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

[John W.]

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:30 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:

>   No I am not kidding.  I am beginning to think that this conversation is
> becoming a waste of time.
>
Yes, because basically everyone agrees, but different people are talking
about different aspects of the issue.  You're talking past one another.



> You say if you were in charge of hiring and firing; but neither you, nor I
> nor anyone on this list is in charge of hiring and firing at CNN.  Secondly,
> even if you were in charge of hiring and firing, you probably would have to
> get approval from higher ups in the organization as well as the CNN lawyers
> before you could threaten to undertake such action or actually undertake ;
> even if that approval was given, there is nothing to prevent the higher ups
> from reversing the approval and decision or from the person fired from
> appealing to the higher ups or to the stock holders.
>
Ultimately it's all about money.  That's why boycotts, or the threat of
boycotts, is the only effective tool for purposes of getting rid of an
offensive broadcast "personality".  It has worked quite well very recently
in the case of Glenn Beck.  He's still on the air, but 10 or 12 major
companies have quit sponsoring his show, in response to public pressure.


 Somehow you seem to want to ignore  my point which was that there is a
> difference between making a demand and acting up it.  You can make the
> demand; but you cannot carry out its implementation which is beyond your
> control.  You can make demands on the organization and even boycott the
> organization for not meeting your demands; but you cannot force them to do
> so.
>
Everyone understands that, Laurie.  Or at least I would hope that they do.


As for the issue of censorship, when you make a demand that CNN stop Dobbs
> from broadcasting, you  may not  be directly censoring him (i.e., silencing
> him); but you are indirectly doing so  and are demanding that CNN censor
> Dobbs by firing him and denying him a national platform or by controlling
> what he can say.  It also comprises a double standard given that
> progressives and people on the left  have complained that they are in effect
> being censored by the corporate media because they are being denied a
> national platform while contending that  it is not censorship to do the same
> to Dobbs.
>
The proper distinction is between "state action" and private action,
Laurie.  The GOVERNMENT cannot constitutionally restrict or censor speech
based solely on its content.  But a privately-owned newspaper or radio or TV
station can decide whom it will PAY to publish or broadcast in its medium.
And that decision is based almost entirely on audience share and advertising
revenues - and on the ideology of its ownership, as well.  Huge difference.



>  At any rate, I am done discussing this topic since it is getting nowhere.
>
You and Jenifer are BOTH right, and Neil had it right way back near the
beginning of this thread.

John Wason




> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:
> peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Jenifer
> Cartwright
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:23 PM
> *To:* peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; LAURIE SOLOMON
> *Subject:* RE: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>
>
>
> Y're kidding, right?? If I were in charge of hiring and firing at CNN, I
> would indeed have the right to "stop something," specifically the
> continuation of Lou Dobbs on CNN. By exercising my own freedom of speech, I
> am telling CNN that I want them to do exactly that. Again, it is my right
> and responsibility to do this.
>
> I think Neil has already covered this very well -- the difference betw
> totally silencing someone and refusing him a national platform.
>
>  --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Sat, 8/15/09, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>* wrote:
>
>
> From: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
> Subject: RE: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
> To: "'Jenifer Cartwright'" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>,
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 8:57 PM
>
> You are excused.  Freedom of speech does give you the right to request, ask
> for, and even demand something; but it does NOT give you the right to
> actually  prevent, ban, or stop something.  These are to very
> distinguishably different things.
>
>
>
>  If you re-read my post you will see that my point was addressing the fact
> that the two are analytically distinguishable and different types of
> activities and the freedom of speech does not extend to the actual physical
> stopping, banning, preventing of anything (e.g., “Freedom of speech
> guarantees the right to object true enough; but it does not guarantee the
> right to prevent”).  In accordance with the Constitution, the actual
> physical prevention, banning, or stoppage of another’s actions has to be
> done under the color of law and usually via legislative, executive, or
> judicial actions and not on the basis of citizen requests, demands, or
> objections alone. Aside from making demands, requests, and statements of
> objection, the only other direct courses of action available under the
> Constitution available to individual citizens would be to personally shun
> the offending individual or group, boycott them and or their goods and
> services,  lobby government officials, or elect officials who are
> sympathetic to their positions.  The Constitution – especially the freedom
> of speech provision – does not give the individual citizens the right to
> actually restrain other’s (individual’s or corporate organization’s)trade
> and communications so as to prevent them from acting I within the strictures
> of the existing law in a lawful way.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090816/534b98e5/attachment-0001.htm