringe on someone's rights, regardless of whether that infringement is carried out at that time. What someone says can easily plant a seed in someone else's mind who may not have the same restraint or rationality.
Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 5:35 PM Perdition has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 27 of 45 (520879)
08-24-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
08-24-2009 4:47 PM


Re: The intolerance of tolerance
Hyroglyphx writes:
Who's ignoring it? Or if anyone is ignoring it, it's because it's old and worn out news. Everyone knows that the KKK is a racist organization, so it's no mystery what they talk about in their rallies. The masses no longer pay attention to the KKK because they are a dying organization who simply don't have the power they once had.
My apology. Apparently, I wasn't being clear enough. I wasn't talking about people ignoring the KKK. I was talking about people ignoring the racists that were the backbone of the McCain/Palin rallies.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Should that mean that ALL Democrats are "latent" racists and that ALL Republicans are tolerant?
Again, my apology for having not specifically not (intended double) used the word ALL. I do, however, accuse the republican party of silently encouraging the latent racism by not strongly and adamantly speak out against the racist crowds that have flocked to their support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 4:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 5:45 PM Taz has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 28 of 45 (520880)
08-24-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Perdition
08-24-2009 5:00 PM


Re: The intolerance of tolerance
One person exercising their rights almost always infringes on another person's rights. For a perhaps reductivist and silly instance, on a public walkway, you and I each have the same right to stand on a particular spot and gaze at the buildings around us. If you get there first, you're now infringing on my right to stand on that spot. How do we solve this dilemma without then infringing on your rights? It's a thorny question, especially when the instance isn't as inconsequential as this example.
Interesting philosophical dilemma. My personal view is libertarian in application, that the maximization of freewill with minimal personal interference is ideal. That said, I condemn and abhor anarchy. And isn't this why some cases end up going to the Supreme Court? That they are so thorny, as you said, that it ultimately is left to the fate of a panel of esteemed Justices.
In my silly example above, if I start telling people around me that you should be forcibly removed from "my" standing spot, and then act on my convictions, regardless of whether I'm physically strong enough to make you move, where does "clear and present danger" appear? When I actually touch you? When I get another person or two to agree with me? When they touch you? How about when I pull out my gun and point it at your head? I'd say, the intent to try and cause harm was there from the moment I started complaining that you should be moved from your freely chosen spot.
Clear and present danger only applies to speech, as in, if you're on a airplane and suddenly shout, "I have a bomb!" You no longer have the First Amendment protecting your speech. Placing your hands on someone against their wishes is simply assault and/or battery depending on the subjects actions. Speech then becomes irrelevant and so does the concept of clear and present danger.
Again, it depends on the intent. I watched Patten Oswalt's stand-up special on Comedy Central last night. He emphasized Obama's middle name as a lead up to the punch-line of a joke. I see nothing threatening in this, in fact, I found it wuite funny. A redneck at a rally yelling it out in obvious anger while holding signs implying that Muslims can't be trusted or shouldn't be elected, might or might not be threatening behavior. It would depend on the specific circumstances. If that person advocates violence, then it is threatening and therefore, in my opinion, should be stopped or at least watched very closely.
Well, the FBI and Secret Service can and do take those declarations very seriously and do monitor people like that. Hundreds of cases each year, in fact. But it's still just speech. And I don't think what that man said, which is mention his middle name in what sounded like derision, as something we need to take more seriously. Even if that guy flat out stated that he hates Arabs and hates Obama, he's free to believe what he wants so long as his actions (or words in some cases) don't correspond to a threat of violence.
Again, define clear and present danger. Is it when they actually say "Let's kill him!" Is it when he gets 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 people to agree with him? Is it when the gun appears? Is it only after the gun is fired? I agree it is a fine line to walk between protecting someone's rights and protecting the peace. I'm a strong liberal libertarian (as I define it), but I find advocating violence in a racist or bigoted way to be an abrogation of your right, it has as its intended effect, and outcome that leads to violence and infringement of someone's rights.
That doesn't sound very libertarian to me, as you freely want to deny people the right to believe whatever belief they wish.
So, I guess that's where I draw the line: when the intent is to infringe on someone's rights, regardless of whether that infringement is carried out at that time. What someone says can easily plant a seed in someone else's mind who may not have the same restraint or rationality.
It is definitely on a case by case basis. The line is certainly not clear. Some instances are more cut and dry, but there are some threats that are veiled, intentionally so. Like, "Just watch your back," as opposed to "I am going to stab you in the neck."

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Perdition, posted 08-24-2009 5:00 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Perdition, posted 08-24-2009 6:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 29 of 45 (520882)
08-24-2009 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by dronestar
08-24-2009 3:50 PM


Re: BBC = Propaganda weapon
I get what you are saying and, like I said, I don't think the BBC is a paragon of non-bias. But whose interests is it serving exactly?
Consecutive governments in Bitain, of alternate flavours, have derided the BBC as biased against them. Thatcher absolutely hated it. Both in practise and in ideology. Blair and the BBC seemed like very natural bedfellows until he actually got into government. Then a series of embarressing exposures were bought to light and the honeymoon ended rather abruptly. If anything reveals the true nature of the BBC it is the fact that every government of the day, whether it be left or right, decries it as obviously and blatantly biased against them.
With regard to Iraq Blair's government was at all out war with the BBC. Did you read my link in Message 7? The director of the BBC (briefly a national hero of sorts for standing up to the "bullying" government) and the Labour government's director of communication Alastair Campbell (one of Blair's key advisors, best friends and one of the most powerful behind the scenes members of the Blair government) both ended up resigning over the matter (whether directly or indirectly - I.e. "to spend more time with my family") See here for some of the correspondance that instigated the row BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | Alastair Campbell's BBC letter
Whilst it would be ridiculous to say that the BBC directly resulted in Blair eventually going it is still very probaby true that the BBC's refusal to accept the governments stance on the Iraq war, the reasons for it and other related matters played a significant role in his various enemies (mainly within his own party) being able to exploit popular opinion against the Iraq war to end his "reign". They haven't done Brown any PR favours since either.
I know several people who work at the BBC. Some very well. Some really quite senior. They are young (ish), highly educated, middle class, articulate and relatively idealistic. They are the sort of people who could get exceptionally well paid posts in the private sector but who choose to work in (effectively) the public sector for reasons other than pure finance. They are politically left of centre, on the whole, but hardly radical and very probably destined for a fairly conventional lifestyle and outlook on life as they creep into middle aged respectability.
This to me sums up the BBC perfectly. It has the "bias" you would expect from such a "media type" workforce. But this is an internal bias rather than an externally imposed one. I dispute that the BBC is simply an indirect mouthpiece for the government. Whatever the opinions expressed in your links. The people that work there value the independence, integrity and traditions of the organisation that they work for above much else. Including pay. Many of them would simply refuse to work there if they believed that your claims were true. Or if they were subject to the sort of restrictions that your claims would necessitate.
BBC world service writes:
Our right to editorial freedom and independence of Government is embedded in the BBC Charter, and in the World Service's Agreement with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
The founders of the World Service in 1932 had the foresight to see the value and long-term necessity of such independence, and all parties respect it.
It's one of the reasons why the World Service is trusted and relied upon worldwide and places it in a unique position in international broadcasting
BBC World Service | Inside BBC Journalism | Independence
Also see this regarding the "dodgy dossier" and "sexed up" government reasons for going to war in Iraq as reported by the BBC.
"This government will come and go, like any other government, but the BBC is here to stay as an independent broadcasting organisation on a global level, and ministers would do well to remember that
BBC 'more trustworthy than government' | BBC | The Guardian
If the BBC is a government mouthpiece it is doing a bloody respectable job of pretending otherwise. And many of the intelligent people that work for it are being unwittingly complicit.
Basically you are wrong.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by dronestar, posted 08-24-2009 3:50 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by dronestar, posted 08-26-2009 11:42 AM Straggler has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 30 of 45 (520883)
08-24-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taz
08-24-2009 5:29 PM


Re: The intolerance of tolerance
I wasn't talking about people ignoring the KKK. I was talking about people ignoring the racists that were the backbone of the McCain/Palin rallies.
How do you know that "racists" were/are the "backbone" of the McCain/Palin rallies? Aren't you yourself now in danger of the very thing you condemn? You are making an impromptu determination that the backbone of Republicans are comprised of inherent racists without having any way of actually knowing that beyond conjecture. Are you not then making sweeping allegations and generalizing? Isn't that what racists do?
I do, however, accuse the republican party of silently encouraging the latent racism by not strongly and adamantly speak out against the racist crowds that have flocked to their support.
I'm curious, are you all for blatant racism and against latent racism? Does Reverend Jeremiah Wright get a pass on his blatant racist views? Maybe it isn't really a matter of Republican or Democrats. Because both parties, by the sole fact that they are the two largest parties in the US, are on some level going to attract some racists. That's kind of unavoidable.

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 08-24-2009 5:29 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 08-24-2009 9:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024