Fw: Re: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous + link

Sat Aug 15 17:24:07 CDT 2009

On the subject, from Friday's Countdown (Keith Olbermann)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32424198
 --Jenifer
--- On Sat, 8/15/09, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 3:59 PM

S'cuse me, but freedom of speech does indeed give me the right to demand that something be stopped -- choose yr own extreme example: slavery, torture, child abuse... or a lesser one: book banning, prayer and/or creation science in the public schools.... and also commercial programs on the national airwaves that I object to. How the decision-makers respond to my demands is something else again... but I do have the right -- the responsibility, in fact -- to speak up in these cases.
 --Jenifer   

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET> wrote:

From: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
Subject: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 11:27 AM

Duh, Jenifer.  Freedom of speech guarantees the right to object true enough; but it does not guarantee the right to prevent.  There is a subtle difference, that must have escaped you, between speech or expression and the consequences of taken actions and conduct.  It is one thing to object to something and it is another thing to demand that it prevented or stopped.  We all object to various contents of what has been said; but that is very different from  demanding that the source be shut off or shut up.  Again the difference is in the subtle nuances which tends to be lost when one views things as either good or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral, etc. 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Jenifer Cartwright
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'Neil Parthun'; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; LAURIE SOLOMON
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

Duh, Laurie. Freedom of speech guarantees the right to object to garbage being nationally televised, regardless of who "owns" those particular air waves.

Right on, Neil, Well said!

 --Jenifer

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET> wrote:

From: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
To: "'Neil Parthun'" <lennybrucefan at gmail.com>, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 10:36 AM 

Whether or not one is engaged in censorship in this case appears to depend on one’s referent level being addressed.  Your point about Lou Dobbs, the person, may have some merit vis-à-vis the difference between censorship and access to the exulted platform of radio & TV; however if you move the level of reference up to the radio/TV station level, then one might be seen as engaging in the censorship of the station and its broadcast content.

While no one guarantees the right to have a nationally televised show, no one guarantees anyone the right to prevent someone from having such a show or, for that matter prevents someone from having such a show.  In the case of radio/TV, the air waves allegedly belong to the public to license to actors for use.   The radio/TV stations and networks are among those actors; and within legally prescribed restrictions they are free to air whatever content they see fit,  independent of what the public or any portion of the public might desire although in this country that decision is driven by the market (audience share and advertising money).  Obviously, if one wants to alter the legal restrictions, one needs to go through the process of changing the legal framework , statutes, and administrative rules pertaining to the conditions of licensing.

If one moves up a level to the ownership and control over the air waves, which belong legally to the public, then I am afraid that those who wish to see Dobbs shut down are going to lose for now and in the near future since they do not compose a majority of the public – or enough to force a change in the licensing requirements for the stations and their personnel as to the sorts of content that they can air and when.  Like the other right-wing talk commentators, his station and he appear to have strong national following that support and demand him be given air time and are willing to put their money where their mouths are...  That cannot be said for the progressives, the left, or even the moderate reformers.  If they comprised a significantly large population and if each contributed $5 or $10 each per year for purposes of buying advertising on the stations that carry Dobbs, they could probably use that as leverage to get the stations to either reel
 him and other in or take them off the air.  But it seems that the progressives, the left, liberal and moderate reformers would rather hold on to their money  or spend it elsewhere and exercise their lungs shouting and crying about him and his content instead. 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Neil Parthun
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 10:13 PM
To: C.G.Estabrook
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

Banning speech and requesting that such speech does not have a hyper-exulted platform to amplify it are two very different things... 

Nobody is saying Lou Dobbs doesn't have a right to say whatever he wants.  He has that right.  However, no person is guaranteed the right to have a nationally televised show to promote their views and perspectives on any topic.

Solidarity,

  -N.

Neil Parthun

  IEA Region 9 Grassroots Political Activist

  Writer/Facilitator for Champaign-Urbana Public i

"Early in life I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise." - Malcolm X

-----Inline Attachment Follows----- 

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090815/aab21ead/attachment.html